Will this thing be able to compete with the F-35?

F-35 is extremely superior, all other fighters must bow down.

>>33472167
>Real
F-35 says "Lol whatever dude," flies past the Typhoon without being detected and puts a big fat fucking crater in the Typhoon's runway.
>Top Gun exercise
F-35 gets spanked.

>>33472224
Don't Typhoons have their own advanced radar jamming shit which essentially is its own version of stealth technology?

File: 1445975993702.png (5KB, 400x400px)

5KB, 400x400px

>>33472238
That's uhh... Not how stealth works

>>33472167
>im trying to guess the weapon

Paveways? ASRAMMs? Meteors? BRIMESTONESSS??!!!!!

>>33472279
>advanced radar jamming shit

>>33472167
Both deploy guided missiles at each other, but both have the capability to disrupt the guidance system, so they do nothing accept waste ammo and spray flares and chaff everywhere.

This leaves them in a true dogfight, but the F-35 has no cannon so all it can do is out maneuver the Eurofighter, something it can do very well. Eventually the F-35 gets to altitude, goes into stealth and speeds off into the sunset with no clear winner.

>Vietnam: Air Edition

>>33472238
It just means whoever is trying to shoot at the plane wont get an accurate fix to fire his weapons.

File: f35bingo(1).png (2MB, 1430x1356px)

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33472294
let's begin

File: 1445472154555.jpg (236KB, 595x595px)

236KB, 595x595px

>>33472317
Ah shit, some shitposting of mine is relevant to one of the bingo sheets. Time to rethink life.

>>33472294
>both have the capability to disrupt the guidance system, so they do nothing accept waste ammo and spray flares and chaff everywhere
That's not how that works.

>>33472294
>HEY EVERYONE LOOK HOW FUCKING IGNORANT I AM

File: ea18g_vx31_45.jpg (325KB, 1600x1065px)

325KB, 1600x1065px

>>33472289
Jamming is way too different from stealth to replace it or even function similarly to it. Any kind of jamming involves sending out waves far and wide to keep your exact location hidden at the cost of giving your general presence to anything that can receive radio waves (like home on jam missiles, which can fire on a jamming aircraft without them ever knowing something was launched). Whereas stealth is meant to give out neither your location or presence.

>>33472294
Nice fanfic.

>>33472564
>Any kind of jamming involves sending out waves far and wide to keep your exact location hidden
No it doesn't. DRFM will only target the radar which is pinging you

File: 1467097994191.jpg (6KB, 250x204px)

6KB, 250x204px

>>33472622
>2 radars ping you

>>33472638
>thinking that is a problem

File: 1490134064469.jpg (94KB, 683x1024px)

94KB, 683x1024px

>>33472647
would you look at that, 2 radars

>>33472690
I don't see your point.
Reflected pulses will show up to both of them. Whatever goes into the DRFM comes back from the DRFM in the exact same direction plus with a few friends.

>>33472743
how does that work
it gives pings for the exact direction and just reaffirms that the ping indeed came from there

>>33472773
"There" is a very general area.
Sending a radar guided missile over "there" usually isn't going to do you much good.

File: Screen Shot 2014-01-28 at 11.10.05 AM.png (148KB, 1107x699px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1107x699px

>>33472238
Both have their own respective jamming/ECM systems. But jamming is not quite the same thing as stealth. And as a matter of fact, thanks in part to the F-35's low RCS, the F-35 can actually use jamming far more effectively than the Eurofighter can, even with a less powerful jammer.

For one thing, jammers broadcast radiation which, if strong enough, can be detect passively by RWR/ESM receivers, certain radar sets, and Home-On-Jam missile seekers (including AMRAAM). These passive receivers can't determine range or radial velocity, but they can detect bearing (direction), which can still be sufficient to launch an attack, especially at shorter ranges (a very sneaky attack too, since no radiation must be broadcast to complete it).

Secondly, even active radar (and the range and doppler information it offers) can still defeat jamming at short ranges. Jammers work by elevating the noise floor to the point that enemy radar receivers can't distinguish the target signal from this noise, but at close ranges the reflected signal gets stronger and "burns through" the jammer noise. Of course, the Typhoon reflects a signal much stronger than the F-35 does (over 1000 times stronger, in fact), so the F-35's stealth actually amplifies the effectiveness of its own defensive jammers as well.

And the "advanced" aspect smacks both ways. The jammer may be advanced, but this is largely in response to increasingly-advanced jammer-resistant radar. It's a constant electronic arms race.

>>33472638
>modulate between 2 channels
Gee, that was SO hard...

File: 1466875057124.jpg (854KB, 1920x2192px)

854KB, 1920x2192px

>>33472167
>Will this thing be able to compete with the F-35?

No, but it is a good compliment to the F-35 for countries that have both (Italy, the UK).

>the F-35 would lock on and shoot down the Eurofighter before the Eurofighter even knew it was there

F-35 is still just money pissed down the road to yankee monkeys.
When it does 1 fucking thing other than suck money you can talk it up.

Fucking useless cunting yankee pork project.

Have a nice day.

>>33473225
Which is useful for buyers.
POS.

File: EA-6B rear cockpit.jpg (2MB, 2240x1488px)

2MB, 2240x1488px

>>33472773
Modern defensive jammers mainly work by flooding the threat radar's band with white noise. If you elevate the noise floor, the radar can't even distinguish its own pings anymore.

With older lobe-switched or conical-scan radars, direction determination was time-dependent and you could break lock by amplitude-modulating the jammer signal (tricking the radar into steering in the wrong direction), but this doesn't work on monopulse radars and so more simplistic methods must be used. You can still ram false positives down the sidelobes of a monopulse antenna, though, creating phantom returns all over the scope or otherwise fucking with the radar's CFAR logic (this is the main method that directional offensive jammers use).

>>33473249
>asspainedchink.jpg

File: F-35 absolution.jpg (52KB, 640x360px)

52KB, 640x360px

>>33473249
>F-35A is now even cheaper than the Typhoon
:^)

>>33473343
Kek

>>33472773
It's more complicated than that - if a radar is sweeping past you for example, and you have your DRFM jammer output a stronger and stronger response *after* the radar sweeps past you, you can make it think you're off to the side.

Or when it pulses, you can pulse back with a delay or pre-emptively to make it think you're further or closer away (it'll think it's own pulse is just a weaker reflection from the ground or something).

File: 1401159278595.jpg (999KB, 2560x1600px)

999KB, 2560x1600px

>>33475441
Hi Dude,

I'm keen to know what kind of E-warfare tricks the F-35 can pull using the single pilot interface.

Other planes have a 2nd seat dedicated for this kind of shit - is it likely the F-35 avionics could offer the single pilot some "relevant" tricks from it toolbag based on the situation the sensors believe the plane is in?

This AI (assuming I'm not dreamin' like in the Castle) could be another thing uniquely offered by the F-35. Am I dreamin?

Greets from 4814!

>>33472288

To me it looks like (going from centre to wingtip).

4x Meteor
2x Paveway IV
2x Drop tanks
6x Brimstone
2x ASRAAM

It doesn't have a targeting pod, so would need another aircraft to designate targets for it.

>>33472294
>so all it can do is out maneuver the Eurofighter, something it can do very well

no it cant, a F22 can - some of the time- a rafale can if the typhoon is heavy and the frenchie flying clean, but in any ind of WVR engagement a F35 is too slow and not agile enough to easily evade a typhoon.

>>33475816
A typhoon is heavier and bigger than a rafale though, not sure it can be more agile. Both can out maneuver the f35 that said.

>>33472167
Who cares? They'll never fight one another. EF/F35 vs. SU35/T50 is the more interesting question.

>>33472294
The F35A has an internal cannon.

>>33472167
Aren't both of them supposed to compliment each other?

The typhoon will take advantage of its superior top speed and higher ceiling and will work as a "missile truck", connecting to the F-35, which has greater sensors and stealth, to track targets from a greater range, questionnably granting the same or even slightly better capabilities than a F-22 would do on its own. (At least thank to the superior sensors of the F-35)

>>33476165
The Typhoon is supposed to have much better engines that the Rafale, I have no idea how each other compare aerodynamically though.

File: F35B RAF USMC Eurofighter Typhoon.jpg (98KB, 2048x1134px)

98KB, 2048x1134px

>>33473149
This. EF2k + F35 is a very potent combination.

>>33476165
>>33476247

The Typhoons engines are more powerful, so the aircraft has higher thrust/weight ratio than the Rafale.

From one of the more complete enthusiast comparisons (using a RUSI report) https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typhoon-versus-rafale-the-final-word/

> The Rafale and Typhoon share common programme roots and as such are fairly similar in design and aerodynamic philosophy. The biggest difference is in the optimisation of the wing aerofoil and camber shapes, as well as the aerodynamically coupled vs uncoupled canards. Aerodynamically coupled/uncoupled canards refer to the interaction between the lift created by the canards and the lift created by the leading edges of the wings. Uncoupled canards -i.e further from the wing- allow greater control authority due to a greater moment from the centre of lift, but cannot be used to improve the high-alpha performance of the wing.

> Essentially Typhoon is aerodynamically designed to maximise manoeuvrability at supersonic speeds and relatively light (i.e. air superiority) load-outs. By contrast, Rafale’s coupled canards and wing shape is optimised for maximum lift generation and ordinance carrying capacity over a wide speed and angle of attack envelope.

So it is likely that the Typhoon has better high-speed manoeuvrability, as well as higher T/W. However, this only comes into play in WVR combat, and with improvements to HOBS IR-AAMs, isn't necessarily a major advantage. When the Typhoon gets CAPTOR-E, it will probably be clearly better as an air superiority fighter.

>>33476247
This.

>>33476245
Don't every planes have internal cannon? I mean when was the last time a plane had an external cannon?

Is there a reason the F-35B isn't called the hunchback?

>>33476316

External means podded. The F-35A has an internal gun, whereas the F-35B & F-35C need to use an external podded gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcln7StaEw

>>33476303
Thanks for the link, I already read somewhere that the Typhon was supposed to perform better at higher speeds, but because of the lack of a reliable source I didn't post it.

As much as people give shit on the F-35, I'm amazing how the Typhoon doesn't get as much flack. It's is one of THE most disappointing aircraft to enter service in the past few decades. It's performance, design, electronics have all fallen behind other contemporary 4th generation fighter aircraft already or the planned upgrades were cancelled or put on indefinite hold, orders have been slashed in the hundreds.

>>33472950
*poof* gone

>>33475640
A lot of EW is automated these days; in 4th gen jets like F/A-18Cs, F-16Cs, etc the new self-defence jamming pods only have one switch in the cockpit - on/off.

With the F-35 they'll undoubtedly have more control (because it's designed for electronic attack, not just defensive jamming), but what the workload is like, etc is unknown / classified.

Regardless, even if the workload is higher than usual now, it's only going to decrease going into the future; computers are vastly quicker than humans for this sort of thing and one of DARPA / the USAF's big goals at the moment is creating AI that can figure out how to jam never-before-seen signals while still in the air. They've recently done something similar and very successfully with the DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge, so it's just a matter of time.

Also - kudos for living in the superior state ;)

>>33476316
Most do but some don't: Growler, Advanced Super Hornet, Gripen D/F, MiG-25, Harrier, etc don't have internal guns (or any gun for most of them).

>>33476818
I didn't know they took off the Vulcan for the Super Duper Hornet. The more you know, I guess.

>>33476871
It's mainly because it takes up a heap of space right between the radar and the rest of the jet's avionics; the Growler needed that space to house EW systems, the ASH needed it for it's EOTS-equivalent, the newest concept, the F/A-18XT appears to regain the gun based on one render, but I'm not 100% certain of that (one of the main XT or Block 3 upgrades is improved comms and sensor fusion; they might end up needing that space for the necessary computers).

>>33476925
(Forgot to note - the F/A-18XT differs from the ASH in that they gave up on the stealthy weapons pod and stealthy IRST; the XT / Block III is now just meant to have new computers, comms, cockpit, as well as conformal fuel tanks and an optional IRST that sits on the nose of a fuel tank, like the Talon Hate pod for the F-15.

>>33476925
>>33476947
So are we going to see the USN go for the Super Duper Hornet? I'd at least look into the Weapons Pod, unless the cocks at Boeing say that you can't pick and choose (Not that Boeing is really in a position to do so).

File: f35bingo(1).png (2MB, 1430x1356px)

2MB, 1430x1356px

>>33473249

>>33476965
They're definitely going to be upgrading the Super Hornet into a Block 3 configuration; the Super Hornet won't really be survivable through to 2030 without such an upgrade (plus, even when the F/A-XX is introduced, it's going to be years until they completely phase out the Super Hornet.

As for the weapons pod; Boeing is saying that they feel that they have the right balance of RCS and cost / kinematic capability without it - the justification comes from the Navy, who are claiming that 2x Super Hornet and 2x F-35C squadrons per carrier is "the right mix".

With the Navy saying that, they're putting out the message that they don't want the Super Hornet and F-35C competing for funding, but rather that they want them both to be running separate races - leave the Super Hornets to be cheaper bomb and missile trucks and let the F-35Cs be the high-end strike and interceptor jets. If you dress the Super Hornet up too much, it loses that cost advantage.

Still, who knows, maybe Kuwait will be willing to help Boeing fully fund and develop the weapons pod.

>>33477040
Huh. I always figured the mixture of F-35C & Super Hornets was a good combo. How do Growlers play into that mixture? Is there a timetable for the F-35 to receive Anti-Radiation Missiles? I haven't seen anything saying that the F-35 is good to go for the HARM or the AARGM.

Hey fellow /k/ bro eatng at poly

File: orbital-atk-aargm-er-james-drew[1].jpg (132KB, 595x335px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 595x335px

>>33477095
There's going to be 1x Growler squadron per carrier / air wing as well.

As for anti-ship weapons; with Block 3F, the F-35 will essentially be dependent on the GBU-12 (or GBU-49 if they go with that).

That said however, the F-35C doesn't enter service until late 2018 or early 2019 with the Navy and Block 4.1 is scheduled to be delivered in late 2019. It's still a little bit unclear exactly what's being delivered with each of the four increments of Block 4, but the most recent articles and charts indicate that SDB-II is being pushed for Block 4.1, and that JSOW C-1 "Basic" will be ready then.

The SDB-II can handle things like patrol boats or larger boats via massed attack, the JSOW C-1 delivers a 1000lb warhead and has a low RCS.

Beyond that, the Joint Strike Missile is coming in Block 4 (possibly Block 4.2), and that'll give the F-35 a 300nmi ranged, 250lb warhead, stealthy cruise missile that can be carried internally.
Turkey's SOM-J has a similar timeline and delivers a stealthy cruise missile with a similar range, but double the warhead size.
Britain's SPEAR 3 is coming late in Block 4 and will bring a capability similar to SDB-II, but with a bit more range.

As for anti-radiation missiles specifically, it's been confirmed that the AARGM-ER (new version of HARM - see pic) will be carried internally on the F-35, though we haven't heard about a timeline. AARGM-ER has about twice the range of HARM (giving a ~160nmi range).

It's worth noting too that at this time, Block 4.1 and 4.2 are close to being locked in (funding is meant to start this year) but that 4.3 and 4.4 are still fluid (in terms of what's confirmed to be going in them).

>>33477284
>>33477095
And also obviously in the meantime F-35s can just guide in missiles launched from ships or Super Hornets.

>>33472995
This only applies to noise jamming
>>33473306
>mainly work by flooding the threat radar's band with white noise
Protip, they don't, but anything more advanced than noise jamming probably won't be discussed on /k/

>>33472945

Clench factor 10 engaged.

>>33476165
>A typhoon is heavier and bigger than a rafale though,
better T/W ratio, and canard placement optimised for agility, it also has a lower wingloading which would also be expected to increase its agility relative to the rafale

>>33476165

Basically, the Typhoon will out-climb, out-run and out-turn a Rafale in every possible scenario with equal loadouts aside from one very specific instance at WVR, when the Rafale has a sharper horizontal roll turn at low speeds due to its canard positioning favouring low speed and lift over the higher speed and agility angled canard placement on the Typhoon. This is an extremely niche turn however and is all but extinct in modern combat as it implies close in gun dogfighting only. A Typhoon would never need to close into a fight like this. Other planes like the Super Hornet or F-35 have huge AoA angles they could use instead of it too. This is because Rafale isn't optimised for air-to-air, it's put a focus on air-to-ground missions and carrier ops, which this canard positioning is truly meant for, the sharp low speed turn is just something that comes with that.

The Typhoon can however be upgraded to exceed that with the AMK kit, which gives it a patently absurd turn rate.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-damps-completes-typhoon-aerodynamic-testing-414684/

"Designed under the Eurofighter Enhanced Manoeuvrability programme, the Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK) includes additional fuselage strakes and root extensions, which increase the maximum lift created by the Typhoon’s wing by some 25%, Airbus says."

“We saw angle-of-attack values around 45% greater than on the standard aircraft, and roll rates up to 100% higher, all leading to increased agility,” says Eurofighter project pilot Raffaele Beltrame. “The handling qualities appeared to be markedly improved, providing more manoeuvrability, agility and precision while performing tasks representative of in-service operations."

>>33472317
>Implying passive radar technology won't !eave stealth useless for a fraction of the development cost.

>>33473306
Rear cockpit of the Prowler looks so comfy

File: 1490887286320.png (1MB, 1430x1356px)

1MB, 1430x1356px

>>33477745

>>33477801
Could also count as "stealth is obsolete"

>>33477448
dudes butthole would've turned into a black hole (lol) if it had been any closer.

>>33477801
Passive Radar, especially the newest development.

>>33477382
>This only applies to noise jamming
Yes and no. Other jamming methods still have to have a strong enough noise/false-return/whatever signal strength to function, so most of the principles still apply even if it's something more sophisticated than white noise being used.
>anything more advanced than noise jamming probably won't be discussed on /k/
Did you even read the entire post? I literally JUST mentioned two forms of deceptive jamming and why one of them does not work against modern monopulse radar, and that the other one is only practical with powerful beamforming offensive jammers.

>>33472238

Only in tranche 3

File: semper fi.jpg (186KB, 594x799px)

186KB, 594x799px

>>33472180

>Eurofighters bow down to F-35
>Stationed at airbases all over the world
>There is no money in the Army Budget, only the Air-force Budget
>Next world war will be won soley by F-35
>Posses ayy-lmao technology
>I dont feel like memeing anymore

pic somewhat related

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-30 at 1.49.12 PM.png (112KB, 879x561px)

112KB, 879x561px

>>33479115
>>33477745
>M-muh bistatic radar defeats stealth because stealth is designed with monostatic radar in mind!!!111
Yeah... no. Bistatic cases are much harder to analyze but they're no more likely to pick up a strong return than a monostatic radar is. In both cases, a surface normal of the target aircraft has to be pointed in JUST the right direction to reflect a significant amount of radiation from the emitter to the receiver. This is not uncommon with non-stealth aircraft, with an exterior consisting of numerous large complex curves that scatter incident radiation in all directions, but a stealth aircraft makes use of flat faceted surfaces and simply-curved surfaces to minimize scattering and restrict the directions of specular reflection to a few select angles.

Think of it this way - a monostatic radar is analogous to you standing in the dark with a flashlight, while in the bistatic case, you are standing some distance away from a lantern which is sitting on the edge of a table. Somewhere in the area there is a large polished round metal ball (a non-stealthy reflector), and a flat polished mirror of the same size (a stealth reflector). Whether you're holding the flashlight or it's the lantern sitting on the table, you'll probably be able to see a small glint of the light source reflected off the ball towards your eyes, no matter where you're standing. But to see the reflection of the light source on the flat mirror, the mirror must be pointed VERY specifically - either straight at you in the case of the flashlight, or at the bisecting angle of you and the lantern in the bistatic case. When the reflection DOES show, it will be very strong, but if that angle isn't JUUUUST right, you ain't seeing shit.

>>33478677
Nah, he would have relaxed when he died.

It can't even compete with an F-16.

LOL Fucking idiots typhoon comes in a lot of variations, SEAD, Ground target attack, accurate support fire and some brimstone II thermobaric atgms. F-35 can BTFO. Has no gun and I doubt it would outperform A-10 in a CAS role. Idiots.

>>33480517
>LOL Fucking idiots typhoon comes in a lot of variations

not really thats part of the beauty of it, it comes in several models as its development has progressed but there is no real variation within a production tranche, a typhoon is adapted to its role by changing its loadout, not the plane itself, a plane can be switched from a short/midrange air superiority configuration to a longrange strike or sead simply by landing and changing out its pylon contents

>>33480966
>like almost every other fighter in history

>>33479367

Tranche 2 and 3, from the P2E package onwards to gain the Praetorian DASS system upgrade.

>>33475441
>if a radar is sweeping past you for example, and you have your DRFM jammer output a stronger and stronger response *after* the radar sweeps past you, you can make it think you're off to the side.
This won't work against modern monopulse tracking though, since monopulse tracking relies on simultaneous signal measurements, not time-variant ones.

>Or when it pulses, you can pulse back with a delay or pre-emptively to make it think you're further or closer away
Yeah, that still works, since range measurement is always timing-dependent. It's known as range gate pull-off.

You can also just blind the radar with white noise too.

One of the largest and simplest advantages of DRFM that you seem to be missing, though, is it helps a jammer focus it's radiated energy in the hostile radar's own passband, rather than barrage or sweep jamming across the entire spectrum and wasting much of that energy on frequencies that will simply be filtered out by the target radar.

>>33475640
It really isn't that new, and it's definitely not unique to the F-35. Automatic ECM modes have been around since the '80s, possibly even earlier. Most of the logic is already there in the RWR, for analyzing the received waveform and classifying the threat radar by type (if cataloged) and mode. The rest is basically just getting the RWR to control when and how the ECM system starts jamming things. You can call it AI if you want, I suppose. It's just algorithms.

>>33481384
>This won't work against modern monopulse tracking though, since monopulse tracking relies on simultaneous signal measurements, not time-variant ones.
True, but shouldn't DRFM still be capable of confusing the target bearing of a - monopulse radar if you have an ESM sensitive enough to pick up neighbouring beams (I would assume that the F-22, F-35 and Growler's would be capable of this) and you can output the necessary polarity / polarities (AFAIK NGJ will be able to do that; ALQ-99 can but it's an analogue system)?

>>33473149
what am I looking at here?

>>33482041
Those circled red things are Luneberg lenses - things they bolt onto stealth aircraft to mask their real RCS and to make them visible to ATC radars.