Dueling

[igorski]

ah well... at least we have (some) Typhoons

[Craig.]

I wouldn't be surprised if they have a shorter takeoff run. Give them a tail hook and shove em on the carriers. Better plane anyway. the JSF misses the point of the harrier altogther. Its a light aircraft with VTOL capabilities to land just miles from the front line so it can be in the fight quickly back to base and back in the fight again. Thats why it wasnt designed to go supersonic. The navy adapted the design to some sucess but i dont know how well the jsf will fit in with the royal navy.

[igorski]

The take off run is a few hundred meters I believe, 300 maybe, better, more capaple yes, but more expensive, and no vtol option. Though I for one would like to see more Typhoons  8)

[Craig.]

Not enough to make a difference. JSF i believe costs 37 mil and rising. typhoon sits at about 47 to 51 mil. The JSF is not VTOL capable in combat config. its stovl capable when fully loaded but obviously not enough for the carriers

[Woodlouse2002]

It has the most advanced avionics in the world, it is the first stealthy fighter, and it is the first production fighter with thrust vectoring and supercruise.

I do love the way people harp on about supercruise as if it's just been invented. The RAF had it's first supercruise fighter over 40 years ago with the EE Lighting. I must also point out that the EE Lightning could out climb any aircraft that dared take it on (except the harrier. But that took off vertically and was at 10,000 feet before the Lighting had got to the end of the runway.) and could also outmanuvre just about anything too. Before you say anything, yes the Lightning did outclimb the F15. The Lighting was better than the F15 so I'm afriad Craig the F15 was outclassed even when new.

As for the F35, who ever thought anyone but Britain could build a VTOL aircraft that worked properly? If Bae still had the rights to the Harrier and the proper funding it would have gone supersonic years ago. Infact, if it wasn't for red tape the Harrier would have been supersonic from the word go.

So, before you go on anymore, stop and think. Is the plane your promoting better than the EE Lightning? Is it as ahead of it's time as the EE Lightning was? Then once you've thought about that continue and say the Lightning was great.

P.s. Other great Jet fighters include the Buccaneer, the Folland Gnat, the Sea Vixen and the Hunter.

[Craig.]

I wont debate the lightning was good but it also had problems. firstly it was out of fuel by the time it reached the end of the runway:) secondly it had poor armaments. As for it being better than the F-15, i believe it was, but since i dislike the F-15 i am not upset by it

[igorski]

last i heard Typhoon had a unit cost of aroud 70 million each, maybe a little more.

and the dont make em like they used to! lol The lightning was great for its time, but these days, a Typhoon, can out climb it, has longer range, and better armerment, and speed is roughly the same as far as I know, the Lightning may be slightly faster, i know you can poin the nose down at high alt and go supersonic in idle thrust....

[Woodlouse2002]

I wont debate the lightning was good but it also had problems. firstly it was out of fuel by the time it reached the end of the runway:) secondly it had poor armaments. As for it being better than the F-15, i believe it was, but since i dislike the F-15 i am not upset by it

It was a fighter designed for the defence of the UK. It didn't need the fuel to fly halfway round the world. And it's armaments were as good as was avaliable in the 60's.

But what I really want to know is, why do people think supercruise is new?

[igorski]

The Lightning was NOT designed as a fighter (initially) it was designed as a research aircraft (hence the short range) then used with radar and missiles as an interceptor / fighter.

[Craig.]

who said it was? it is new for modern fighters. But lets face it the lightning was at mach 1 as soon as you released the brakes:)

[igorski]

erm..

It was a fighter designed for the defence of the UK

Cant disagree on the speed though  :D

[Woodlouse2002]

The Lightning was NOT designed as a fighter (initially) it was designed as a research aircraft (hence the short range) then used with radar and missiles as an interceptor / fighter.

Actually, the Lightning was designed from the outset as a fighter. However the plan was so advanced that a research aircraft had to be made first.

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk ... story.html

[igorski]

I heard my version from a Gp Capt in the ATC but either sound equally likely.

[Mobius]

Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an operational evaluation comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35. Due to the lack of information gathered on the 5th generation combat aircraft and the Su-35 during the time of this study it is not meant to be considered official.

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


Aircraft       Odds vs.
Su-35
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor       10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon       4.5:1
Dassault-Breguet Rafale C       1.0:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker'       1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle       0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+       0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C       0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C       0.3:1

Sorry for the quote box, but I found this kind of interesting.  It is a chart of how well different aircraft perform against the Su-35.

[Craig.]

They better start building more and more SU35's or hope they dont come up against the Raptor or Typhoon.