Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Slam Eagle Vs Typhoon, Part 2  
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18860 times:

With Dassault and Sukhoi withdrawing from the contest, another battle shapes up anew for these two erstwhile rivals.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © YK
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Lofting



http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...hoon-to-battle-f-15k-in-seoul.html

Quote:
"Boeing and Eurofighter go head-to-head again for 20-aircraft deal, as Dassault and Sukhoi withdraw interest"


Will Seoul be able to dispel perceptions of bias towards the F-15K?


"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineArniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 18838 times:

They already operate the Eagle and their forces are heavily intertwined with the USAF so I see absolutely no chance for the EF even if it proofs to be better than the Eagle.
Also the Eagle has another advantage as it is a proven concept and its all developed out and can be used also as an A2G fighter whereas the EF still needs to be fully developed on that front (as far as I know and that ain't far).

Also like the article said it seems that S. Korea must thank the EF-consortium to even want to come to the competition because otherwise it would have been a ripe apple to pluck at no discount price for Boeing.
There are more countries that are evolving into a situation whereby they practically exclude contestors from other countries besides the US to compete for these orders (JAPAN & ISRAEL come to mind) and therefor they are more likely going to pay full price .

[Edited 2007-03-21 23:36:59]


[edit post]
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 18809 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 1):
They already operate the Eagle and their forces are heavily intertwined with the USAF so I see absolutely no chance for the EF even if it proofs to be better than the Eagle.

The EF has already proven its superiority against the F-15 several times. However i agree they will go for the F-15 because its cheaper and they are already operating it.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineATCGOD From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 663 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 18679 times:

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 1):
They already operate the Eagle and their forces are heavily intertwined with the USAF so I see absolutely no chance for the EF even if it proofs to be better than the Eagle.

I thought I'd read in AW&ST that this was just about guaranteed for the F-15K for just this reason.


User currently offlineBobski From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 83 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 18668 times:

I agree, this is just a formality and the ROK will probably go for more F-15Ks. It makes sense as it is less expensive and they are already operating the type, although the EF is undoubtedly the superior aircraft.


Who is Benjamin Breeg?
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 18608 times:

I'd say in its current offering, the EF is not the superior aircraft. When the rest of the systems integration happens and A2G testing completes, you'll see a surge of orders....Check

User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1724 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 18549 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):

Don't think the Typhie has most of a chance, even if it proves better than the Eagle, like it has been mentioned before.
In that case, maybe something similar to what happened with the Osorio MBT and Saudi Arabia will occur, who knows.

Quoting Bobski (Reply 4):
I agree, this is just a formality and the ROK will probably go for more F-15Ks. It makes sense as it is less expensive and they are already operating the type,

 checkmark 


User currently offlineBeta From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 18516 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 2):
The EF has already proven its superiority against the F-15 several times.

Do you have any evidence or credible source for this statement? Please share them. What's the combat record of the EF against any adversarial fighter jets, F15 or not? And No. Exercise in controlled environment does not count in my book. I will accept as truth however if one says the EF is a more advanced design fighter jet, and hence it is likely more advanced than the F15E.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 18456 times:

Quoting Beta (Reply 7):
Do you have any evidence or credible source for this statement? Please share them. What's the combat record of the EF against any adversarial fighter jets, F15 or not? And No. Exercise in controlled environment does not count in my book. I will accept as truth however if one says the EF is a more advanced design fighter jet, and hence it is likely more advanced than the F15E.

In war games the A-10 has taken the AIR TO AIR honors of the games, yet you would have to be on some serious drugs to order them for that role.

I too would like an in depth comparison of the two to prove the point. Where does the Eurofighter have advantages over the F15 that would let it get the kill while remaining safe. In my A10 example they did it because the other true fighter was forced to come down to play with it... use extremely low altitude and low speed flight to prevent missiles from being effective and then when the pointy nose flies by use the gun or missiles to finish it off. If you then forced the A10 to come up to fight the F15 or whatever on its terms it would be dead meat as its slow, has pathetic air to air missiles, and paints up as a nice bright target.

So what does the Eurofighter bring to the table that the F15 doesn't. How does it do its work. Clearly this is the question any Airforce will ask itself in the process, and if the answer is "nothing" then they will go with the older proven platform unless the Eurofighter is massively cheaper to buy. I can prove on two points why the F15 is better than the Eurofighter w/o any technical knowledge of the planes offered in this contest. 1. The F15 is a proven platform, with proven success 2. proven track record of sortie rate and MX cost. So you know that it works, and will work when you need it too while not bankrupting your government.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 18420 times:

Quoting Beta (Reply 7):
Do you have any evidence or credible source for this statement? Please share them. What's the combat record of the EF against any adversarial fighter jets, F15 or not? And No. Exercise in controlled environment does not count in my book.



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 8):
too would like an in depth comparison of the two to prove the point. Where does the Eurofighter have advantages over the F15 that would let it get the kill while remaining safe.

I will try to sum all data/infos i found that proves clearly the EF superior.

Quote:
#Flight-envelop(Standard air-combat configuration):

Fighters: F-22A RAPTOR/EF-2000 TYPHOON/F-15C EAGLE
Sea-level: 0.15~1.21 Mach/0.15~1.15 Mach/0.15~1.00 Mach
10,000ft: 0.15~1.40 Mach/0.19~1.40 Mach/0.15~1.10 Mach
20,000ft: 0.18~1.75 Mach/0.22~1.65 Mach/0.20~1.30 Mach
25,000ft: 0.20~2.00 Mach/0.28~1.85 Mach/0.25~1.45 Mach
30,000ft: 0.25~2.00 Mach/0.30~2.00 Mach/0.30~1.60 Mach
40,000ft: 0.30~2.00 Mach/0.35~2.00 Mach/0.40~1.76 Mach
45,000ft: 0.40~2.00 Mach/0.40~2.00 Mach/0.55~1.70 Mach
50,000ft: 0.50~2.00 Mach/0.45~2.00 Mach/0.65~1.60 Mach
55,000ft: 0.60~2.00 Mach/0.50~2.00 Mach/
60,000ft: 0.70~2.00 Mach/0.75~1.85 Mach
65,000ft: 1.00~2.00 Mach/0.88~1.70 Mach
67,500ft: 1.20~2.00 Mach/

# G-load..................-3/+9G(Normal),+15G(Maximum)
# Instaneous turn rate/Sustaneous turn rate:30~35/>20(degree/sec)

# Agility:
1. 45,000 fts, 1.6 Mach, maximum G-load:5G.

2. Radius of turnning at low level:600m;30% less than F-15C.

3. Low level, 300kt, 7G, radius of turnning:Less than 700m (The test-pilot declared it is better than F-16, F-18, and RAFALE.)

The supersonic turn radius for EF-2000 and F/A-22 with 5G agility at the height of 40,000~50,000 fts is 40~60% of the supersonic turn radius for tradional fighters (F-15, F-16......) with 2~3G agility at the height of 40,000~50,000 fts.

In the supersonic range the airplane is unstable in the lateral movement - with Mach 1.5 a curve dia. meter can be flown by 6 km without losing speed.



T/W of Taking-off with standard AA configuration(100% internal fuel + 6MRAAM + 2SRAAM),AB:
F-15C:1.030~1.052
EF-2K:1.050~1.081(Peace time)
EF-2K:1.108~1.140 (War time)
EF-2K:1.155~1.189 (EJ-200 with small revision)
EF-2K:1.208~1.243(EJ-230 upgrading)
F-22A:1.033~1.110 (F-119, Official declaration, 35,000 Ibs*2)
F-22A:1.121~1.269 (F-119, Actual performance, 38,000 ~ 40,000 Ibs*2)


T/W of Taking-off with standard AA configuration(100% internal fuel + 6MRAAM + 2SRAAM),MAX. MIL:
F-15C:0.634~0.648
EF-2K:0.700~0.721(Peace time)
EF-2K:0.805~0.829 (War time)
EF-2K:0.805~0.829 (EJ-200 with small revision)
EF-2K:0.840~0.865(EJ-230 upgrading)
F-22A:0.752~0.809 (F-119, Official declaration, 25,500 Ibs*2)
F-22A:0.770~0.828 (F-119, Actual performance, 26,100 Ibs*2)


WING-LOADING of Taking-off with standard AA configuration:
F-15C:362.96~370.57 kg/m2
EF-2K:340.00~350.00 kg/m2
F-22A:366.53~394.08 kg/m2


SERVICE CEILING:
F-15C:60,000 fts
EF-2K:65,000 fts
F-22A:65,000~70,000 fts


TAKING-OFF
F-15C:900 fts
EF-2K:less than 900 fts
F-22A:800 fts


LANDING:
F-15C:3,500 fts
EF-2K:1,640 fts



Frontal RCS :

EF-2K: 0.10~0.25m2 / RCS of F-15 is (11m2)


50~55 seconds to climb to the height of 12,000 m / F-15 "Streak Eagle": 59.38 secs



Tracking:

AN/APG-63V2 AESA
a. F-15 C +
b. 140 NM (260 km)..........F-15, Su-27
c. 78 NM (145 km)............F-16, MIG-29 SMT
d. 44 NM (82 km)..............EF-2000



CAPTOR
a. EF-2000 Tranch 1 and 2
b. 119 NM (220 km)..........F-15, Su-27


CAPTOR with AESA(Tranche 3)
a. EF-2000 Tranch 3
b. 178 ~ 208 NM (330 ~ 385 km).........F-15, Su-27

-CAPTOR Radar can track and identify up to 20 targets simultaneously.
-CAPTOR is designed to be highly resistant to ECM and passive countermeasures.
-Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) radar's such as the American APG-77
-CAPTOR offers twice the power output of the APG-65 combined with long range search and track and continuous illumination (for semi active missiles)

Features the F-15 doesnt have:

-PIRATE (Passive Infra Red Airborne Tracking Equipment,entirely passive in nature and thus impossible to detect)

Up to 200 targets can be simultaneously tracked by the system using one of several different modes

-PIMAWS, or Passive Infra-red Missile Approach Warning System.

-Laser Warning Receiver (LWR)

-Helmet Mounted Sight

-DVI

-Towed Radar Decoy

-VTAS/HOTAS

-Supercruise 1,2~1.3 (with payload)(without 1.5)(Tranche 3 may can 1,7)

-9g manouvers at supersonic speed.

-Frame supports up to 12g / F-15 8g

Also here some simulated combat results:

In the JOUST simulation, BVR results against an SU27 upgraded to SU35 were as follows:

F-22 10.1:1
Typhoon 4.5:1
Rafale 1:1
F-15C 0.8:1
F-16C 0.3:1

Quote:

From AFM "Singapore very impressed with the Typhoon" and Western Daily Press

".....................It is a very capable aircraft and better than the American F16 he champions. In a recent competition run by Singapore to find a replacement for its F16 fighters, Typhoon was up against the American F15E and the French Rafale. Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests. According to one observer, neither competitor aircraft could claim the same (Defence Analysis August 2004)."

Sources:

http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofighter/geschichte.htm

http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofighter/daten.htm

http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofighter/sensorik.htm

http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html

BAE Systems, UK

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

http://www.iee.org/oncomms/pn/radar/Roulston.pdf

http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm

http://propro.ru/flankers/eng/Su-27.htm

http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400004/5/02/40936025.pdf

Wikipedia


Also take a look at this thread:

Typhoon Excels (by EBJ1248650 Feb 21 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)#menu51


I hope this helps to make a picture of the Eurofighter capabilitys. However the F-15 is a very impressive fighter wich deserves merit.

edit: fixed some links

[Edited 2007-03-23 12:42:34]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18375 times:

I see so much 'guessed' information, I almost don't want to reply...it would take too long...Check

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18374 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 9):
I will try to sum all data/infos i found that proves clearly the EF superior.

Cripes. Apart from anything else, that must be shooting for the best documented answer of the year!!  Smile


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 18356 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 10):
I see so much 'guessed' information, I almost don't want to reply...it would take too long...Check

Of course....if you say so. I dont think there is so much "guessed" information. If you would read all sources you could figure out most of this numbers. There are some numbers in my list wich cant be veryfied with 100% accuracy.( eg exact EF RCS classified,CAPTOR Range) But from pilot statements most of its potential is much better then expected.

Quote:


2004/05, magazine of AFM
An UK test pilot declared that the maximum Air-to-air tracking range of CAPTOR radar is "significantly longer" than the 100 miles / 161km.



Quote:

The actual radar cross section is of course classified, it is however set out for the RAF in SR(A)-425. According to the RAF the Eurofighter's RCS more than exceeds these requirements. More recent comments from BAE seem to indicate the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado. During a recent press event BAE Systems stated that the Typhoon's RCS is bettered only by the F-22 in the frontal hemisphere and betters the F-22 at some angles. Although the later comment is very questionable it still indicates a real attempt to reduce the Typhoon's radar signature.

Btw most of this numbers/infos arent from me, i just gathered it. I also could go deeper into detail of each number if you want.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
Cripes. Apart from anything else, that must be shooting for the best documented answer of the year!!

Thanks but the Sources like http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk deserves the merit. Btw what does Cripes mean  Big grin

[Edited 2007-03-23 15:56:35]


“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 18223 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 12):
Thanks but the Sources like http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk deserves the merit. Btw what does Cripes mean

For "cripes", start with stunned amazement, then move to golly gosh, good heavens, good grief, heavens above. You tend to say cripes when needing a speedy exclamation that leaves you free to take the next step.

It comes as a surprise because most of what is written and posted about the EF makes it seem as if there was scarcely any point in designing or building the thing. Your summary suggests that at the very least, the EF is a little* more capable that has been claimed by many others.
*understatement for a great deal, and goes with cripes!! Big grin


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 18176 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
Cripes. Apart from anything else, that must be shooting for the best documented answer of the year!!

Thank you for the info the translator couldnt translate it. Thats always good to learn a new word  Smile

Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):
Your summary suggests that at the very least, the EF is a little* more capable that has been claimed by many others.

True, but IMO the problem is we always think things wich had in the past a great superiority are long time good (F-16,F-15,Su-27 etc..) but without big updates and a modular designed frame it wont.

I mean in the future when eg the F-22 will get better radar and FMRAAM it could track/destroy the EF without problems from a very long distance. Same is valid for other fighters like russian build ones. They are making pretty big advances. Maybe they make one day with cooperation of China or India a Superfighter wich could be a real threat to the F-22.

Of course this is only speculation. However the Tranch 3 Thypoons will be also much better and with the new Thrust Vectoring/AESA CAPTOR Radar & Meteor Weapon a very difficult enemy.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 18082 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 9):
F-22 10.1:1

That should read 9.x : 1 as the virtual test was against ten Su-35. Even if the F-22 wins every fight, the rate would still be 10 : 1, and I doubt they claimed the Su-35 would not have a single change.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18081 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 9):
Wikipedia



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 9):
Also take a look at this thread:

Typhoon Excels (by EBJ1248650 Feb 21 2007 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)#menu51

OMG, you use Wikipedia and a.net as some of your sourses?  banghead 

How about this from
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/tech.html

OpEval
The Eurofighter project has been subject to several operational evaluations. These have been carried out, independently from the Eurofighter consortium, primarily by Britain's DERA, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL). Unlike many previous theoretical operational capability studies, the Eurofighter analysis utilised a true simulation approach. This was achieved through a number of networked battle simulation computers, termed JOUST, each of which can be flown by human pilots.

BVR Combat Rating
Raptor 91%

Eurofighter 82%

Rafale 50%

F-15 43%

F-18+ 25%

F-18 21%

F-16 21%


This system was used to comprehensively evaluate the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) performance of the Eurofighter and other aircraft against an upgraded Su-27 Flanker (comparable to an Su-35 Super Flanker and its equivalents). The studies investigated all aspect best performances from the major systems on each aircraft; avionics, structure (including RCS data), engine performance (including fuel usage), defences and man-machine interfaces. In these tests the French Rafale utilised the Matra-BAe MICA air to air missile (which is the primary AA weapon of the French airforce) while the other aircraft used the Raytheon-Hughes AMRAAM.

These simulations concluded that Eurofighter has a win rating of 82% (100% equals always win, 0% equals always lose, 50% equals parity) against the target aircraft. A more typical way to present this data is as a combat exchange ratio, for the Typhoon this equals 4.5:1. In other words statistically one Eurofighter would be lost for every 4.5 Su-35 fighters shot down. This compares extremely favourably to the other aircraft (see also the BVR Combat Rating table); F-16C Falcon (0.3:1), F-15C Eagle (0.8:1), F-18C Hornet (0.3:1), F-18+ (0.4:1, NB this is not the current F-18E/F which is apparently a downgraded version of the F-18+ used in the studies) and Dassault Rafale (1:1). Only the LM/Boeing F-22 Raptor bettered the Eurofighter's performance with a combat exchange ratio of 10.1:1.

In addition to these overall combat performance results a number of individual comparisons have been made available. Of enormous importance for BVR combat is acceleration at medium altitudes and here the Eurofighter's acceleration at Mach 0.9 and 22,000ft equals that of the F-22. At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22. Only the Rafale comes close to the matching the Eurofighter's capabilities in these comparisons.

An important point to keep in mind when examining this data is that full details on the simulations have not been released. Without this information it is not possible to determine whether Eurofighter optimal profiles were examined at the expense of more varied combat missions. However these studies do give some indication as to the potential of the Typhoon.

Eurofighter is also saying here the Rafale is a better fighter than the F-15? They also place both models of the F/A-18 at or above the F-16? They also say these simulations were done on a computer but can be repeated by human pilots? I just hope the Typhoon never comes up against an Isreali pilot flying his old F-4E.

BTW, The Eurofighter has been in developement since 1972, when the RAF first asked for it.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18073 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
OMG, you use Wikipedia and a.net as some of your sourses?

And how does your source differ from that what AutoThrust has said so far, even if he used Wikipedia? And he used quite an amount of sources, didn't he?

[Edited 2007-03-25 04:30:46]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18069 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
BTW, The Eurofighter has been in developement since 1972, when the RAF first asked for it.

The Eurofighter Consortium was founded in 1983.
Since when does development start as soon as one military branch is asking for a new weapon?



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 18066 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
Cripes. Apart from anything else, that must be shooting for the best documented answer of the year!!

Pardon my ignorance, I am far from being being an expert on the F15 but aren't those numbers for a C not a K? Would the K have different numbers? If not, then never mind!  Smile


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 18060 times:

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 19):
ardon my ignorance, I am far from being being an expert on the F15 but aren't those numbers for a C not a K? Would the K have different numbers?

You are right, however from what i've readed the K version has improved avionics/radar and little improved engines and weights more with more wingload. If you have some other info we would welcome it so we can compare.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 18043 times:

According to my limited resources, it seems as though it has completely new engines. Is it possible that noo ne is releasing the F-15K's specs? I certainly couldn't find it. The new F110-GE-129 engines are rated at 29K lbs/thrust. The F-15C's F100-PW-100, 220 or 229 produce 23,450 lbs/thrust. A considerable difference. I do not have a numbers comparison as you did but it would seem that the numbers posted for the F-15C are not up-to-date relative to the F-15K.

October 17, 2005 -- SEOUL - GE's F110 engine is powering Boeing's newest fighter aircraft, the F-15K, which makes its public debut at the Korean Aerospace and Defense Exhibition this week.

First flight of the F110-GE-129-powered F-15K occurred in March 2005. To date, the F110 has powered more than 75 flights of the first five production aircraft. In 2002, the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) chose the F110-GE-129 (rated at 29,000 pounds thrust) to power 40 new Boeing F-15K aircraft, launching the popular F110 on the twin-engine application.

"We are pleased to be powering a new generation of F-15 fighters," said Al DiLibero, general manager of the F110 engine program at GE. "We are also pleased that 78 of the F110 engines will be assembled through a licensing agreement with Samsung Techwin Co, LTD, continuing their long-term involvement with GE engines."

The United States Air Force (USAF) completed a highly successful field service evaluation of the F110-GE-129 powering an F-15E aircraft in 1999, after engines surpassed 1,900 flight hours on the aircraft. The USAF extended the program beyond the originally planned 1,000-hour mark due to the engine's excellent performance and high mission readiness rate of the aircraft/engine combination.

Earlier this year, the USAF awarded GE a $57 million contract to upgrade an initial 95 F110 fighter engines for F-16C/D aircraft as part of a Service Life Extension Program (SLEP).

Funded in the USAF F110 Component Improvement Program, the SLEP upgrade includes the successful CFM56-7 commercial engine core (which powers the Boeing Next-Generation 737s), 3D aero technology, and a redesigned flow path with changes to the combustor and high-pressure turbine


http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/pressc...er/military/military_20051017.html

[Edited 2007-03-25 06:58:11]

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 18027 times:

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 21):
Is it possible that no one is releasing the F-15K's specs?

What better source than Boeing themselves?.....

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...ilitary/f15/f-15k/f15kavionics.htm

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/f15kfacts.htm

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...ilitary/f15/f-15k/f15kavionics.htm

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/f15spec.htm

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/f15ksurvive.htm

If detailed information on F-15K weapons and systems are needed, just scroll down the index on the left or check the IDS section for Boeing manufactured items. A visit to other OEMs' sites may be required for the others.

Debate on!  thumbsup   wave 



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 18005 times:

While I agree that the EF is superior to the F-15K, I have to disagree with the "climb to 12,000m in 50-55 sec as opposed to 59 sec for the F-15 Streak Eagle"
Even the T/W ratio figures given for the EF with the upgraded EJ-230 engines of 1.208-1.243 still don't come close to the Steak Eagle figure of ~1.55 (25,000lb stripped empty weight with half fuel ~7000lb and 25,000lbf thrust F100-PW-100 engines BEFORE they were de-rated to 23,840lb in the mid-70's).
So, while the F-15C would lose out to the EF in climb rate, The F-15A-based Streak Eagle would smoke it AND the F-22A unless they did a "Streak" version of the EF or F-22A.
BUT, put the F100-PW-232 or F110-232 (both with 32,500lbf thrust) in the Streak Eagle and it would still smoke anything with a whopping 2.03 to 1!!!  box   stirthepot 


BTW; Boeing has investigated putting the F-119 in the F-15 as its the same size as the F100 and F110...


User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 17998 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 23):
BTW; Boeing has investigated putting the F-119 in the F-15 as its the same size as the F100 and F110...

 Wow!

Nice! But would the cruising and top speeds of the f-5f be considerably different then the C? I would imagine but have no sources.


25 SCAT15F : I would think so, as the F119 is designed for supercruise while the F100 is not (although reportedly with the F100-PW-229 the F15 can supercruise at
26 Post contains images Glideslope : The most accurate statement in this thread.
27 AutoThrust : The point is the EF wasnt stripped or emtpy weight half fuel and still can climb in 55 sec to 12k. However the F-15 is of course a world class climbe
28 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Well, based solely on Wikipedia, the differences are already pronounced...... Specifications (F-15E Strike Eagle) General characteristics * Crew: 2 *
29 Post contains links and images AutoThrust : I took Information only for the Anti-g suit and from Wikipedia. Your numbers dont show any performance comparison wich would prove the contrary. F-15E
30 TheSonntag : Since Germany uses AMRAAM equipped F-4F Phantoms, it is fair to guess the Eurofighter was tested against the F-4 already...
31 Post contains images Maiznblu_757 : Now, can we compare the Eurofighter with an F-15C? That seems like it makes more sense.
32 AutoThrust : Look at my reply 9, all numbers are for F-15C. It shows clearly the F-15C and the Eurofighter arent in the same class.
33 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Perhaps, proper Slam Eagle and Attack Typhoon comparisons could be made soon with this latest development..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...
34 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Update: Boeing, once again, is the sole interested bidder..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...Wn8AAAEAAHsmTY8AAAAB&modele=jdc_34 Quote: "The b
35 Post contains images SCAT15F : A pity, the Typhoon is a much better aircraft, unless S Korea wants a bomb truck instead of a defense fighter.
36 Flipdewaf : I think that the eurofighter is the superior jet here but vlearly it would not be chosen, i wouldnt go for it if i was them. Fred
37 Post contains images KevinSmith : Really? What is it's combat record? How many warheads on foreheads has it dropped in actual combat? How about survivability.? How many mid-airs has i
38 ArniePie : Sorry but following your reasoning we should all go back and fly the P51 mustang because it has a better record than all existing fighters now. BTW w
39 Post contains images AutoThrust : Good one, but can only agree. I guess its to expensive for S Korea. Who knows maybe soon delivery slots will be available, so they could have got it
40 Post contains images KevinSmith : Where did that come from? Where in my previous post did I mention the F-22 being better than anything else? Dude are you serious with that statement?
41 Arniepie : Aj caramba didn't read close enough all the way trough the thread, well I guess this can happen if I read with one eye and work with the other, sorry
42 KevinSmith : It's all gravy man.
43 AutoThrust : Sorry that arguing doesn't make sense, besides the Thypoon IS not only on paper a superior plane in the same way the F-22 is superior to everything f
44 KevinSmith : Yes it does. A superiorty claim can really only be made with an actual combat record to back it up. As for Singapore's test they were just that, test
45 Autothrust : You cant compare fighters with a football championship, because players are human, they dont bring always the same power and the "technical" diffrenc
46 KevinSmith : You asked me to compare the upgrades to the F-15E compared with the F-15C, not compare it to the EF. Who designed the EF? Who designed all aircraft?
47 AutoThrust : True i missed the point, but i wanted to show you the diffrences between this to planes which are pretty big. My point is the Eurofighter will not se
48 Post contains images KevinSmith : Rock and roll man. Had fun debating with you. -K
49 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Well, barring major unforeseen events, the caption on this poster might well hold true for South Korea..... http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...s/P
50 Post contains links DEVILFISH : For a parting post to this thread..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...5k-deal-may-close-by-end-2007.html Quote: "South Korea has begun price n
51 Post contains links F27Friendship : preparing to fight yesterday's war isn't something you want either.. Maybe you should have a look at the Maginot line in France.
52 KevinSmith : Agreed. Not sure how that applies though.....[Edited 2007-10-24 17:53:28]
53 F27Friendship : well.. buying F-15's because it performed great 10 years ago
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Slam Eagle Vs Typhoon, Part 2
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
F22 Vs Typhoon - Best Scrapper? posted Sun Feb 13 2005 01:45:25 by VSIVARIES
F22 Vs Typhoon Vs Raphale Vs F35 posted Wed Oct 20 2004 15:58:40 by Arniepie
Rafale Vs Typhoon posted Sat Sep 1 2001 14:23:52 by Fireblade
Eurofighter Typhoon Vs M. Schumacher posted Mon Nov 17 2003 20:01:28 by Dahawaiian
Exocet Damage: HMS Sheffield Vs USS Stark posted Fri Mar 9 2007 19:16:31 by DesertJets
Typhoon Excels posted Wed Feb 21 2007 02:50:52 by EBJ1248650
Flight Path Vs. Pitching Deck posted Mon Feb 19 2007 02:04:30 by Vzlet
F-22A Vs F-14 Which One Sound Better? posted Mon Feb 12 2007 17:33:07 by 747400sp
Chengdu J-10 Vs Aidc F-CK-1C posted Sun Jan 7 2007 00:54:21 by DEVILFISH
E3C/D Vs Wedgetail 737 posted Fri Dec 8 2006 11:10:29 by CHRISBA777ER
F22 Vs Typhoon - Best Scrapper? posted Sun Feb 13 2005 01:45:25 by VSIVARIES
F22 Vs Typhoon Vs Raphale Vs F35 posted Wed Oct 20 2004 15:58:40 by Arniepie
Rafale Vs Typhoon posted Sat Sep 1 2001 14:23:52 by Fireblade
MOP Vs. Grand Slam posted Mon Feb 22 2010 15:41:59 by CMB56
Another Case Of The Bear Vs. The Eagle posted Wed Mar 26 2008 22:07:36 by 787seattle

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format