DCS: Eurofighter Typhoon - Avionics - Page 11 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-20-2012, 09:35 AM   #101
falcon_120
Member
 
falcon_120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barcelona,Spain
Posts: 726
Default

I leave 2 press articles,just for fun,not telling they are true,but is always interesting:

EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON BOON! THE LUFTWAFFE TAKE ON THE F-22 RAPTOR AT RED FLAG
by Hush Kit, July 2012

- According to the Col. Andreas Pfeiffer, commander of JG74 “Typhoon is a superior dogfighter” to the F-22 in within visual range combat.
- Typhoon can out-climb the F-22
- Typhoon can out-accelerate the F-22

The confident statements by Pfieffer are significant for two reasons:

1. The F-22 is the aircraft to beat
Of course the Raptor decimated the Typhoons at Beyond Visual Range, a domain where the F-22 is still peerless. But, the Raptor is also one of the very best close-in dogfighters, thanks partly to thrust vector control (TVC).

2. These were German Typhoons
Luftwaffe Typhoons (for the sake of clarity I will not refer to them as ‘Eurofighters’ as the Luftwaffe generally does) are the worst equipped of the partner nations (the RAF aircraft are the best). To put it simply, if the worst Typhoons can put up a decent fight against the F-22, what could the best Typhoons do?
http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2012/07...r-at-red-flag/

Farnborough 2012: “Yesterday we had Raptor salad for lunch” Typhoon pilot said after dogfighting with the F-22 at Red Flag Alaska
July 13, 2012

In fact the last Red Flag-Alaska saw the first attendance by both the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 Raptors and German Air Force Eurofighter Typhoons.

As we have already reported, the Typhoons and the Raptor had the opportunity engage each other in dissimilar air combat training but only a part of the story about the outcome of the mock engagements has been reported so far: the one about the German commander saying that the F-22's capabilities are “overwhelming,” a statement that, according to Eurofighter sources, was taken out of context.

Indeed, Typhoon pilots at Farnborough said that, when flying without their external fuel tanks, in the WVR (Within Visual Range) arena, the Eurofighter not only held its own, but proved to be better than the Raptor.

Indeed, it looks like the F-22 tends to lose too much energy when using thust vectoring (TV): TV can be useful to enable a rapid direction change without losing sight of the adversary but, unless the Raptor can manage to immediately get in the proper position to score a kill, the energy it loses makes the then slow moving stealth combat plane quite vulnerable.

This would be coherent by analysis made in the past according to which the TV it’s not worth the energy cost unless the fighter is in the post stall regime, especially in the era of High Off Bore Sight and Helmet Mounted Display (features that the F-22 lacks).

Obviously, U.S. fighter pilots could argue that, flying a stealthy plane they will never need to engage an enemy in WVR dogfight, proving that, as already explained several times, kills and HUD captures scored during air combat training are not particularly interesting unless the actual Rules Of Engagement (ROE) and the training scenario are known.

However, not all the modern and future scenarios envisage BVR (Beyond Visual Range) engagements and the risk of coming to close range 1 vs 1 (or 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3 etc) is still high, especially considered that the F-22 uses AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, whose maximum range is around 50 km (well below the Meteor missile used by the Typhoon).

Moreover, at that distance the Typhoon IRST (Infra-Red Search and Track) system is capable to find even a stealthy plane “especially if it is large and hot, like the F-22? a Eurofighter pilot said.

Anyway, the Typhoons scored several Raptor kills during the Red Flag Alaska. On one day a German pilot, recounting a succesfull mission ironically commented: “yesterday, we have had a Raptor salad for lunch.”

http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fi ... on-raptor/
falcon_120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 09:41 AM   #102
OutOnTheOP
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 998
Default

And that's kind of my point... in BVR, it comes down to:

1) Can both detect the other outside the other's weapons engagement envelope? Check.

2) Do both have parity (at least currently) in BVR missiles? Well, same missile, so, yeah, check.

3) Do both have roughly the same service envelope and more-or-less same dash speed? Yeah, check, with, from everything I've seen, superior top-end on the Eagle, and superior sustained on the Typhoon.

4) Do both have roughly analogous ECM and ECCM? Tough one, not a lot of info in the open source realm on it. But given that ECM and ECCM can be retrofitted (are not airframe-dependent), and the Golden Eagle has picked up some substantial upgrades, I'd say yeah, probable. Check.

5) Are both capable of instantaneous turn rates that surpass the physical limitation of the pilots' G tolerance? Check. This is the only type of maneuverability that even sort of matters in BVR, anyhow. There's no need for sustained turns in the BVR fight.

So yeah, I'm going with more or less parity in the BVR fight. Can the Typhoon win the guns fight, yeah almost certainly. Does it matter? Not really. Don't see too many guns fights anymore. Enough to make maneuverability important, but by no means the MOST important thing.

I would imagine that superior endurance is really more pertinent- if both can detect the other outside engagement range, the Eagle (particularly with superior dash speed) can just keep the range open until the Typhoon has to tank or RTB, then go in for the kill when the Typhoon is forced to disengage.
OutOnTheOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 09:58 AM   #103
Innerloop
Member
 
Innerloop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrigan View Post
A Typhoon in DCS would be fantastic.

However, I must admit: Whenever I see the Typhoon I can only think of it as an uglier version of Gripen.



Well if you take it that way, whenever I see both of them I see 2 ugly versions of the Rafale

__________________
Spoiler:
Intel i7 6700k OC 4.6Ghz / Corsair H100i v2 / Gigabyte Z-170MX G1 Gaming / Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 3000Mhz / Corsair AX760 / Samsung SSD 950 Pro 512Gb / Intel SSD 240Gb / Gigabyte GTX-1080 G1 Gaming / Corsair 350D mATX / HOTAS Warthog, TFRP Rudder / TrackIR 5 / Logitech G110 Keyboard / Corsair Sabre RGB Laser Gaming Mouse / Razer Kraken Pro Headset / Dell U2515h 25" Monitor
Innerloop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:19 AM   #104
falcon_120
Member
 
falcon_120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barcelona,Spain
Posts: 726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOnTheOP View Post
And that's kind of my point... in BVR, it comes down to:

1) Can both detect the other outside the other's weapons engagement envelope? Check.

2) Do both have parity (at least currently) in BVR missiles? Well, same missile, so, yeah, check.

3) Do both have roughly the same service envelope and more-or-less same dash speed? Yeah, check, with, from everything I've seen, superior top-end on the Eagle, and superior sustained on the Typhoon.

4) Do both have roughly analogous ECM and ECCM? Tough one, not a lot of info in the open source realm on it. But given that ECM and ECCM can be retrofitted (are not airframe-dependent), and the Golden Eagle has picked up some substantial upgrades, I'd say yeah, probable. Check.

5) Are both capable of instantaneous turn rates that surpass the physical limitation of the pilots' G tolerance? Check. This is the only type of maneuverability that even sort of matters in BVR, anyhow. There's no need for sustained turns in the BVR fight.

So yeah, I'm going with more or less parity in the BVR fight. Can the Typhoon win the guns fight, yeah almost certainly. Does it matter? Not really. Don't see too many guns fights anymore. Enough to make maneuverability important, but by no means the MOST important thing.

I would imagine that superior endurance is really more pertinent- if both can detect the other outside engagement range, the Eagle (particularly with superior dash speed) can just keep the range open until the Typhoon has to tank or RTB, then go in for the kill when the Typhoon is forced to disengage.
I see your points,and as always,the most important factor would be who have the better training or who is the better pilot,but in this exact comparation the typhoon comes slighty on top over the Eagle in almost everything.In a BVR combat the thypoon will have the A-pole advantage in a similar way that the Eagle has and advantage over the F-16 for the past 30 years,as he will be capable of accelarate much quicker to M1.5-M1.6 and flying higher,which give you a range advantage even though they both have the same weapon.Take for example a Harrier vs Eagle engagement both with Amraams,altough they both have the same weapons is quite obvius that the F-15 will launch first,not because of radar detection but the Eagle will be flying higher and faster.The same way the typhoon can accelerate from a 0.9 CAP to M1.5 in half the time the Eagle driver can,and this way he'll be able to launch farther.All this will have no sense when the METEOR comes operational as the range advantage would be huge.
falcon_120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:30 AM   #105
OutOnTheOP
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 998
Default

Wait... so I just calculated the actual T/W ratios on the Eagle, Raptor, and Typhoon, since I was having some difficulty believing that Typhoon had THAT superior of T/W.

It doesn't. In fact, the more weapons you carry, the worse it gets, since they are (proportionally) heavier on the Typhoon than on the Eagle or Raptor.

At 50% internal fuel for each, and carrying 6x AIM-120, the DRY (Mil power) T/W work out to: F-15C= 0.95, F-22= 0.86, and Typhoon= 0.82

50% internal, 6x AIM-120 with full reheat: F-15C= 1.36, F-22= 1.29, Typhoon= 1.27

So I thought, well, maybe you were calculating for empty weights? That'd tend to favor Typhoon, as it has a very light empty weight.

Calculated, max dry thrust at EMPTY weight: F-15C= 1.25, F-22= 1.08, Typhoon= 1.06

Max reheat at Empty weight: F-15C= 1.79, F-22= 1.61, Typhoon= 1.63

Now, you may have pulled the T/W comparison off Wikipedia... or really, off a legit aerospace journal. It can still be inaccurate if the comparisons are made off different standards. Using the Wikipedia one as an example, their claimed T/W ratios for each are: F-15C= 1.12, F-22= 1.09, and Typhoon= 1.15.

Thing is, if you calculate it out, that means that the F-15C and F-22 were both calculated at full internal fuel, 8x AAMs, and full gun ammo (the math works out to the F-15C being calculated with 3,187 pounds ordnance and the F-22 carrying 2,790 pounds ordnance)

... the Typhoon's impressive 1.15 would have had to be calculated with full internal (as little as that may be) and only 282 pounds ornance (presumably gun ammo?)

Therefore, the Typhoon's 1.15 T/W is still an ACCURATE T/W calculation... but the Typhoon's empty T/W is invalid for comparison with loaded T/W of other aircraft.

That said, none of these factor in the effects of drag from external stores. Taking that into consideration, I'd say that the F-15C is the best fighter in the vertical, where T/W is king... and the F-22 is king of the horizontal fight, where Thrust-to-drag is damned important.

As to the Raptor bleeding speed too fast in a tight turn, that sounds amazingly like the AARs from F-15C pilots that faced Su-30MKIs at Red Flag... it's not so much a limitation of the aircraft, as inexperience of the pilot. They don't HAVE to reef the F-22 around the corner at absolute max pull, and considering the drag benefits of internal stowage, I strongly suspect that in an equal-speed, equal-radius turn, the F-22 will bleed speed less swiftly than the Typhoon, considering the F-22's better (but only VERY slightly) T/W and (I assume but have not calculated) better thrust-to-drag ratios.

Sounds to me like the F-22 pilots got too eager and hauled the nose around hard, hedging on ending the fight quick with one superior turn. That's why we do this training: figure out what works and what don't.

But yes, Meteor will make a huge difference. Against F-15 class fighters, anyhow. Against F-22, not so much.

*edit* And yes, loathe as I may be to admit it, Rafale IS a dead sexy piece of aviation!

Last edited by OutOnTheOP; 07-20-2012 at 10:35 AM.
OutOnTheOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:44 AM   #106
falcon_120
Member
 
falcon_120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barcelona,Spain
Posts: 726
Default

OutonTheOP we should be very cautious about calculating TW and other data from internet
as numbers can be deceptive and change a lot from some sources to others.Obviusly both the Raptor and the typhoon have a lot of classified data.
Once said that, those TW figures you put are weird, do the Raptor have a TW ratio smaller than that of the Eagle or even the Typhoon?
IIRC the Raptor is the plane with a bigger TW number out there,a bit better than the Typhoon but marginally better than that of the Eagle.
Anyway I'll look for numbers.
falcon_120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 10:55 AM   #107
OutOnTheOP
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 998
Default

Oh, I agree that internet numbers can be a bit wierd; most of the point I was trying to make is that depending on what METRICS are chosen to make a calculation, you can manipulate the outcome.

Similarly, I've heard that western AAMs generally get max range numbers off a calculation of some manner providing the maximum range for a certain Pk, while Russian AAM advertised max ranges are based on best-case scenario pure kinematic information: in short, the western max range is "the max range it's likely to kill you", while the Russian max range is "the max range the missile will fly before it hits the earth"

The F-22's relatively low T/W surprised me too, I always thought it had more crushingly high T/W. But, well, it's a big, big plane. 43,340 pounds empty. Of course, even if the T/W isn't as high as the F-15C, I strongly suspect the clean internal weapon stowage more than makes up for it.

I verified the thrust and weight numbers off manufacturer websites. This, of course, makes the assumption that their stated numbers are honest and accurate.
OutOnTheOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 11:05 AM   #108
falcon_120
Member
 
falcon_120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Barcelona,Spain
Posts: 726
Default

We can't forget,that a stated TW number doesn't give us the whole picture as other factor comes into play like drag,structural limitations etc...
There is a reason why the Raptor is capable on a M1.7-M1.8 supercruise,the Typhoon a M1.2-M1.3 but the Eagle is not capable of it.
New engines tecnology and improvements in construccions materials give some advantages like these.
falcon_120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 11:18 AM   #109
OutOnTheOP
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 998
Default

Oh, agreed... drag is just a hell of a lot harder to compute (hard enough that I don't feel like doing so for an internet debate, anyhow!).

That aside, when we start adding drag into the mix, it only makes things look better for the bigger fighters: the F-22 has the same drag empty as loaded, so you can bet that 1.8m supercruise is valid with a full A/A loadout.

I rather doubt the Typhoon can maintain supercruise with more than a couple lightweight missiles; drag just adds up fast.

...and like with weight, being small means that the extra drag of stores on the Typhoon is (comparatively) worse than on the F-15 or F-22: as the Typhoon is a small fighter to start with.

Let's just say Typhoon has an arbitrary clean drag value of "10", and the F-15 has an arbitrary clean drag of "20". Well, if an AIM-120 on pylon has a drag value of 1, that means that adding an AIM-120 increases Typhoon drag by 10%, but only increases the F-15 drag by 5%. So, like with fuel and stores weight, the more munitions you add, the worse the Typhoon is hurt.

That aside, I'm not sure I totally buy into the whole supercruise schtick. After all, thrust is, in the end, determined primarily by rate of fuel burn. While you can certainly gain SOME thrust efficiency with better engine designs, I doubt it's THAT much. What this means to me is that the supercruising engines are just capable of burning fuel at a faster rate in mil power than the non-supercruising engines. So if the supercruise engine needs to burn, say 18,000 pph (in mil power) to go 1.1m, and the non-supercruise one needs to go to min afterburner and burn 20,000 pph, then ultimately there's not THAT big an advantage... well, other than IR signature, anyhow

...that said, now I'm curious what the maximum mil power burn rates for the F-22 and Typhoon are!

*edit* well, no luck with F119 burn rates, but the F-100-220 burns fuel at 2.5 times the rate in AB as in mil to generate the same thrust. If I weren't all math'd out, I'd compare how long of an AB burn the F-15 could put up before it's increased burn rate over Typhoon overcame the fuel advantage...

Last edited by OutOnTheOP; 07-20-2012 at 11:25 AM.
OutOnTheOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2012, 11:29 AM   #110
JB3DG
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Innerloop View Post
Well if you take it that way, whenever I see both of them I see 2 ugly versions of the Rafale
No way!! Gripen is by far the sexiest of the 3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by falcon_120 View Post
The eurofighter is in fact,superior to the eagle in most aspects(superior TW ratio,superior maneuverabilty,MIDS(Link 16),better RCS,etc...)
The F-15C received Link-16 FDL somewhere between '95 and 2001.

Last edited by JB3DG; 07-20-2012 at 11:42 AM.
JB3DG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:32 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.