American Overuse of Stealth

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by devilwasp
we can but Mr tony blair doesnt want to.
thank you very much Mr Blair!

Don't worry, UK will have good airforce, Eurofighters + JSF is good combination, remember that UK is not that big and rich to have everything. I think future Royal airforce will be much better equipped than today (tornados are not especially maneuvrable and Harriers are only subsonic and have short range).

Harriers should stay in duty as there will be always a lot of use for them (please play DXIW) But the Eurofighters are worse than the JSF so I don't know how does it make a good combination

In what way are they worse? The much much lesser stealth, which is also a lesser priority on this aircraft? Or do you mean the fact that it is faster, more manoeverable, or has BVR kill capability and supercruise as well?

Also America did not improve the Harriers engines, that is entirely down to Rolls Royce who have continually improved the Pegasus ever since they inherited it from Bristol Siddeley who proved the concept. Interestingly the accident rate for the Harrier is far higher, both in actual numbers and as a percentage rate, in the USA than the UK. Guess it must be the lower standards you train to.

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by devilwasp
we can but Mr tony blair doesnt want to.
thank you very much Mr Blair!

Don't worry, UK will have good airforce, Eurofighters + JSF is good combination, remember that UK is not that big and rich to have everything. I think future Royal airforce will be much better equipped than today (tornados are not especially maneuvrable and Harriers are only subsonic and have short range).

Harriers should stay in duty as there will be always a lot of use for them (please play DXIW

) But the Eurofighters are worse than the JSF so I don't know how does it make a good combination

I wouldn't say it's "worse", they both have their advantages over each other, and I know you don't, but for other people, DO NOT underestimate the JSF in the air-to-air role, it has a powerful radar with great missiles.

cool picyure of the f-15 with no wing

yeah but a big radar is like saying to world "HIGH IM HERE LOOK AT ME !!! I CAN SEE YOU AND YOU CAN SEE ME!!"

Originally posted by devilwasp
yeah but a big radar is like saying to world "HIGH IM HERE LOOK AT ME !!! I CAN SEE YOU AND YOU CAN SEE ME!!"

No - modern LO radar uses randomly generated frequencies (spl?) that make it EXTREMELY hard to detect. Read up on the F-22 radar for info (yes I know that you were talking about the JSF, but the same technology will be aplied to the F-35 as well)

Originally posted by American Mad Man

No - modern LO radar uses randomly generated frequencies (spl?) that make it EXTREMELY hard to detect. Read up on the F-22 radar for info (yes I know that you were talking about the JSF, but the same technology will be aplied to the F-35 as well)

oh really? i thought it was radar that gave away a stealth fighters position,mabye i was thinking theres too much of a similarity to submarines and sonar.

With a conventional radar that is the case but the Raptors creators thought of that and found a fix, I raised the point on here myself a couple of weeks ago when I was wondering the same thing.

Originally posted by AtheiX
But the Eurofighters are worse than the JSF so I don't know how does it make a good combination

Facts aside why would the RAF then go out and buy an aircraft which cost more (The full, fly-away price of a single Typhoon works out as �42.01 million [given exchange rates for 22/9/04]) Source and each F-35B costing �35 million each (Source: The Times [UK newspaper]) yet according to you would be less effective!

As much as you would like to argue your point surely the RAF would have evaluated all the possibilites and would be in a better position to make that judgement than you....just a point

The F-35 and the Typhoon are both multirole aircraft. Just that one leans towards the ground attack function than counter air, and the other is more anti air with some ground capability.

The F-35 is primarily a strike aircraft, it came from a program called Joint Strike Fighter, it isn't meant to do the technically challenging aspects of a dogfighter, the Typhoon would by its nature supposed to be more a pure powerful agile fighter. With an acceptable ground attack facility.

Here is something interesting

DERA study

Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an operational evaluation comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35.

The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft were put in simulated combat against the Su-35. The results were:

F/A-22 Raptor 10.1 : 1
Typhoon 4.5 : 1
Rafale 1.0 : 1
Su-35 1.0 : 1
F-15C 0.8 : 1
F/A-18+ 0.4 : 1
F/A-18C 0.3 : 1
F-16C 0.3 : 1

The Raptor is a nice piece of hardware but the Eurofighter is more cost effective for us (at least for us germans)
The US Military relies on first strike weapons while Germany needs fighters for defense only.(Constitution forbids starting a war)
But I sure hope,we'll buy a couple of F22(like the design) ^^

I am probably going to blasted from the skies here, but I thought stealth did not mean invisible to radar, it just meant a smaller radar profile.

In all honesty, anything with a radar profile, not matter how small can be identified and seen, after all if the radar profile of a flock of geese truns up you may ignore it, but if that flock of geese is moving at mach 1 then you may get suspicious (if the computer doesnt tell you first).

Whilst stealth is an advantage, I am sure it is only an advantage for a short while (which if a fighter Pilot, of course Id want and take every time), and not the cloak of invisibility a lot on this thread seem to claim

Originally posted by philstix
I am probably going to blasted from the skies here, but I thought stealth did not mean invisible to radar, it just meant a smaller radar profile.

In all honesty, anything with a radar profile, not matter how small can be identified and seen, after all if the radar profile of a flock of geese truns up you may ignore it, but if that flock of geese is moving at mach 1 then you may get suspicious (if the computer doesnt tell you first).

You are correct, technically speaking passive stealth (regardless of the generation of technology) does not mean totally invisible to ALL radars. But it IS invisible to most radars - and the radars that can see a stealth aircraft generally cannot differentiate the aircraft from other reflections.

Much like the random, short-lived glints of sunlight you see from the ground on a high-flying aircraft, so too are the reflections a radar might get from a stealth aircraft.

Rather than seeing a flock of geese flying at mach 1, the radar operator will see a small blip that is simply not there on the next scan. Add to that all the reflections of real birds and other electromagnetic artifacts and you have an aircraft that is nearly impossible to track without some seriously cutting edge technology.

Facts aside why would the RAF then go out and buy an aircraft which cost more (The full, fly-away price of a single Typhoon works out as ?42.01 million [given exchange rates for 22/9/04]) Source and each F-35B costing ?35 million each (Source: The Times [UK newspaper]) yet according to you would be less effective!

As much as you would like to argue your point surely the RAF would have evaluated all the possibilites and would be in a better position to make that judgement than you....just a point

without new planes and orders, you cant sustain an industry, and without a local industry your national defense needs are at the whims of your supplier. and no matter how good a friend he is, for something as crucial as aerospace, thats something that many large nations find unacceptable(same with tanks it seems?)...cause from purely a monetary standpoint, its better to let someone else do all the r & d and then just walk into the showroom with a chequebook.....but when its something as big and boofy as fighters, money is not the whole story: industry, jobs, prestige, politics ect ect ect. not sayin the EF isnt the shiz, but its not as simple as "we think its the best"