Saudi Arabia orders Eurofighter

[Rickshaw]

I think you'll find it says for some strange reason, "EMPTY".

[Lev]

It actually says "CHTUHLU".

Edited December 27, 2005 by Lev

[FlyingCanOpener]

Excuse me.

 

You say that comparing the Raptor & Typhoon is invalid because the initial requirements from which they were developed from are differnent.

 

The initial requirement from which the F-111 & Tornado were developed were different yet you say that comparison is valid.

262922[/snapback]

 

The version of the F-111 that came into service was based on the USAF's requirement for the low-level penetrator specification of the TFX (the basis for the F-111A), not the fleet defence fighter for the Navy (F-111B).

 

The F-111 was a multipurpose tactical fighter bomber capable of supersonic speeds. The aircraft was one of the more controversial aircraft ever to fly, yet it achieved one of the safest operational records of any aircraft in USAF history and became a highly effective all-weather interdiction aircraft. As a result of a poorly thought-out development specification, both the Navy and Air Force had become committed, much against their will, to a civilian-inspired "Tactical Fighter Experimental" (TFX) program. This called for developing a single aircraft-the F-111-to fulfill a Navy fleet-defense interceptor requirement and an Air Force supersonic strike aircraft requirement. In retrospect, this was impossible to achieve, especially since planners placed priority upon the Air Force requirement, and then tried to tailor this heavy landplane to the constraints of carrier-based naval operations. The naval aircraft, the F-111B, was never placed in production. The Air Force aircraft, which was produced in a variety of models, including the F-111A, F-11D, F-11E, and F-11F, as well as an FB-111A strategic bomber version, had numerous problems, and only the F-111F actually fulfilled the original TFX design specification. This was less the fault of General Dynamics than of the civilian planners in the Pentagon whose "cost effective" inclinations ironically produced the major aeronautical fiasco of the 1960s-and a costly one at that.

 

More detailed history: http://www.f-111.net/JoeBaugher.htm

 

Something to note from there...

 

The history of the F-111 begins back in the late 1950s. At that time, the Tactical Air Command (TAC) of the USAF expressed a future need for a replacement for the F-100, F-101, and F-105 fighter-bombers which were currently in service. With this goal in mind, on March 27, 1958, the Air Force issued General Operational Requirement (GOR) Number 169, calling for Weapon System 649C, which was a Mach 2+, 60,000 foot altitude, all-weather fighter capable of vertical and short takeoff and landing. The Air Force wanted this aircraft to be ready for operational deployment by 1964.

 

...

 

The general requirements of SDR-17 were brought together into Specific Operational Requirement number 183 (SOR-183), issued on June 14, 1960. It called for an attack aircraft capable of achieving a Mach 2.5 performance at high altitude and a low-level dash capability of Mach 1.2. It was to have a short and rough airfield performance, and was to be capable of operating out of airfields as short as 3000 feet in length. The low-level radius was to be 800 miles, including 400 miles right down on the deck at Mach 1.2 speeds. In addition, it was to have an unrefuelled ferry range capable of crossing the Atlantic Ocean. It was to have a 1000-pound internal payload plus a lifting payload between 15,000 and 30,000 pounds. The Air Force considered that a variable sweep wing and a turbofan engine would be needed to satisfy these requirements.

 

All of this was pre-TFX.

 

And I'm with 5150 here. You seem to not enjoy when facts are presented to you contrary to your worldview, so rather than cause you anymore duress, I'm disengaging from this...

[Guest pfcem]

The version of the F-111 that came into service was based on the USAF's requirement for the low-level penetrator specification of the TFX (the basis for the F-111A), not the fleet defence fighter for the Navy (F-111B).

263074[/snapback]

That is exactly my point. The F-111 that entered service is not the same as the what was intended in the original specification it was developed to fulfill. The same is true for the Raptor, Typhoon, F-16, et cetera.

 

 

 

And I'm with 5150 here. You seem to not enjoy when facts are presented to you contrary to your worldview, so rather than cause you anymore duress, I'm disengaging from this...

263074[/snapback]

What facts.

 

I am all about facts.

 

The facts are:

 

1) The Raptor & F-15 are (in terms of the the roles they are intneded to fulfill) very similar.

 

2) The Typhoon & F-16 are (in terms of the the roles they are intneded to fulfill) very similar.

 

3) The Raptor & Typhoon were developed & entered servise during generally the same timeframe.

 

4) The F-15 & F-16 were developed & entered servise during generally the same timeframe.

 

Since the radar/avionics capabilities of the Raptor & Typhoon are not well known to the public but those of the F-15 & F-16 are, analagizing the radar/avionics capabilities the Raptor vs Typhoon being similar to those of the F-15 vs F-16 is valid.

 

If you want to argue that the respective radar/avionics capabilities are not similar then please do so but all you have done so far is to argue that such an analagy is invalid because the Raptor, Typhoon, F-15 & F-16 were not all developed from the same exact specification.

[Guest pfcem]

If you can't see that today's environment is markedly different than, say, 1980's, my explaining it to you won't help. You don't like it when people explain things to you, anyway.

262965[/snapback]

The Raptor is pretty much intended to perform the same roles/missions in the future as the F-15 was in the 1980's & 90's and do so in much the same way - the difference is that the Raptor is expected to do them better.

 

The Typhoon is pretty much intended to perform the same roles/missions in the future as the F-16 was in the 1980's & 90's and do so in much the same way - the difference is that the Typhoon is expected to do them better.

 

You can argue that roles/missions priorities have changed somewhat but the roles/missions themselves remain pretty much the same.

 

So what is so markedly different?

[FITZ]

The Typhoon is pretty much intended to perform the same roles/missions in the future as the F-16 was in the 1980's & 90's and do so in much the same way - the difference is that the Typhoon is expected to do them better.

 

263139[/snapback]

 

I don't think that is accurate at all.

 

The F-16 was concieved as as simple, lightweight day/clear-weather, short ranged WVR dogfighter with some secondary air-to-ground capability.

 

The Eurofighter was concieved from the start as a very sophisticated medium-heavy all-weather long-range BVR fighter with very considerable secondary air-to-ground capability. Much closer to the F-15 in concept than the F-16

 

The F-16 has had considerable capabilities added to it that were never planned for, but the two aircraft are still fundamentally different. The F-16 for example, even with AMRAAM and the more powerful AN/APG-68 is still no BVR fighter.

[Chris Werb]

The long and convoluted history of Eurofighter:

 

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurof...er/history.html

 

(this site isn't quite up to date - they're still talking about FOAS)

[Guest pfcem]

I don't think that is accurate at all.

 

The F-16 was concieved as as simple, lightweight day/clear-weather, short ranged WVR dogfighter with some secondary air-to-ground capability.

 

The Eurofighter was concieved from the start as a very sophisticated medium-heavy all-weather long-range BVR fighter with very considerable secondary air-to-ground capability.  Much closer to the F-15 in concept than the F-16

263188[/snapback]

Here we go with the "concieved" BS again. It is irrelevent. What matters is what the aircraft are while in service.

 

The Typhoon & F-16 are both light/medium-weight (many argure that weight increases have pushed the F-16 into the medium-weight category) multi-role fighters while the Raptor & F-15 are (more-or-less) single mission "heavy" air-superiority fighters (although with some air-to-ground capability that is unlikely to be used much if at all).

 

What roles/missions is the Typhoon expected to perform that the F-16 (or vice versa) is not?

 

 

 

The F-16 has had considerable capabilities added to it that were never planned for, but the two aircraft are still fundamentally different. 

263188[/snapback]

The Typhoon & F-16 are intended to perform the same roles/missions & do so in pretty much the same way. So how are they "fundamentally different"?

 

 

 

The F-16 for example, even with AMRAAM and the more powerful AN/APG-68 is still no BVR fighter.

263188[/snapback]

It isn't.

 

Let see...It can detect, track, target & destroy enemy aircraft from BVR. Looks/sounds/acts like a BVR fighter. Must be a BVR fighter.

 

Is there something else that is needed for an aircraft to meet your definition of BVR fighter?

[Guest pfcem]

The long and convoluted history of Eurofighter:

 

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurof...er/history.html

 

(this site isn't quite up to date - they're still talking about FOAS)

263220[/snapback]

Note how the Eurofighter (Typhoon) has evolved into something quite different from its initial inception.

[Chris Werb]

Note how the Eurofighter (Typhoon) has evolved into something quite different from its initial inception.

263287[/snapback]

 

And how many subsequent 're-inceptions' there were

[Chris Werb]

Is there something else that is needed for an aircraft to meet your definition of BVR fighter?

263283[/snapback]

 

FITZ's personal stamp of approval?

[Stephan]

So what is so markedly different?

263139[/snapback]

 

I'd say weights make a big difference:

 

The MTOW of the Typhoon is about six tons greater than that fo the F-16. It weights two to three tons more empty, carries a ton more fuel and a bit over two tons more stores.

This should be reflected by overall capabilities and puts the Typhoon rather more in betweent the F-16 and F-15/F-22.

[FITZ]

Here we go with the "concieved" BS again.  It is irrelevent.  What matters is what the aircraft are while in service. 

 

The Typhoon & F-16 are both light/medium-weight (many argure that weight increases have pushed the F-16 into the medium-weight category) multi-role fighters while the Raptor & F-15 are (more-or-less) single mission "heavy" air-superiority fighters (although with some air-to-ground capability that is unlikely to be used much if at all). 

 

What roles/missions is the Typhoon expected to perform that the F-16 (or vice versa) is not?

The Typhoon & F-16 are intended to perform the same roles/missions & do so in pretty much the same way.  So how are they "fundamentally different"?

It isn't.

 

Let see...It can detect, track, target & destroy enemy aircraft from BVR.  Looks/sounds/acts like a BVR fighter.  Must be a BVR fighter.

 

Is there something else that is needed for an aircraft to meet your definition of BVR fighter?

263283[/snapback]

 

I think what an aircraft is designed to do from the beginning vs. what was tacked on later makes a very considerable difference.

 

For instance, the F-16's added capabilities for its new roles have been accompanied by a rather dramatic wieght gain. Not only that, but there isn't really an F-16 variant that does everything well, or even everything. For night/all-weather air to ground you want the Block 40/42 and definately not, say a Block 10. The Block 40/42, good as it is at air-to-ground wouldn't be my first choice for the air-to-air mission however. The more nimble big-inlet Block 30 (but not the Blck 32) or even the much lighter Block 15 ADF would be much better, although the latter lacks the longer-ranged AN/APG-68 radar. OTOH for SEAD you really need a Block 50/52. Anything less than a Block 30 can't even do this mission.

 

Just tacking on AIM-120 doesn't make an aircraft a BVR fighter either. BVR combat is all about shooting before you are even seen. That demands a level of flight performance (particularly acceleration) and systems performance the F-16 was never designed for and is too small and fat to achieve.

[Guest pfcem]

I'd say weights make a big difference:

 

The MTOW of the Typhoon is about six tons greater than that fo the F-16. It weights two to three tons more empty, carries a ton more fuel and a bit over two tons more stores.

263373[/snapback]

Typhoon

Empty = 21,500 lbs

MTO = 46,300 lbs

max external payload = 14,300 lbs (I have not been able to obtain more specific info at this time)

 

F-16C Block 40

Empty = 19,100 lbs

MTO = 42,300 lbs

max external payload = 20,450 lbs (not realistic since it is pretty difficult to fully max out all weapons pylons but if you could, internal fuel must be reduced in order to not exceed MTO weight & maneuverablility is reduced to 5 g)

Up to 11,950 lbs can be carried & still maintain 9 g maneuverablility & full internal fuel

 

 

difference

Empty = 2,400 lbs or 1.2 US short tons (11.1%)

MTO = 4,000 lbs or 2.0 US short tons (8.6%)

max external payload = favors F-16

 

 

 

This should be reflected by overall capabilities and puts the Typhoon rather more in betweent the F-16 and F-15/F-22.

263373[/snapback]

I am not saying the Typhoon & F-16 are equals. I am saying that they are intended to perform the same roles/missions & that the radar/aviaonics comparision of the Raptor vs Typhoon is similat to that of the F-15 vs F-16.

 

The Typhoon has capabilities beyond the F-16 & the Raptor has capabilities beyond the F-15. My point is that the respective capability increases are similar.

[Guest pfcem]

I think what an aircraft is designed to do from the beginning vs. what was tacked on later makes a very considerable difference.

263427[/snapback]

Exactly.

 

That is why it is more important to consider what an aircraft is during survice & not what it was originally envisioned to be.

 

 

 

For instance, the F-16's added capabilities for its new roles have been accompanied by a rather dramatic wieght gain. 

263427[/snapback]

Yes, the evolution of the F-16 has resulted in significant weight gain (the same can be said of most weapons systems).

 

 

 

Not only that, but there isn't really an F-16 variant that does everything well, or even everything. For night/all-weather air to ground you want the Block 40/42 and definately not, say a Block 10.  The Block 40/42, good as it is at air-to-ground wouldn't be my first choice for the air-to-air mission however.  The more nimble big-inlet Block 30 (but not the Blck 32) or even the much lighter Block 15 ADF would be much better, although the latter lacks the longer-ranged AN/APG-68 radar.  OTOH for SEAD you really need a Block 50/52.  Anything less than a Block 30 can't even do this mission. 

263427[/snapback]

Different blocks are better at different missions but the block 40/42 onwords are capable of performing pretty much any mission the Typhoon can. The Typhoon is just expected to be able to perform them better & for the sake of our European allies, I hope it does).

 

 

 

Just tacking on AIM-120 doesn't make an aircraft a BVR fighter either.  BVR combat is all about shooting before you are even seen.  That demands a level of flight performance (particularly acceleration) and systems performance the F-16 was never designed for and is too small and fat to achieve.

263427[/snapback]

In that cace the Raptor is the only BVR fighter.

[5150]

That is why it is more important to consider what an aircraft is during survice & not what it was originally envisioned to be.

263495[/snapback]

 

This is getting comical. You're attempting to use a fully evolved design in a comparison with a design in the very beginnings of of it's service. What exactly are you trying to show? If there was ever a case of being lost in the numbers or wandering through the woods, this is it.

[Guest pfcem]

This is getting comical. You're attempting to use a fully evolved design in a comparison with a design in the very beginnings of of it's service.

263510[/snapback]

Just pointing out that aircraft (as well as other weapons systems) evolve & if you want to compare two aircraft, you need to compare them based on what they are, not what they were originally envisioned to be (because what they are & what they were originally envisioned to be may not be the same).

 

 

 

What exactly are you trying to show?

263510[/snapback]

That the radar/avionics capabilities of the Raptor vs Typhoon is similar to the F-15 vs F-16 (I believe that once the Typhoon becomes "fully capable" that the comparision will be closer to F-15 vs F/A-18).

 

 

 

If there was ever a case of being lost in the numbers or wandering through the woods, this is it.

263510[/snapback]

I am not lost, just trying to answer a question that, because the information needed to answer it is classified, is extremely difficult to do directly. So I used an analogy of two respectively similar aircraft for which the necessary information is more well-known & saying that the respective comparison is similar.

 

Unfortunately there has been very little discussion on that because a few people appear to think that the analagy is invalid because the respective aircraft were not developed from the same specificaton.

[5150]

What you're trying to do is say that the Typhoon is more akin to the F-16 than the F-15, but that is an entirely artificial comparison. There's no high-low mix being developed in Europe. You're trying, rather unsuccessfully, to fit the square peg into the round hole. All this babbling about weights and such is meaningless. It's predicated upon a pound of fighter today being somewhat equivalent to a pound of fighter from 1978. You'd have to establish that little fact first, and you'll be wasting your time to try and do that.

 

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that the programs--their genesis, intent, and eventual outcomes--are very different? Why do you feel the need to draw analogies where they aren't needed, illustrate no point, and lead to no conclusion?

 

In many ways it's just as ridiculous to compare the F-22 and the Typhoon. They're contemporaries in time, but that's about it. They're being fielded by nations with vastly different goals and resources. It makes quite a bit of sense that the two aircraft are very different, does it not?

 

This game of mental masturbation about aircraft analogies is pointless. I asked you what you were trying to show via your 'misanalogy' and you said you were trying to create an analogy. Once again--what is the point that you're trying to make? Saying that you're drawing similarities (whether they exist or not) does not answer the question.

[FITZ]

What you're trying to do is say that the Typhoon is more akin to the F-16 than the F-15, but that is an entirely artificial comparison. There's no high-low mix being developed in Europe.

 

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that the programs--their genesis, intent, and eventual outcomes--are very different? Why do you feel the need to draw analogies where they aren't needed, illustrate no point, and lead to no conclusion?

 

In many ways it's just as ridiculous to compare the F-22 and the Typhoon. They're contemporaries in time, but that's about it. They're being fielded by nations with vastly different goals and resources. It makes quite a bit of sense that the two aircraft are very different, does it not?

 

This game of mental masturbation about aircraft analogies is pointless. I asked you what you were trying to show via your 'misanalogy' and you said you were trying to create an analogy. Once again--what is the point that you're trying to make? Saying that you're drawing similarities (whether they exist or not) does not answer the question.

263574[/snapback]

 

Thank you.

 

I'm sticking to my claim that the Eurofighter, AS DESIGNED, is in no way equivilant to any generation of F-16, for the very reasons you mentioned. Think about it for a minute. If you look at the actual requirements to which the Eurofighter was designed, and compare them to the requirements the F-16 was designed to meet, there are no similarities.

 

F-16: Cheap, lightwieght, highly agile, short-range, visual-range day/clear weather fighter capable of being procured in vast numbers. Secondary day/clear-weather air to ground capability.

 

Eurofighter: Medium-wieght/cost, medium-long range true swing-role day/night/all-weather combat aircraft for BVR and WVR air-to-air combat and instant "swing-role" change to air-to-ground.

 

That doesn't sound like the F-16. Really the Typhoon requirement is a lot like an enhanced version of the F/A-18 requirement (swing-role) combined with a bit of of the F-15's BVR/all-weather intercept mission with Jaguar's air-to-ground, deployability and rough field performance. As you said, any more direct comparison is impossible because there IS NO direct comparison between the requirements of any of these aircraft.

 

Sure F-22 has lower all-round FCS (not the only measure of "stealth" BTW) than Eurofighter and significant supercruise capability, but then, those were not Eurofighter requriements. OTOH Eurofighter has a true swing-role capability at the touch of a button with a wide range of stores while the politically reclassified F/A-22 has in fact only the most modest of air-to-ground capabilities planned. Eurofighter is also designed to operate from small, rough airfields and be easy and inexpensive to maintain for "out-of-area" operations. Those are not part of the Raptor's requirements. And to top it off Eurofighter costs half as much or less and is most certainly much cheaper to operate.

 

Does any one of these issues give one the advantage over the other?

 

I suppose that depends on what you are looking for in a modern combat aircraft.

 

PS

 

My point about the F-16's wieght gain is that adding capabilities to it outside of its original requirement has made the aircraft much heavier - to the point of essentially taking the aircraft out of its original LW fighter category altogether - and degrading its performance in some respects. If those capabilities had been part of the original requirement, the aircraft we would have ended up with would most certainly not have been the F-16 we know today.

 

Sure the F-16 can do a lot of the same missions as Eurofighter, but it depends on WHICH VERSION of the F-16 your talking about. Some versions do some jobs better (in many cases much better) than others while there are some versions that can not do some jobs at all. Eurofighter was designed from the outside to have a wide range of capabilities added in stages as required or as they become available, to any aircraft. Thus, it should not suffer the porkiness the F-16 has during its career, nor will we I suspect see the proliferation of semi-specialized variants that characterizes the F-16. Then when you compare how well the F-16 does those missions compared to Eurofighter and at what cost, the differences become more telling.

[Guest pfcem]

What you're trying to do is say that the Typhoon is more akin to the F-16 than the F-15, but that is an entirely artificial comparison.

263574[/snapback]

Not really.

 

I am not trying to compare the Typhoon to the F-15 or F-16 other than to say that a comparison between the Raptor & Typhoon is analagious to a comparison between the F-15 & F-16. The Raptor & F-15 being "heavy" air-superiority fighters and the Typhoon & F-16 being light/middle-weight multi-role fighters (with significantly less air-to-air capability than the dedicated "heavy" air-superiority fighters but with more air-to-ground capability).

 

 

 

There's no high-low mix being developed in Europe. You're trying, rather unsuccessfully, to fit the square peg into the round hole.

263574[/snapback]

I already said that Europe does not use a high-low mix. that does not mean that the Typhoon is not similar to the F-16 (just as the Raptor is similar to the F-15).

 

 

 

All this babbling about weights and such is meaningless. It's predicated upon a pound of fighter today being somewhat equivalent to a pound of fighter from 1978. You'd have to establish that little fact first, and you'll be wasting your time to try and do that.

263574[/snapback]

It is not predicated on weight eqivalents at all. It is, however & as I have already said, predicated upon the radar/avionics technology of the Raptor & Typhoon are of generally similar in technology (we already know that the F-15 & F-16 are of similar technology to each other)

 

You could analagize the Raptor vs Typhoon to being similar to that of the F-15 vs F/A-18 but that I do not believe that the Typhoon's radar/avionics, in its current form, are that close to those to those of Raptor. When the Typhoon becomes "fully capable" around 2010, the F-15 vs F/A-18 analagy will be more corect than the F-15 vs F-16 analagy.

 

 

 

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that the programs--their genesis, intent, and eventual outcomes--are very different?

263574[/snapback]

I already have, many times.

 

I have also pointed out, many times, that the aircraft in service are sometimes quite different from what their "genesis & intent" was. In this case, the Typhoon & F-16 started out as very different aircraft (the Typhoon as a STOVL replacement for the Jaguar & Harrier and the F-16 started out as a "low-cost" day fighter) but they both have evolved into middle-weight multi-role fighters.

 

 

 

Why do you feel the need to draw analogies where they aren't needed, illustrate no point, and lead to no conclusion?

263574[/snapback]

Because the radar/avionics of the Raptor & Typhoon are classified information.

 

My analagy does have a significant point & does lead to a conclusion. If you want to argue its correctness, then please do but thus far the only debate has been on it validity.

 

 

 

In many ways it's just as ridiculous to compare the F-22 and the Typhoon. They're contemporaries in time, but that's about it. They're being fielded by nations with vastly different goals and resources. It makes quite a bit of sense that the two aircraft are very different, does it not?

263574[/snapback]

Yes the Raptor & Typhoon are different & as I have pointed out, that difference is similar to the difference between the F-15 & F-16 (or F/A-18 if you prefer).

 

If it is ridiculous to compare the Raptor & Typhoon, then it is ridiculous to compare just about anything. The purpose of comparing them is to determine both similarities & differences (but you can not do that until you compare them).

 

 

 

This game of mental masturbation about aircraft analogies is pointless. I asked you what you were trying to show via your 'misanalogy' and you said you were trying to create an analogy. Once again--what is the point that you're trying to make? Saying that you're drawing similarities (whether they exist or not) does not answer the question.

263574[/snapback]

How do you compare the radar/avionics of the Raptor to the Typhoon then?

 

Oh, that's right, according to you, it is ridiculous to do so, so we shouldn't.

[5150]

How do you compare the radar/avionics of the Raptor to the Typhoon then? 

 

Oh, that's right, according to you, it is ridiculous to do so, so we shouldn't. 

263624[/snapback]

 

You claim that too much information about that subject is unavailable. If that is the case, cooking up an analogy between the last generation of fighters and the current generation is pretty pointless. It doesn't lead you anywhere near a discussion about the actual capabilities of the F-22 or the EFT, let alone allow you to begin that particular comparison.

 

At this point I'm as unsure of what you are doing as you are.

[Guest pfcem]

I'm sticking to my claim that the Eurofighter, AS DESIGNED, is in no way equivilant to any generation of F-16, for the very reasons you mentioned.  Think about it for a minute.  If you look at the actual requirements to which the Eurofighter was designed, and compare them to the requirements the F-16 was designed to meet, there are no similarities.

263615[/snapback]

I am not disagreeing with that. What I am disagreeing with is the notion that the initial requirement/vision of what two aircraft were to be is a better comparision that what they actualy are.

 

 

 

F-16:  Cheap, lightwieght, highly agile, short-range, visual-range day/clear weather fighter capable of being procured in vast numbers.  Secondary day/clear-weather air to ground capability.

 

Eurofighter: Medium-wieght/cost, medium-long range true swing-role day/night/all-weather combat aircraft for BVR and WVR air-to-air combat and instant "swing-role" change to air-to-ground.

263615[/snapback]

And the F-16 has evolved into a mediem-weight multy-role fighter.

 

Actually, the Eurofighter was originally to have been a STOVL replacement for the Jaguar & Harrier, it evolved into a mediem-weight multy-role fighter.

 

 

 

 

That doesn't sound like the F-16.  Really the Typhoon requirement is a lot like an enhanced version of the F/A-18 requirement (swing-role) combined with a bit of of the F-15's BVR/all-weather intercept mission with Jaguar's air-to-ground, deployability and rough field performance.  As you said, any more direct comparison is impossible because there IS NO direct comparison between the requirements of any of these aircraft. 

263615[/snapback]

I have already said that the Typhoon is more directly comparable to the F/A-18 than the F-16 but that until the Typhonn becomes "fully capable", I believe its radar/aviaonics compared to those of the Raptor are closer to the F-15 vs F-16 then F-15 vs F/A-18. i ahve also said that when the Typhoon becomes "fully capable", I believe its radar/aviaonics compared to those of the Raptor would be more similar to the F-15 vs F/A-18.

 

 

 

Sure F-22 has lower all-round FCS (not the only measure of "stealth" BTW) than Eurofighter and significant supercruise capability, but then, those were not Eurofighter requriements.  OTOH Eurofighter has a true swing-role capability at the touch of a button with a wide range of stores while the politically reclassified F/A-22 has in fact only the most modest of air-to-ground capabilities planned.  Eurofighter is also designed to operate from small, rough airfields and be easy and inexpensive to maintain for "out-of-area" operations.  Those are not part of the Raptor's requirements.  And to top it off Eurofighter costs half as much or less and is most certainly much cheaper to operate.

263615[/snapback]

I have already, more-or-less, said that. Doesn't saying that a comparision between the Raptor & Typhoon is analagious to a comparison between the F-15 & F-16 indicate that?

 

 

 

Does any one of these issues give one the advantage over the other? 

263615[/snapback]

Yes.

 

 

 

My point about the F-16's wieght gain is that adding capabilities to it outside of its original requirement has made the aircraft much heavier - to the point of essentially taking the aircraft out of its original LW fighter category altogether - and degrading its performance in some respects.  If those capabilities had been part of the original requirement, the aircraft we would have ended up with would most certainly not have been the F-16 we know today.

263615[/snapback]

I agree & have indicated that the same can be said of many weapons systems.

 

 

 

Sure the F-16 can do a lot of the same missions as Eurofighter, but it depends on WHICH VERSION of the F-16 your talking about.  Some versions do some jobs better (in many cases much better) than others while there are some versions that can not do some jobs at all. 

263615[/snapback]

No disagreement here.

 

 

 

Eurofighter was designed from the outside to have a wide range of capabilities added in stages as required or as they become available, to any aircraft. 

263615[/snapback]

Actually, it wasn't but it had evolved into a true multi-role fighter prior to entering production.

 

 

 

Thus, it should not suffer the porkiness the F-16 has during its career, nor will we I suspect see the proliferation of semi-specialized variants that characterizes the F-16. 

263615[/snapback]

Since the Typhoon evolved into a true multi-role fighter prior to entering production, it shouldn't.

 

With the exception of the ADF (& perhaps Wild Weasel) variant(s), there are no semi-specialized F-16 variants. With each succesive variant/block, additional capabilities were added but the F-16 has never really be a "specialized" aircraft.

 

 

 

Then when you compare how well the F-16 does those missions compared to Eurofighter and at what cost, the differences become more telling.

263615[/snapback]

Yeah, the Typhoon is way too expensive.

 

The F-16 can do pretty much everything the Typhoon can do (though with somewhat less capability) at 1/3 the cost.

[Guest pfcem]

You claim that too much information about that subject is unavailable. If that is the case, cooking up an analogy between the last generation of fighters and the current generation is pretty pointless. It doesn't lead you anywhere near a discussion about the actual capabilities of the F-22 or the EFT, let alone allow you to begin that particular comparison.

263628[/snapback]

Sure, in the grand sceme of things, trying to compare the Raptor & Typhoon is pretty pointless but so is pretty much everything on this board, but is sure is fun.

 

I suppose we are not suppose to talk about anything but T-72s on Tanknet...Oh, we can't do that either since, according to Harkonnen, we do not know enough about the T-72 either.

 

I have stated my opinion as to how I believe they may compare.

 

If you do not want to discuss how we might compare the Raptor & Typhoon, then why not just stay out of it & let those of us you do, do so intead of "muddying-up the waters" with your opinion that you can not compare the Raptor & Typhoon?

 

At this point I'm as unsure of what you are doing as you are.

263628[/snapback]

I know exactly what I am doing but I agree, you apearantly do not know what I am doing dispite my attempts to explain it to you.

 

My guess is that you are so "blinded" by your own opinion that you fail/refuse to see mine.

Edited December 29, 2005 by pfcem

[5150]

My guess is that you are so "blinded" by your own opinion that you fail/refuse to see mine. 

263663[/snapback]

 

Not having too many opinions on the matter, I tend to think that you're just not the communicator you could be.

[Stephan]

Typhoon

Empty = 21,500 lbs

MTO = 46,300 lbs

max external payload = 14,300 lbs (I have not been able to obtain more specific info at this time)

 

F-16C Block 40

Empty = 19,100 lbs

MTO = 42,300 lbs

max external payload = 20,450 lbs (not realistic since it is pretty difficult to fully max out all weapons pylons but if you could, internal fuel must be reduced in order to not exceed MTO weight & maneuverablility is reduced to 5 g)

Up to 11,950 lbs can be carried & still maintain 9 g maneuverablility & full internal fuel

difference

Empty = 2,400 lbs or 1.2 US short tons (11.1%)

MTO = 4,000 lbs or 2.0 US short tons (8.6%)

max external payload = favors F-16

I am not saying the Typhoon & F-16 are equals.  I am saying that they are intended to perform the same roles/missions & that the radar/aviaonics comparision of the Raptor vs Typhoon is similat to that of the F-15 vs F-16.

 

The Typhoon has capabilities beyond the F-16 & the Raptor has capabilities beyond the F-15.  My point is that the respective capability increases are similar.

263490[/snapback]

 

I want to start with your fixation on the Typhoon having been intended primarily as a STOVL replacement for the Jaguar and Harrier. This may be valid for Great Britain, but certainly not for Germany. Germany really only wanted an air superiority fighter to replace the F-4 (France btw only wanted a carrier capable strike aircraft). Though the Typhoon may have its roots in these seperate national requirements, once these nations got together however, the decision was made to build one medium multi role fighter to suit all the nations requirements. This became the original Eurofighter requirement, it was multi role from the beginning of the concept phase.

 

Now, a Block 40 F-16 is an in-service developement of the original aircraft, it can hardly be compared to an initial Typhoon, for which it is impossible to predict how it will develope in the future.

Though the Block 40 may have increased MTOW, I am not aware that the store positions have been (even can be) changed by much. The end result is that the Typhoon can carry a greater mix of AG and AA weapons right from the beginning.

It has been said often enough by others on this topic, the Eurofighter nations have a totally different equipment concept than the USAF. The Typhoon is needed to fullfill both the F-16 and F-15/F-22 roles and thus layout, equipment and capabilities are somewhere in the middle between the US aircraft.