It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Raptor / Stealth question

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Thank you. I'm afraid some of the more technical aspects of your reply were a little beyond me but for the most part I 'got your drift'.




posted on Sep, 24 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Waynos,

What it comes down to is that the Typhoon represents a 90's equivalent version of the F-15. While the F/A-22 represents a self escorting F-117.

I don't particularly like the Eurofighter (it is short of gas, long of specialization claw, under powered and unable to participate as equals in a 1,000nm radius theater war, with minimal 'Global Strike Task Force' type support on a rapid-air campaign standup basis.).

But, for what it was originally designed to do (fight the CentFront NATO war of the 1985-92 projected likely timeframe ) and what it's weapons systems (particularly BVRAAM and ARMIGER and STORM SHADOW) will -allow it- to do, today. It is indeed a milestone in European aviation.

I would rate it superior to the JSF, at roughly the same cost. I would rate it an 'Asteroid' in the sense of completely outdating the entire 3rd Generation (F-Teens). And I hope to heck they don't get a single export sale.

Because it's primary threat will be through proliferation of the concepts and technologies of it's 'Western' weapons system design. And if that should happen, in a major followon war with the likes of India or China. The U.S. would likely be stripped of it's (airborne) Intel Surveillance Recce (C4ISR) assets and fighting blind.

THAT being something that not even the F/A-22 can afford to do without. And probably the single greatest element of stealth technologies own overdependent risk: If you can't see the Sword Coming. Attack the head.

They already have aeroballistics to hit the 'body' (logistics of carriers and airbases) within about a 500-700nm radius. In another 10 years that will
be 1,200-3,000nm.

And even with ABL and Theater Wide/Upper Tier type defenses to knock back long range ballistic attacks, we cannot afford to also be whacking away at 'Air Breathing AMRAAM In A Box' type SAM's that can be launched from any give _air traffic control_ radar vector. And find a slow, unagile, emitting-like-lighthouse, HUGE target 50-70nm downrange without a single further (midcourse) emission.

THAT is what Eurofighter ultimately represents. Technical equality at the weapons system front end. Posing an ultimate escalatory penalty to the tacjets (AIM-120D was rushed because of British refusal to downplay BVRAAM) and a nearly insurmountable threat to the support missions (gas, EW, targeting) which help enable them.


KP



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Waynos,

What it comes down to is that the Typhoon represents a 90's equivalent version of the F-15. While the F/A-22 represents a self escorting F-117.

I don't particularly like the Eurofighter (it is short of gas, long of specialization claw, under powered and unable to participate as equals in a 1,000nm radius theater war, with minimal 'Global Strike Task Force' type support on a rapid-air campaign standup basis.).

But, for what it was originally designed to do (fight the CentFront NATO war of the 1985-92 projected likely timeframe ) and what it's weapons systems (particularly BVRAAM and ARMIGER and STORM SHADOW) will -allow it- to do, today. It is indeed a milestone in European aviation.

I would rate it superior to the JSF, at roughly the same cost. I would rate it an 'Asteroid' in the sense of completely outdating the entire 3rd Generation (F-Teens). And I hope to heck they don't get a single export sale.

Because it's primary threat will be through proliferation of the concepts and technologies of it's 'Western' weapons system design. And if that should happen, in a major followon war with the likes of India or China. The U.S. would likely be stripped of it's (airborne) Intel Surveillance Recce (C4ISR) assets and fighting blind.

THAT being something that not even the F/A-22 can afford to do without. And probably the single greatest element of stealth technologies own overdependent risk: If you can't see the Sword Coming. Attack the head.

They already have aeroballistics to hit the 'body' (logistics of carriers and airbases) within about a 500-700nm radius. In another 10 years that will
be 1,200-3,000nm.

And even with ABL and Theater Wide/Upper Tier type defenses to knock back long range ballistic attacks, we cannot afford to also be whacking away at 'Air Breathing AMRAAM In A Box' type SAM's that can be launched from any give _air traffic control_ radar vector. And find a slow, unagile, emitting-like-lighthouse, HUGE target 50-70nm downrange without a single further (midcourse) emission.

THAT is what Eurofighter ultimately represents. Technical equality at the weapons system front end. Posing an ultimate escalatory penalty to the tacjets (AIM-120D was rushed because of British refusal to downplay BVRAAM) and a nearly insurmountable threat to the support missions (gas, EW, targeting) which help enable them.


KP


I would rate the Eurofighter equal to the F-35, but I would rate the the Tranche 2/3 phase of the Typhoon equal to the JSF, simply because Tranche 1 is woefully undercapable in the AtG (but so far, the UK is the only Eurofighter nation actively pushing for a better AtG platform, telling me they are the only country of the lot who know anything about air combat.)

And the teen series are 4th gen aircraft.

[edit on 25-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Thats fair enough guys but it isn't really fair to knock the tranche 1 aircrafts (lack of) capability as they only represent an interim IOC standard. It's not as if once they are in service we are stuck with them either as all aircraft will be retrospectively upgrade to the highest established standard. Agree with everything else said though.

[edit on 25-9-2004 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Why are you always putting EF above or equal to JSF? Say 1 single reason.
And about the "EF has roughly the same cost as JSF" ... , let me laugh. Just look at the UK Eurofighter budget and divide it for 232 aircrafts. Thats much more than JSF price. And the future upgrades (like AG capability) are not included.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Why are you always putting EF above or equal to JSF? Say 1 single reason.
And about the "EF has roughly the same cost as JSF" ... , let me laugh. Just look at the UK Eurofighter budget and divide it for 232 aircrafts. Thats much more than JSF price. And the future upgrades (like AG capability) are not included.


If you mean me, I put the Typhoon ahead of the STOVL JSF as it is an air superiority fighter and (eventually) strike aircraft while the JSF (the versaion we are buying) is a tactical support aircraft with limited A2A capability (hence its position as the replacement for the Harrier). I think the JSF is superb but the Typhoon will be more capable because it is designed to be. I have no doubt at all that the USN F-35C will be different again as it is designed for the roughly same mission as the Typhoon and Lockheed will make sure that even if it isn't far better it will certainly be no worse.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Why are you always putting EF above or equal to JSF? Say 1 single reason.
And about the "EF has roughly the same cost as JSF" ... , let me laugh. Just look at the UK Eurofighter budget and divide it for 232 aircrafts. Thats much more than JSF price. And the future upgrades (like AG capability) are not included.


Too many people are under-estimating the F-35 in the air-to-air role. The F-35 has a primary mission of air-to-ground and a secondary mission of air-to-air, that is correct, but however, just because it's air-to-air mission is secondary, doesn't mean it is any less capable than say the Eurofighter, Su-30MKK/MKI, or the Rafale.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I'm only talking about the F-35B, which the UK is getting. The F-35 is effectively three different fighhters and I don't underestimate the abilities of the Air Force and Navy versions. The F-35B is not a 'lesser' fighter in my view, just different.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I'm only talking about the F-35B, which the UK is getting. The F-35 is effectively three different fighhters and I don't underestimate the abilities of the Air Force and Navy versions. The F-35B is not a 'lesser' fighter in my view, just different.


Ahhhh ok, i got ya now.



posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I take all the blame for the misunderstanding as I do tend to type 'F-35' or 'JSF' so how is anyone supposed to work out that I only mean the one version that the RAF is involved with?


E_T

posted on Sep, 25 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
And about the "EF has roughly the same cost as JSF" ... , let me laugh. Just look at the UK Eurofighter budget and divide it for 232 aircrafts. Thats much more than JSF price. And the future upgrades (like AG capability) are not included.

Well, neither are any of thos production JSF coming out of factory.
I've noticed that every "little" military program has tendency to go over the budget!

So before real serial production planes are coming from production line it's pointless to say this one is cheaper than that other.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join