comorin
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:57 pm

In reading DEVILFISH's thread on the MMRCA deal for the Indian Air Force to buy 126 'Medium' fighters, I was wondering which fighter would A.Net's Top Guns use to defend their borders? Scenario: High altitude Himalayas on one flank, and enemy F-16 squadrons based less than 10 minutes away on the other.

RAFALE
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Rafale_ag1.jpg/800px-Rafale_ag1.jpg

TYPHOON
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2.jpg/800px-Eurofighter_Typhoon_2.jpg

F-16
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9d/F-16e_block60_2.jpg/800px-F-16e_block60_2.jpg

F-18F


GRIPEN
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Swedish_JAS-39_Gripen_landing.jpg/800px-Swedish_JAS-39_Gripen_landing.jpg

MiG 35
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/00/MiG-35_1_main.jpg/800px-MiG-35_1_main.jpg


Pictures courtesy Wikimedia Commons License
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:27 am

I'd simply use one squadron of Raptor's...should do just fine as far as the AtA threat goes. Maybe a squadron of Super Hornets for additional AtA and to mop up the AtG.
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:33 am



Quoting Comorin (Thread starter):
F-16

That is the UGLIEST looking F-16 I have seen since the wreckage of the T-bird Solo.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 1):
I'd simply use one squadron of Raptor's

 checkmark 
This space intentionally left blank
 
Ozair
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:38 am



Quoting Comorin (Thread starter):
which fighter would A.Net's Top Guns use to defend their borders?

There are a few questions that need to be answered before I could make a definitive answer.
Will the platform be used solely for air defence or is there an air to ground component (does destroying the enemy F-16 squadrons on the ground count)?
What is the standard weapons fit the Indians..oops A.net top guns will be getting with each aircraft?

Without answers to the above, my first choice is the Typhoon with AMRAAM/ASRAAM combination with the AMRAAM replaced by METEOR when it enters service.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 1):
I'd simply use one squadron of Raptor's

Cheat  Wink
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:42 am

Super Hornet is hands down the best of the bunch listed. The question is do the A.Netters think that the US is "reliable" enough? Otherwise Mig-35 or Rafale
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:49 am

 
comorin
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:30 am

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 1):



Quoting TedTAce (Reply 2):



Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 5):

Alas, the Raptor /YF22 is not for sale.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
Will the platform be used solely for air defence or is there an air to ground component (does destroying the enemy F-16 squadrons on the ground count)?
What is the standard weapons fit the Indians..oops A.net top guns will be getting with each aircraft

There is an a2g component as destroying bases are critical. I'm not sure about anti-tanks though (Warthog stuff?).

A.net top guns will get the an unrestricted weapons fit, including state of the art radar.

Quoting Alien (Reply 4):
The question is do the A.Netters think that the US is "reliable" enough?

I'm trying to keep that discussion off the table as it'll end up derailing a fun thread into a political thread  

It's a real treat for me to hear from all you experts out there - a.net is tops.

[Edited 2008-04-29 20:33:56]
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:51 am



Quoting Comorin (Reply 6):
Alas, the Raptor /YF22 is not for sale.

Alas, it was simply a senario/question...we are all aware the F-22A is not for sale. The YF-22? I think you need to catch up with the times...
 
comorin
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:11 am



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 7):
The YF-22? I think you need to catch up with the times...

I was referring to flyf15's graphic - does it say YF-22 or is it the YF-23?
 
chksix
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:16 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:34 am

Since it's the beautiful aircraft of the two contenders it's the YF-23 in the pic.
The conveyor belt plane will fly
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:05 pm

Alien,

I applaud your loyalty to Boeing, but A-A the F/A-18E/F is far from being "hands down the best of the bunch listed."

Quite the reverse. The Super Hornet is probably better than the MiG-35 and F-16 BVR (though if you're talking F-16E/F it's close), but the SuperBug is no match for the MiG-29/35/Gripen WVR.

And it's no match for Rafale or Typhoon.

It's a respectable A-G machine, however.

In an Indian scenario, I'd question whether anything but the Typhoon or F-22 would give the kind of exchange ratio you'd need against Chinese 'Flankers'. Typhoon would give you twice as many aircraft as F-22 for the same cost, and would be better if you wanted air-to-ground capabilities, and if you wanted to deploy to austere forward bases, but F-22's Stealth advantages are compelling, if you can be sure of getting the full-spec aircraft, and can guarantee US support.

Gripen NG (as long as you get Meteor with it) would also be an interesting choice - especially as you'd get the benefit of large numbers for the same cost.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:48 pm

Other then some Boeing stock Jack I have no particular loyalty to Boeing. I own some NG and LM stock as well. If I look hard enough I probably have some BAE ADRs somewhere. Now that said who is the cheerleader here Jack/BAE fan boy?

Lets start the fact that you are even mentioning the Eurofrauder and Raptor in the same sentence. They are not equivalent, they are not even in the same league. This has been discussed ad nauseum and the conclusion always is the same. Tiffie may one day be a pretty good interceptor once it gets an AESA radar and all the bugs are ironed out. Lets be honest the only reason why people like you try to make the association is that you all know that Raptor is not for sale so you try (notice I said try) to make the argument that you could get a near equivalent in the frauder. That just does not hold water whenever actual experts (Singapore, South Korea) have to make a real aircraft choice. They know that the next best thing right now for a large long range multi role interceptor is an upgraded Eagle. That however is not what the Indians are looking for.

Gripen actually makes a pretty good point interceptor now at a very affordable price. The problem is that it is nowhere near as capable as a Super Hornet which is available now as well. Gripen NG sounds very much like Super Hornet light. The problem is that it won't be available until 2015 at the earliest and despite SAAB/BAE's claims to the contrary, actual cost is an unknown at this time.

Last Jack, both the Eurofraduer and the Gripen have a lot of US tech in them. The Indians have this anti US fetish. If their fetish wins out over common sense then they will buy either the Mig-35 or the Rafale, otherwise the Super will be bought.

About your Flanker comment, they have Flankers of their own that are probably the best example of them in the world. This buy is not primarily for air superiority mission. This is a Mig -21 replacement buy. But you should know that being the posh journo that you fancy yourself to be.
 
comorin
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:59 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 11):
The Indians have this anti US fetish.

I'm trying to find out which plane is the best from a mission capability point of view - which is why we're leaving politics and India out of the discussion  Smile

I'm hoping members will also express why they think one fighter choice is better suited to the mission than the other.

Some questions that entered my mind:

1. BVR capabilities- isn't this independent of the aircraft - just Avionics?
2. Is Dogfighting still a part of modern aerial combat or do you just fire your missiles and hope for the best?
3. Stealth - Is it a matter of time before signal-processing technology makes today's stealth planes spottable?


Thanks.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:08 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 10):
but the SuperBug is no match for the MiG-29/35/Gripen WVR.

And it's no match for Rafale or Typhoon.

Only your opinion, not fact.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 10):
Typhoon would give you twice as many aircraft as F-22 for the same cost

No it wouldn't. They are not as cheap as people make them out to be.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:19 pm



Quoting Comorin (Reply 12):
1. BVR capabilities- isn't this independent of the aircraft - just Avionics?

Pretty much. A good RADAR and good BVR missile are key.

Quoting Comorin (Reply 12):
2. Is Dogfighting still a part of modern aerial combat or do you just fire your missiles and hope for the best?

For most civilized warfare, dogfighting will still be in the mix due to the need to identify the target first. It may not be a close turning fight, but still WVR.

Quoting Comorin (Reply 12):
3. Stealth - Is it a matter of time before signal-processing technology makes today's stealth planes spottable?

That capability has been around a long time. We (the US) take measures to ensure that no one is able to take RADAR samples of our aircraft while 'stealthed up'. These can be seen on F-117's (now retired) and F-22A's.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:33 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 11):
Last Jack, both the Eurofraduer and the Gripen have a lot of US tech in them. The Indians have this anti US fetish. If their fetish wins out over common sense then they will buy either the Mig-35 or the Rafale, otherwise the Super will be bought.

Ah well, I hoped to respect Comorin's desire to keep politics out, but since that hasn't remained the case, let me counter this. It has nothing to do with an 'anti US fetish'. The US is not a reliable supplier from our perspective; at best youre a temperamental control freak with ridiculous EUMAs attached to every military sale.

We're not an ally, nor are we geopolitically inclined to back US actions unquestionably. The US *cannot* handle military ties with such a nation. It simply doesn't work. You have a whole host of laws that kick in when any military customer does anything that gets in your way.

The last thing I want to see is, say us testing more nukes, and ending up with 125 glorified hangar queens when the US F-18 spares as part of a broad embargo in a vindictive hissy fit. That's why the Russians or French are better - not because they're longtime allies of any kind, but because they do business like businessmen, not as overarching globocops with too many conflicting interests that get in the way.

The deal is not about the best technical aircraft. It's about the best long term choice from a variety of perspectives, geopolitical included. Since the premise of this thread is to argue about the planes on solely a technical basis, keep it on those lines, and I will too...
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:42 pm



Quoting BarfBag (Reply 15):
Ah well, I hoped to respect Comorin's desire to keep politics out,

Lets set the record straignt as to who brought politics into this.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 10):
In an Indian scenario,

Reply 10

Quoting Alien (Reply 11):
The Indians have this anti US fetish.

Reply 11

Now Barfbag since you decided to write a thesis about the Indian fetish I will reply only with this. The US, as with any nation has a right and an interest in controlling who gets the technology that was bought and payed for by their own citizens. The fact of the matter is that the US, not the UK, not France and certainly not Russia will get stuck holding the bag if things go south in your neck of the woods. Tell me why should we trust a nation that still has significant anti US tendencies, that still has running sewage in their streets and who cannot keep the lights on for all of it's citizens yet has delusions of regional grandeur with some of our best technology.

So if you really want to talk about India I think we would be crazy to allow TOT and we would be foolish not to be willing to cut off your spares should you use the equipment we sell you in a way contrary to our interests. Rest assured the UK, France and Russia will cut you off just as quick if they thought you where using something they sold you counter to their interests.

Sorry for being so forthright with you Barf and I had deliberately stayed away from the actual MRCA thread but really this is all just think thinly vialed anti Americanism under the guise of "we don't trust you". Like I said, it's laughable. The trust is on the other foot and only Indian arrogance is blinding you to that fact.

Feel free to PM me or start another thread. I don't want to hijack this thread any more than either you or Jack have already.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:24 pm

Once again, I'll respond on this thread, since you started the subject on this thread, and not IM you.

All this talk about 'Anti-Americanism' is nonsense. More to the point, I'll call you out on your Anti-Indianism, and unless you desist, I'll respond accordingly and reject such accusations, whether or not you choose to pretend it amounts to Anti-Americanism.

The simple reason why the potential for conflicts of interest with France or Russia is low is that they simply do not have so many interests the region, and to put it more bluntly, do not interfere in the area much at all, compared to the US.

The US ought to sell its wares to those who'll follow you in your global wars. You simply do not have the systems in place to make it work when it comes to selling offensive weaponry to nations who pursue their own paths regardless of what US interests may be.

The so called 'arrogance' cuts both ways - we take our desire to act in our interests whatever anyone else's may be, just as well as you do. If its in our interest to work with the US, we will. If its better off that we not deal with you, we will. If we can get away with screwing you, we will. I fully expect the US or anyone else to have exactly the same approach.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:56 pm



Quoting Comorin (Reply 6):
I'm trying to keep that discussion off the table as it'll end up derailing a fun thread into a political thread

It was a nice try. Would have been a fun thread too, but.....  pessimist 
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
dalb777
Posts: 1698
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 9:35 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:12 pm

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1099/976687171_80fcf0d227_o.jpg
Geaux Tigers! Geaux Hornets! Geaux Saints! WHO DAT!!!
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:52 pm

Alien,

You’re right, F-22 and Typhoon aren’t in the same league. The F-22 enjoys a level of superiority over the Typhoon in the air-to-air role – though when Stealth is not required, though its lack of connectivity makes it less useful in a net enabled battlespace. It urgently needs the datalinks that will allow it to contribute seamlessly to the Global Information Grid.

Given some RoE, it also badly needs a helmet and a real off boresight weapon.

The Typhoon is not a ‘near-equivalent’ to the F-22 (nothing is) but if the threat is posed by teen-series fighters or ‘Flankers’ it will provide a similar degree of superiority. (With an F-22 you’ll win 95% of the time, with a Typhoon 80% of the time, and with an F-15 you’ll do well to achieve parity, given equal pilot skills, radar performance and weapons).

Against Iraqi MiG-29s an F-15C is a ‘near equivalent’ to the F-22 in that it will give a very high exchange ratio, and will provide cheap air dominance.

But against better opposition, the F-15 and Super bug will struggle, while the Typhoon provides real superiority. And interestingly, when pitted against the F-15, the Typhoon was preferred by the Singaporeans – the RSAF evaluation team wanted Typhoon and were overruled by the MinDef. Not by the Koreans – but that was long ago, when the aircraft’s maturity was such that entering a competition was pretty silly. The Typhoon is also replacing F-15s with the Saudi air force, and the JASDF team who flew the aircraft (all F-15 pilots) regarded it as a giant step forward compared to what they were used to. The JASDF want the F-22, of course, but if they can’t have it, I can guarantee that the JASDF choice will be the Typhoon, if the politicians allow it.

Checksixx,

The Typhoon’s superiority over the Teen Series is not my opinion, it is fact.

Typhoon flyaway costs are in the £42 m (RAF, Tranche 2) €61 m (Austrian) ballpark. That’s about $80-85 m – which is about half the cheapest flyaway cost of the F-22.
 
TGIF
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:01 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:17 pm

I'll try do put some logs on the fire to get this threat back on track. The topic is interesting and definatly worth discussing. I have several thoughts about the US/Indian relationship but I'll just have to bite my tongue.

Quoting Comorin (Reply 12):
1. BVR capabilities- isn't this independent of the aircraft - just Avionics?
2. Is Dogfighting still a part of modern aerial combat or do you just fire your missiles and hope for the best?
3. Stealth - Is it a matter of time before signal-processing technology makes today's stealth planes spottable?

1. I'd say for offence it's all about avionics. The airframe won't make any difference. A nice set of BWR missiles is of course important. Meteor should suit India well (and it not from US  duck  ). Defending your self BWR, stealth is of course important. Passive, little radar reflexion, as well as active, Jamming etc.
Regarding our six candidates I frankly don't know and given that many of the Indian versions just left the drawing table I think it's difficult for anyone to know.
2. Over the years (from WW2 to the wars in Iraq) there has been less and less dogfighting and I think (unfortunately for us "top gun fans") that trend will continue. If you do find your self in a dogfight situation I'd say you want to be in a tight turning fighter that will maintain its kinetic energy through those turns. With the countermeasures improving a Helmet Mounted sight might be a good aid.
3. None of the six candidates can, IMO, be considered as stealthy. I think a good "stealth" feature here can be a data link. This will enable you to retrieve information about your enemies without having to turn on your radar (I like the torch in the dark closet analogy. If you use your torch, you might find something but your foe will likely spot you.). Passive sensors are of course usefull here.

So... feel free to comment on this and hopefully we can discuss some about India's future fighter choice. I'm no expert, this is just my opinion...  Smile
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:28 pm

And the reason why the F-35 hasn't been mentioned in this list is because...?
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
TGIF
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:01 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:44 pm



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 22):
And the reason why the F-35 hasn't been mentioned in this list is because...?

It's not a contender in the Indian MMRCA deal and thats why the F-35/F-22 etc are not involved in this discussion.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:49 pm

I know it is a bit off-topic, but since the picture of it was posted in this thread, I just wanted to express this personal opinion of mine. When the race for the ATF was still on, I liked the YF-23 design better than I did the YF-22 design. Just for the looks and beauty of it. I do not know if it was better or worse performing in flight testing, and also do not know if it was more promising or less promising then the YF-22 which now has become the Raptor. I just do not know enough about the quality of both the designs. I only know that I liked and still like the YF-23 design, which looks a little bit like a Lockheed Blackbird, a lot better.

Sorry for the interruption, back to the topic. Here I can not say which fighter plane would be better for India. There are so many good designs out there nowadays. Many newly designed planes, but also some very mature and proven to be still highly capable designs. Whatever will be selected will be the plane the Indians like best for the price they have in mind. I have no idea which way this will go.
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 7:55 pm



Quoting TGIF (Reply 23):
It's not a contender in the Indian MMRCA deal and thats why the F-35/F-22 etc are not involved in this discussion.

My mistake, I didn't read the OP's statement correctly.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:16 pm

Alien

The OP set the Scenario: “High altitude Himalayas on one flank, and enemy F-16 squadrons based less than 10 minutes away on the other.”

Then outlined the aircraft competing for the MMRCA requirement.

EG: India.

Thus saying “in an Indian scenario” is not political. And it certainly isn’t derogatory.

Barfbag’s concerns about US sanctions and inability to allow ITAR are entirely valid (hell, even your longstanding allies are treated badly in these areas), though I’ll allow that he could have stated them more diplomatically. India has recent experience of the effect of sanctions (on its Sea Kings, after nuclear tests) and is naturally concerned.

It’s insulting and demeaning to refer to such concern as being an ‘anti-US fetish’.

But then dim-witted abuse seems to be your stock in trade – as your comment about “you should know that being the posh journo that you fancy yourself to be” shows only too clearly.

And I do wish you’d use the term Eurofrauder a bit more than you do, because every time you do so it demonstrates exactly what you are. And I don’t need to be (or fancy myself to be) a ‘posh journo’ to see that.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:28 pm



Quoting BarfBag (Reply 15):
The last thing I want to see is, say us testing more nukes, and ending up with 125 glorified hangar queens when the US F-18 spares as part of a broad embargo in a vindictive hissy fit. That's why the Russians or French are better - not because they're longtime allies of any kind, but because they do business like businessmen,

Hows that Russian carrier coming for you guys?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 1:28 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 20):
Checksixx,

The Typhoon’s superiority over the Teen Series is not my opinion, it is fact.

Typhoon flyaway costs are in the £42 m (RAF, Tranche 2) €61 m (Austrian) ballpark. That’s about $80-85 m – which is about half the cheapest flyaway cost of the F-22.

First...yes, it is your opinion, not a fact. Advanced systems are great and all, but there has been no combat between the two to make that a fact...sorry.

Second...yawn...I'll look the number up yet again...

2008 F-22A flyaway cost: $137.467 Million...and there is no 'cheapest' flyaway cost...that's it. At least give me this...if you were paying that much for the Tiffy...wouldn't you want the whole package? Not an air to air jet that will have air to ground added on later? Better RADAR...later? IRST...later? I would feel like I was just buying an F-16 in wolves clothing.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 1:57 am

$138 m is the F-22A 2008 unit flyaway cost to the US DoD. It's been higher. It will be higher again. The price will certainly be higher to non US customers.

£42m (about $84 m) gets you a Tranche 2 Typhoon with M-Scan Captor (yes it's M-scan, but it gives better range and better azimuth than any in service e-scan radar.....) and Pirate IRST.

With a helmet, off boresight weapons, and fully network enabled datalinks.

And with more air to ground options than eight SDBs.

There's been plenty of contact between Typhoon and teen series, and plenty of evaluations. Typhoon's superiority is fact whether you like it or not.
 
KAUSpilot
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:15 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 2:49 am

That F-16 is the meanest looking one to me. It looks like some kind of vicious insect with all the protrusions and bristling hardpoints. Based on economics, it's probably the one I'd choose.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 3:26 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 26):
But then dim-witted abuse seems to be your stock in trade – as your comment about “you should know that being the posh journo that you fancy yourself to be” shows only too clearly.

Now Jack don't make me quote some of your material from another forum.

I am priveledged to be able to talk to a great many people in the know, and all of the evaluations I have been privy to and all of the conversations I have had say the contrary Jack. I guess we must have different sources. But, lets not argue hearsay shall we. Why not cited facts?

Recent Unit cost of Typhoon to Saudi Arabia as one example. You pontificate erroneously, I give facts.

Quote:
Saudi Arabia ordered 72 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes from the U.K. at a cost of 4.43 billion pounds ($8.86 billion), the biggest export contract for the aircraft.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1085&sid=a_tmH4i16wBk&refer=europe

Quote:
According to the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation, the Kingdom will pay the same price for each jet as the Royal Air Force pays.

ouch!

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§...n=0&article=106119&d=27&m=1&y=2008

Quote:
Saudi Arabia on Monday confirmed it had signed a £4.4bn ($8.8bn) deal with the UK to supply 72 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft, a deal that could eventually be worth up to £20bn once associated contracts for servicing and weaponry are included.

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto091720071159263672

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 29):
£42m (about $84 m)

Well now according to published reports you are off about 38 million Jack. Latest Eurofighter flyaway cost is 122 million and change. Let me take you through the quotes.

1. Bloomberg says 72 units at 8.86 billion(122 million each). No mention of bribes but we won't include that cost here.

2. Saudi defense ministry says thats the same price the RAF pays.

3. FT says the deal is worth more if you add in servicing and weaponry, IOW the price is for the plane and a tank of gas to fly it off the lot.

So tell me again where you get your 84 million number from Jack.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 29):
With a helmet, off boresight weapons, and fully network enabled datalinks.

Helmet and Aim-9X not needed on Raptor. It gets the first shot in more time than not. You really should read those exercise reports. Currently they have a two way data link that works between Raptors and a one way data link for legacy platforms. It has worked out quite well in exercises as you as a journalist should know.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 29):
And with more air to ground options than eight SDBs.

That has been the only thing tested because it really is the only weapon it needs right now. Again you should know that the SDBs are released at high altitude and Mach numbers. This confers all the penetrating and range they need. In other words they act more like missiles than bombs when delivered at 60,000 feet at M2.0. Can the Eurofrauder do that? Lets see other than that you can fit two 1000 pound weapons internally and several external pylons (you know those things the Eurofrauder usually uses) are rated at 2000 pounds or more. You know about those external pylons, the Eurofrauder would always need to use them (draggy, increased RCS, G limitations) to carry it's ordinance externally. So that is 8 more weapons that can be carried internally by the Raptor than Tiffie can carry. Less drag, less RCS, no G limitations.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 29):
. Typhoon's superiority is fact whether you like it or not.

Thats not what the evaluations I am seeing and the people I am talking to are saying Jack.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 4:52 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 29):
There's been plenty of contact between Typhoon and teen series, and plenty of evaluations. Typhoon's superiority is fact whether you like it or not.

Sweet...please list some and post some links to the results, I'd love to see them.

Quoting Alien (Reply 31):
Recent Unit cost of Typhoon to Saudi Arabia as one example. You pontificate erroneously, I give facts.

Quote:
Saudi Arabia ordered 72 Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes from the U.K. at a cost of 4.43 billion pounds ($8.86 billion), the biggest export contract for the aircraft.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...urope

Doesn't that come out to around $123 Million each? Wow...they are REALLY getting ripped off.

Quoting Alien (Reply 31):
Currently they have a two way data link that works between Raptors and a one way data link for legacy platforms. It has worked out quite well in exercises as you as a journalist should know.

It works outstanding!
 
TGIF
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:01 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 5:22 am



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 28):



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 29):



Quoting Alien (Reply 31):

Since the F-22 isn't in the Indian MMRCA contest, will you please use some other thread (Best fighter WVR thread or something) to play F-22 vs. EF... It's not that I don't like the comparison, but it irrelevant in this discussion.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 30):
That F-16 is the meanest looking one to me. It looks like some kind of vicious insect with all the protrusions and bristling hardpoints.

I never liked the F-16 looks. I guess it has something to do with having one air intake on the belly (I have similar issues with the EF especially when standing on gears) . If the Rafale just threw away its refueling boom it would get my vote for most graceful. Meanest looking, the Russians always attract me on this one. It seems they never compromise looks for brute power. But this is just of course MHO.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 30):
Based on economics, it's probably the one I'd choose.

With Dassault not offering Mirages and Saab not going with Gripen C/D I think your right. With that many F-16 produced, it has to help lowering maintenance and spare parts cost.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 5:25 am

Back on topic. The following assumes Anetistan does not have the same anti American fetish that some other nations that border Pakistan and the Himalayas do.

Advanced F-16.
Good- AESA radar, helmet mounted sight, true super cruise (if cranked Delta variant is chosen), proven lineage, over 4000 built, competitive performance.
Bad- Cost, too similar to what the opposition is flying.

Rafale
Good-
Bad- Small customer base, not yet fully developed, cost, limited variety of weapons integration.

Typhoon
Good- Comprehensive electronics fit, fully developed integrated countermeasures and defensive avionics, above average, helmet mounted sight, perforrmance
Bad- Cost, lack of AESA, limited A2G ordinance and targeting

Gripen NG
Good- Good performance, competitive avionics, expected (relatively) low cost
Bad- Design uncertainty, limited(?) A2G, unproven AESA

Super Hornet
Good- Versatile, deadly dogfighter, all the "toys", fully developed AESA, wide variety of weapons carriage, large payload capacity
Bad- Cost, mediocre high speed performance

Mig-35
Good- Good performance, low cost
Bad- History of shoddy quality, uncertain


Top three picks
1. Super Hornet if I can afford it.
2. Gripen NG if development goes as planned and it comes in on time and within budget.
3. MiG-35 if I would rather get something that gets the job done and still have some money left over to address more pressing domestic needs such as installing a sewage system or building a reliable power grid.
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 7:19 am



Quoting BarfBag (Reply 15):
The last thing I want to see is, say us testing more nukes, and ending up with 125 glorified hangar queens when the US F-18 spares as part of a broad embargo in a vindictive hissy fit. That's why the Russians or French are better - not because they're longtime allies of any kind, but because they do business like businessmen, not as overarching globocops with too many conflicting interests that get in the way.

Until they need something then we will see.
 
IronDuke08
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:18 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 8:03 am

Well, if it were my money, at the moment, I'd say my finalists are the Typhoon and F/A-18E/F, and I would select the Super Hornet because of its excellent radar. Until the Typhoon gets an AESA radar, the Super Hornet is a better BVR platform, and WVR, I'll take my chances with the AIM-9X and JHMCS. Once the Typhoon's sensors are up to speed and the Meteor is on line, that'd be my choice.

Interestingly, I read in Aviation Week a few months ago that Boeing was looking at putting more powerful motors in the Super Hornet. That would be a pretty exciting development, one that would address almost everything derogatory that I've heard about the superbug.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 10:50 am

Alien,

I'd question whether anyone who can't spell the word 'priveledged' and who makes the judgements that you do is likely to have much access to good sources, but I'll take you at your word.

I speak to programme insiders on Typhoon (and other non-UK programmes) regularly, from CEO level downwards, and to the user community from CAS downwards. I have spoken to pilots of eight different nationalities who fly or who have evaluated Typhoon.

COST
Tranche 1 Typhoon unit flyaway cost: £45.45 m - source UK NAO, confirmed via FOI request in 2007.
Tranche 2 Typhoon unit flyaway cost: £42 m - source UK NAO, confirmed via same FOI request.

There is a more recent (higher) NAO figure, but this is confirmed to include costs which mean that it is not a unit flyaway costl, but contains major elements of what would make it a unit programme cost.

The £40-45 m ballpark cost is directly equivalent to those unit flyaway costs released by the German, Italian and Spanish Governments.

The Austrian price of €61 m was leaked and widely reported. It has been officially validated.

Whereas your claimed cost for Typhoon is based on a Bloomberg report which is arrived at by an estimated contract value (as a Government to Government deal the details of the Saudi contract are confidential), divided by the number of aircraft being delivered, but ignoring all of the other equipment and services being supplied under Al Salaam.

Raptor
The inability of the Raptor to contribute to the Global Information Grid is perceived by the F-22 community and the wider USAF as a major shortcoming, and great efforts are underway to provide a proper datalink. Without one, it was assessed that a four-aircraft formation of Raptors could be "as much a hindrance as a help" in large scale operations, "unless their unique capabilities were considered vital".

The Raptor's lack of a helmet sight is down to funding and the technical difficulty of mapping the cockpit (according to Lockheed and the USAF) and was always intended to be part of the aircraft's fit.


Iron Duke (and others)

AESA gives advantages in simultaneous A-A and A-G use, and offers interesting potential for jamming and data transfer. The technology offers better capability against cruise missile type targets. The technology promises increased reliability, better tolerance of minor failures, and lower costs of ownership.

I have no doubt at all that AESA will be the dominant radar technology in the future.

However, AESA still has some disadvantages today. Range is relatively poor, and because you use phase shifting to 'steer' the beam, range performance diminishes at the edges of the 'pie slice'. Azimuth limits tend to be lower than with a modern M-scan radar. If you look at F-pole and A-pole, the combination of reduced azimuth and lower range at azimuth limit can be seen to be significant.

In real world evaluations, most customers have been chary of Typhoon's lack of AESA before they fly the aircraft, but blown away by Captor once they experience it in the air. It's very much a case of performance today versus potential tomorrow.

For multi-role use, there's an argument for AESA now (though the USAF's conservatism in fitting the F-15 with AESA is interesting), but for A-A use - AND ESPECIALLY FOR BVR - Captor M is a better choice than an AESA alternative.

Specifically, when comparing Super Hornet (When is the AESA Block II finally going to make an operational cruise? Why the delay?) and Typhoon, Captor M has longer range, wider azimuth limits and much longer range at those limits. Those are key advantages in BVR. Typhoon is also faster, accelerates and climbs much faster (all very significant for BVR), and has better supersonic agility, while the pilot enjoys a better MMI.

If I wanted a multi-role aircraft tomorrow, and knew that I needed long range precision stand off air-to-ground weapons, then Typhoon would not be my choice. But even then, with its combination of Scalp and AASM, Rafale would be a better (if much more expensive) bet than Super Hornet.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 1:49 pm



Quoting TGIF (Reply 33):
Since the F-22 isn't in the Indian MMRCA contest, will you please use some other thread (Best fighter WVR thread or something) to play F-22 vs. EF... It's not that I don't like the comparison, but it irrelevant in this discussion.

Since this discussion is about a hypothetical situation simply based on that discussion, will you please refrain from telling us to use another thread to discuss it? Its not that I don't like the request, but its irrelevant in this discussion.

Thread start quote: "In reading DEVILFISH's thread on the MMRCA deal for the Indian Air Force to buy 126 'Medium' fighters, I was wondering which fighter would A.Net's Top Guns use to defend their borders? Scenario: High altitude Himalayas on one flank, and enemy F-16 squadrons based less than 10 minutes away on the other."

Quoting Alien (Reply 34):
Top three picks
1. Super Hornet if I can afford it.
2. Gripen NG if development goes as planned and it comes in on time and within budget.
3. MiG-35 if I would rather get something that gets the job done and still have some money left over to address more pressing domestic needs such as installing a sewage system or building a reliable power grid.

Nice listing...I would agree if limited only to those.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
The inability of the Raptor to contribute to the Global Information Grid is perceived by the F-22 community and the wider USAF as a major shortcoming, and great efforts are underway to provide a proper datalink. Without one, it was assessed that a four-aircraft formation of Raptors could be "as much a hindrance as a help" in large scale operations, "unless their unique capabilities were considered vital".

Uh...where did you get that from? Its a shortcoming, but not a major one. Also that thing about being a hindrance is completely bogus as we've proven on several occations that simply isn't true...quite the opposite actually. The only difference is how the information is transmitted.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
Specifically, when comparing Super Hornet (When is the AESA Block II finally going to make an operational cruise? Why the delay?)

They've already been out...
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 3:53 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
COST
Tranche 1 Typhoon unit flyaway cost: £45.45 m - source UK NAO, confirmed via FOI request in 2007.
Tranche 2 Typhoon unit flyaway cost: £42 m - source UK NAO, confirmed via same FOI request.

There is a more recent (higher) NAO figure, but this is confirmed to include costs which mean that it is not a unit flyaway costl, but contains major elements of what would make it a unit programme cost.

The £40-45 m ballpark cost is directly equivalent to those unit flyaway costs released by the German, Italian and Spanish Governments.

Apparently the cost is more in line with $136.3mil

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353665,00.html
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 4:10 pm

Yeah, that's right.

Because Fox (how apposite that they use the Sun as their source) know better than the UK MoD, the UK NAO, their equivalents in all four partner nations, and the Austrian MoD.

£40-45 m, €61 m, $80-90 m.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 4:18 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 40):
Because Fox (how apposite that they use the Sun as their source) know better than the UK MoD, the UK NAO, their equivalents in all four partner nations, and the Austrian MoD.

Never consider that people other than the Govt are capable of doing simple math, and that maybe the Govt doesn't want to admit how much the aircraft actually costs because it's a boondoggle that would cause high level officials to lose their jobs?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Thu May 01, 2008 11:09 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 40):
Yeah, that's right.

Because Fox (how apposite that they use the Sun as their source) know better than the UK MoD, the UK NAO, their equivalents in all four partner nations, and the Austrian MoD.

It's not just Fox Jack. It's Bloomberg, The Financial Times and the Saudi MOD. Lets give you the benefit of the doubt though. You where using old numbers and they did not include engines, avionics and a radar. Of cours that was merely an oversight on your part.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
I'd question whether anyone who can't spell the word 'priveledged'

I admit it Jack, you can outspell me hans down. Too bad your "facts" are not as accurate as your spelling.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
COST
Tranche 1 Typhoon unit flyaway cost: £45.45 m - source UK NAO, confirmed via FOI request in 2007.
Tranche 2 Typhoon unit flyaway cost: £42 m - source UK NAO, confirmed via same FOI request.

This would not be the first time a governement was less than forthright in what they are paying for something Jack. I tend to trust Bloomberg, The Financial Times and the Saudi MOD on this one.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
divided by the number of aircraft being delivered, but ignoring all of the other equipment and services being supplied under Al Salaam.

Wrong again, FT specifically said it would be worth 20 Billion if all of the support equipment maintence and training where included.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
For multi-role use, there's an argument for AESA now (though the USAF's conservatism in fitting the F-15 with AESA is interesting), but for A-A use - AND ESPECIALLY FOR BVR - Captor M is a better choice than an AESA alternative.

 footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth   footinmouth 
Thanks for the belly laugh Jack. Care to explain that one.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
AESA gives advantages in simultaneous A-A and A-G use, and offers interesting potential for jamming and data transfer. The technology offers better capability against cruise missile type targets. The technology promises increased reliability, better tolerance of minor failures, and lower costs of ownership.

You left one very important detail out Jack. It offers low probability of intercept as well. That Jack my boy is the secret sauce. Now it's not just LPI liek the Eurofrauder has Super Cruise, but real honest to goodness LPi in the face of heavy jamming and at almost any range. Why can it do that Jack? It all has to do with how radar maipulates RF so that the signal never rises above background noise. See Jack, turn Captor on and everyone sees you long before you see them

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
Specifically, when comparing Super Hornet (When is the AESA Block II finally going to make an operational cruise?

Summer of 2007.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 37):
n real world evaluations, most customers have been chary of Typhoon's lack of AESA before they fly the aircraft, but blown away by Captor once they experience it in the air. It's very much a case of performance today versus potential tomorrow.

Funny though there have not been too many customer for it unless you are in Europe and built it or you are bribed and need to replace your Tornados.
 
comorin
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Fri May 02, 2008 1:01 am

Thanks all for the wonderful information presented here. I was too busy watching 'Carrier' on PBS last night (amazing!) to step back in.

Some observations:

1. I remember reading about the F-18 intro in the house mag while at McDD in the 80's - would it's NG version still be modern enough for the next ten years?

2. There's been some very astute comments about Radar so far. Is it possible to buy a fighter but equip it with your own electronics, or is it too hard wired into the 'personality' of the aircraft? I believe the Israelis are quite the Radar 'meisters' these days. You guys are also saying that good AWACS and datalinks could compensate for inferior BVR capabilities.

3. Can the Super Hornet also serve on a carrier deck?

4. Strategy: Given that all countries in our scenario are nuclear powers, is conventional air warfare even on the table?


The wisdom received so far goes thus:

1. The Super Hornet makes a compelling case if sovereign supply guarantees are in place. But is it NG enough?
2. The F-22 owns the skies - don't even bother if one's nearby.
3. The MiG 35 is great, but reliability may be an issue.(IAF's MiG 21s are affectionately known as "Flying Coffins').
4. Gripen NG plans, rollout unclear - not a proven solution.
5. Rafale - a contender.
6. Eurofighter - A mean fighting machine but too tough on the wallet.
7. But, none of the above are stealthy - shouldn't this be a must?


Looking at it apolitically, the best solution would be to outsource Air Defense to the US with a squadron of F-22s. Much cheaper all around!  Smile

Thanks again.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Fri May 02, 2008 3:01 am



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 43):
If you believe Bloomberg and the FT over the NAO and UK MoD, then there's no arguing with you. You probably believe in creationism, too.

Well Jack both Bloomberg and The Financial Times are good enough for CEOs CFOs., CIOs, investors, bankers as well as other people in financial and executive positions so if they where to say that there was a case for creationism and there was a plausible story as well as additional supporting collaborative evidence from a diverse set of sources then I would have to start seriously thinking that creationism is a fact. While that has not happened with creationism, it has happened with the price of the eurofrauder.

Yet more collaborative evidence:

Quote:
for 72 Typhoons to Saudi Arabia last week and King Abdullah is expected to sign it any day. The contract will be worth about £5 billion to BAE initially, plus a further £5 billion in armaments and £10 billion in long-term maintenance.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...ors/engineering/article2441602.ece

From the MOD, albeit second hand.

Quote:
Current Eurofighters – when they finally go operational later this year – will be pure air-superiority platforms, good only for fighting other aircraft using advanced missiles such as AMRAAM. They have taken 22 years to develop. The MoD anticipates a final UK procurement cost of £20bn based on 232 planes for the RAF, which would work out at £86m per airframe.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/30/eurofighter_now_with_bombs/

So it should come as no surprise that it has been called

Quote:
a "charity" program for Europe's aerospace industry.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...cles/000/000/014/706lixzd.asp?pg=2
Now there is a ringing endorsement of it's capabilities.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 43):
Captor has its own LPI features and techniques.

Not so. It is physically impossible with a single emitter due to the fact that there is not enough frequency agility and the need to use more power at a given frequency to attain the same results as multiple emitters on different frequencies.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 43):
The Block II Super Hornet with AESA has not made a combat cruise. VFA-213 have been scheduled to do it twice, and failed to do so. Another unit (memory fails me as to which one) is now, finally, about to do so.

It will still be done years before CAPTOR or whatever first gen fighter AESA the frauder gets.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 43):
Sold to the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, Saudi Arabia.

Four of the six produce it and therefore have an economic interest in procuring it. Saudi Arabia was given to replace their Tornados. How about Singapore and South Korea?

Jack, people like you are the reason the plane is called the Eurofrauder. Stop over hyping it. It came 15 years too late, it is still not fully developed it lacks the ability to dominate the skies like the Raptor or (as designed) the F-35 will do yet it has a comparable price tag somewhere between the two.
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Fri May 02, 2008 11:51 am

If you believe Bloomberg and the FT over the NAO and UK MoD, then there's no arguing with you.

Bloomberg and the FT rely on non specialised journalists, who frequently get it badly wrong. I meet them regularly, and am horrified at their lack of specialised knowledge.

I note that you are now also quoting the Register - a site whose commitment to accuracy and sense can be guaged by their use of Lewis Page, and which has relentlessly pursued an anti BAE, anti-Typhoon line, and which is part of the 'Axis of Idiocy' which urges disbandment of the RAF, and acquisition of US equipment to save money. The total programme cost for UK Typhoon (audited at £19 Bn, not 20) divided by 232 gives a unit programme cost, not a unit flyaway cost. The Register's claim that Typhoons "will be pure air-superiority platforms" at FOC is also demonstrably false - they will have a swing role capability using PWII, EPWII, 1,000-lb bombs, and strafe.

£42 m is the unit flyaway cost for Tranche 2, down from £45 m for Tranche 1. That's the last true unit flyaway cost released by the NAO, and I've had it confirmed by the Typhoon IPT. Austria's original price was €61 m before it was negotiated down. That included an export levy.

The Saudi MoD have never released a unit flyaway cost for Typhoon.

There is no plausible story of a higher unit flyaway cost, nor any supporting evidence. There is plenty of evidence showing that higher quoted costs are NOT UNIT FLYAWAY COSTS.



The BVR advantages of an M scan radar which gives longer range, wider azimuth and longer range at azimuth (and better ECCM) are obvious. First Look, first shot. Typhoon TODAY is better for having Captor M than it would be in having an AESA radar.

Captor has its own LPI features and techniques, and a robust migration path to an AESA array is in place, thanks to the CAESAR programme.

The Block II Super Hornet with AESA has not made a combat cruise. VFA-213 have been scheduled to do it twice, and failed to do so. Another unit (memory fails me as to which one) is now, finally, about to do so.

Typhoon: Sold to the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, Saudi Arabia. Sold to Greece before Olympic expenditure forced cancellation. Preferred by the Singapore air force evaluation team. No bribes have been paid to anyone. Your attempt to drag the Saudi bribe allegations in is no more than mischievous trolling, as you know full well that the commission payments involved were associated with the Tornado/Hawk Al Yamamah deal.

Saudi Arabia is paying hard cash for Typhoon, and is doing so in preference to buying F-15s.

You ask: "How about Singapore and South Korea?"

The South Korean choice was made when Typhoon was too immature to be selected, before the partner nations had committed to Tranche 2, and when there was too much uncertainty about timescales. If you talk to the RoKAF pilots who flew the jet, you'll find that they were very impressed by what they saw.

Uncertainty as to timescales also undermined the bid in Singapore, though the RSAF evaluation team still recommended acquisition of Typhoon, but were overruled by MinDEF. Typhoon scored higher in the evaluation than its two competitors, in all areas. You will be especially interested to know that Captor M was rated above the AESA radars against which it was pitted.

Super Hornet: Sold to the US Navy, USMC and Australia.

Only if you expect Typhoon to be fighting against F-22 will it be unable to 'dominate the skies'. But it will give a very similar level of dominance over real world threats as is provided by F-22, but at much lower cost.

It will be interesting to see what level of superiority the F-22 has over Typhoon if the two aircraft meet at Red Flag.
 
comorin
Posts: 3857
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Fri May 02, 2008 12:40 pm

Enough already with the ding-dong battle on F-22 vs Typhoon - its off-topic and in the olden days, this would have been settled with a Duel  Wink
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Fri May 02, 2008 12:55 pm



Quoting Comorin (Reply 46):
Enough already with the ding-dong battle on F-22 vs Typhoon - its off-topic and in the olden days, this would have been settled with a Duel

You are right about that. Although it can be very informative to read about different opinions about different planes, the F-22 is not for sale to any other country (yet, if ever). So it plays no role in this discussion. No doubt she is overall the best fighter aircraft around today and in the foreseeable future, that is not debated here. All the other mentioned alternatives are for sale, so they do play a role here.

As I have said before, I really would not know which type to pick here. I just wait and see which way it goes!
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Fri May 02, 2008 12:58 pm

The F-22 wins over Typhoon, no arguments, no controversy.

No need for duelling.

Alien is trying to make out that a warmed over teen series fighter (the 'Super' Hornet) is a better aircraft, and that's what I'm taking issue with.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3797
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Top Guns: World's Meanest Fighter Aircraft?

Fri May 02, 2008 1:12 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 48):
that a warmed over teen series fighter (the 'Super' Hornet) is a better aircraft

That is indeed highly debatable Big grin compared to the Eurofighter, Rafale, Grippen, the MiG's,...... Big grin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: guppyflyer and 7 guests