[-]

stillaras@reddit

That peaked my interest. Loved the man in the hight castle before. I am going to check the movie

[-]

rocketrex504@reddit

How the f14 almost did crash during filming and the pilot pulled off the impossible to not hit the deck

[-]

james_t_woods@reddit

I'd forgotten about that film - and that they ignored all the timey-wimey stuff :D

[-]

AuroraHalsey@reddit

And then gets sent back moments before it fights the IJN fleet.

What a tease and let down.

[-]

MightyTribble@reddit

Yeah, it would have been great if they'd just embraced the premise (you've already sent a Nimitz back in time, run with it) and had it end with the Nimitz curb-stomping the IJN and the movie ending with everyone looking at each other and going, "huh, what now?" and some bright spark piping up saying, "You know, we've got a bunch of nukes in the bunkers and WWII is still happening in Europe..." Sets things up nicely for a sequel.

[-]

Tasty-Fox9030@reddit

Personally I'd want them to obliterate the IJN and cruise back into Pearl at the end- which just so happens to be speaking German.

Yes, I read that one too, decent book.

It's not a wholly original idea I grant you but it does try to look at things from a different perspective. For example some of my main characters are German officers trying to figure out just what the hell has happened, and how they can use this information.

The fact that the UK is actually now severely on the back foot industrially really changes the dynamic of things from our timeline.

[-]

Alphasite@reddit

I think it’s actually a really interesting idea. I’d love to read it when it’s done! I’m a sucker for these types of things

[-]

Nonions@reddit

Currently there are about 12 chapters done.

I've posted the first 2 here, have a look and let me know if you want to read on. https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldWar_UK/

[-]

Alphasite@reddit

Ok read chapter one and quite enjoyed it! Interesting setup

[-]

andyjh83@reddit

Chips and electronics. Absolutely a problem.

Design Engineering. Short term problem until we explain the metric system / knock up some conversion tables.

Engineering capacity. Better in WW2 than now, arguably.

Work ethic. Say less.

Explaining to folk of the 1940’s why our government doesn’t control the defence industry and we’re allowing a 9000% markup on basic tooling, fixtures, barrack services to ‘Babcock’, ‘Serco’, ‘Sodexo’, ‘ESS’ etc: Well that might be the most confusing thing of all.

MightyTribble@reddit

"turn in your computers and smart devices! Your country needs silicon for the war effort!"

[-]

quorthorn1@reddit

That’s right up my street. I’d be interested to read that. Any plans to release it on Kindle?

[-]

Nonions@reddit

Still a way off from that, but there are about 12 chapters done.

Some clever backyard engineer would be able to fit WW2-era 20mm cannons somewhere on the Typhoon. There was a shit-load of clever changes to planes.

Well you have to be willing to sort of accept a bullshit reasoning to start with like you do with any kind of sci-fi/fantasy setting. If you can suspend your disbelief for that though and just accept the scenario for what it is then a whole world of possibilities opens up.

I hoped to explore questions like of we would be capable of the levels of sacrifice that previous generations were - could we live up to that and avoid their mistakes? Does our modern technology really make us better than our forefathers, or has it made us decadent? If we really were in this scenario how would we react?

[-]

Lundetangen@reddit

I guess you wouldnt have fuel or missiles that are compatible with it, and would assume most of its modern sensory would not function, so maybe 1 good hour of runtime?

[-]

IndividualSkill3432@reddit

Just imagine how awesome it'd be to have a typhoon at D-Day

*Focke-Wulfs, not Fokkers.

"Fokkers" were Dutch, and their association with Germany comes from heavy use of Fokker aircraft in the First World War.

[-]

Atholthedestroyer@reddit

Due to the similarity in names, the FWs were often called Fockers as short hand...

[-]

IronWarrior82@reddit

Not by anyone in WW2, they weren't. They have been mistakenly referred to post-war in that manner.

In WW2 the allies called Focke-Wulf FW-190s "Butcher Birds."

[-]

zagoraju234@reddit

All 8 of them, and then you have to wait for 70 years to reload missiles

[-]

zipzipzazoom@reddit

You haven’t heard of the lucky BB have you. War is dangerous.

[-]

you won't believe what I'm about to tell you

I agree, but it's payload is about four B-17s so it's nothing to sneeze at

Eurofighter Typhoon payload 19,800 lb (9,000 kg)

B17 payload up to 4,800 lbs (2,200 kg)

[-]

cat_prophecy@reddit

It's funny to think of now that the B-17 was a "heavy bomber" for the time. A B-1B can carry nearly 6.5 times as much payload internally.

[-]

Any_Foundation_661@reddit

It's funny to think of now that the B-17 was a "heavy bomber" for the time

That livery is sick as fuck.

Strega007@reddit

Don't mistake this anecdote into the belief that "the F-15 Strike Eagle isn’t an A2A machine". Of course it is; that's half of the airplane's purpose for existence.

For many years, the APG-70 was a better radar than the C-model's APG-63, and had the added benefit of the various flavors of targeting pod and better sensor fusion. It is was *very* capable for most of its service life. Despite the added drag and weight, even the early block jets had the more powerful PW-220 engines when the C models had -100s, and later blocks had the PW-229 engines when the C models went to 220s.

In training fights against essentially every other 4th gen fighter during the late 90s and 00s, I killed as many of them as they did of me. It can still put on a reasonable 2-circle rate fight and 1-circle low speed fight.

These days with the AESA, the better EA/RWR suite, JHMCS, AIM-9X, and other toys, it still has plenty of life.

She's well outclassed by the 5th gen jets at this point, but still can pull its own weight in the air-to-air role.

[-]

-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit

For many years, the APG-70 was a better radar than the C-model's APG-63, and had the added benefit of the various flavors of targeting pod and better sensor fusion. It is was very capable for most of its service life. Despite the added drag and weight, even the early block jets had the more powerful PW-220 engines when the C models had -100s, and later blocks had the PW-229 engines when the C models went to 220s.

Might surprise you to know that they combined the OFPs of the C, E, and EX and added three MFDs into the C.

And I have a few buddies who fly the EX now - that thing has not only the GE -129s, but the APG-82 so it really combines the best of the C's and E's with some extra new stuff on top

[-]

Lonely_Accountant524@reddit

Did they say anything about the FBW in the EX? I've heard that it is a massive upgrade in terms of maneuvering and responsiveness.

[-]

-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit

Did they say anything about the FBW in the EX? I've heard that it is a massive upgrade in terms of maneuvering and responsiveness.

Yes - significantly easier to fly since you don't have to worry about aircraft limits as much, it is significantly more departure resistant as well, allowing you to better fly the plane to the edge. I have logged a 1.5 in an E on a guest sortie, and it was easy enough to fly IMO, so the EX must be just that much easier to be noticeable to an experienced Eagle driver

[-]

FunWonderful1936@reddit

Check your Chat

[-]

ariane_512@reddit

This may be a bit of a broad question but, I was reading a Swiss procurement article a while ago that left me curious-

The Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter were all listed as having largely similar performance in the report, with the Rafale just barely taking the step in multirole/recce capabilities.

Which- to the question, would you say that you had to treat (assuming you trained against these aircraft) a Gripen, Eurofighter, or Rafale differently? How would you say Eurofighter stacked up to the others? (or vice versa!)

It's so cool to see an F-15 pilot answering questions and talking about your work on here, tbh. I currently live near a USAF base and see them every time I visit the airport- but it was reading about the celestial eagle programme in the 1980s that really gave me a new respect for what your airframe is capable of.

[-]

Thercon_Jair@reddit

With how much has surfaced about how the Swiss Air Force really wanted the F35 to win and the shenanigans with hidden costs, maintenance costs and procurement costs, in an effort to make the F35... I am not sure how much I would trust the procurement article.

When you only have one good trick, you have to be good at it.

At least we could beat up on F-14As.

[-]

MikeyPlayz_YTXD@reddit

How exactly would you “beat” F-14A’s in the strike Eagle?

[-]

Tailhook91@reddit

Dissimilar dogfighting training. We do it literally all the time.

[-]

MikeyPlayz_YTXD@reddit

I don’t mean that. I mean how would you “beat” the better dogfighter in the dogfight consistently?

[-]

Strega007@reddit

The F-14A was not in any way a "better dogfighter". Even the -220 powered F-15E had more power and a better sustained turn rate. The best tactic was to use the vertical...to hit the merge at 450-500, then a best-rate turn (single rate beeper on the G meter) into close to the vertical while keeping the lift vector on them. The Tomcat would run out of energy pretty quickly and the nose would fall.

This was a repeatable tactic; the nice part was that they usually were visually translating their energy state based on wing sweep.

[-]

MikeyPlayz_YTXD@reddit

What he unironically said: "The F-14A was not in any way a "better dogfighter". Even the -220 powered F-15E had more power and a better sustained turn rate. The best tactic was to use the vertical...to hit the merge at 450-500, then a best-rate turn (single rate beeper on the G meter) into close to the vertical while keeping the lift vector on them. The Tomcat would run out of energy pretty quickly and the nose would fall. This was a repeatable tactic; the nice part was that they usually were visually translating their energy state based on wing sweep."

We can be. The only thing that reliably beats us (if you’re not allowed to use a JHMCS) is Raptor and Eagle. Vipers can be a close fight, that comes down to the pilot and especially their experience against Rhino.

I may not be fast, but I will ALWAYS get the first shot and I can point my nose wherever I want whenever I want, and if you get slow with me it’s over. I’ve comfortably fought in the Rhinos as slow as 80 knots.

[-]

Nicedudeyesdude@reddit

Never fought a Rhino but also fun doing FI with em.

[-]

nukethesite_orbit@reddit

You’re not pointing uphill very far. Which is where I (Viper) am sitting after you’re slow. Fought plenty of legacy and Rhino. And Mirage 2000s etc. Initial bat turn is impressive of course. Rather easy to create vertical turning room above. Felt like you guys bled off energy a lot like the Strike Eagles.

[-]

mikePTH@reddit

May I ask a delicate question? I grew up with the F-16 Fighting Falcon. When did we make that name change? Falcon makes waaaaay more sense for that bird than Rhino from outside the service. I mean, it flys like a small falcon, and rhinos can’t fly.

[-]

TypicalRecon@reddit

I’ve comfortably fought in the Rhinos as slow as 80 knots.

Wich is even more surpising when you consider that it's holding back the entire time:

The EJ-200 normaly operates in a reduced power state to increase engine life

peacetime mode: 60 kN dry 90 kN wet

wartime mode: 69 kN dry 95 kN wet

emergency mode: 102 kN wet (+14,5% thrust)

Qatar certainly got the AESA equipped Typhoons as we only sent the last 2 over that way at the end of last year.

I think the RAF might be getting it some time next year

[-]

Funny-Carob-4572@reddit

Lol, probably in 10 years when they finally finish a defence review, only to find in the meantime they cut everything and there is nothing...

[-]

collinsl02@reddit

We're due to replace the Typhoon sometime around then with whatever new plane we're building with the Italians and Japanese (and hopefully the Germans) so it would make British MoD levels of sense to fit a brand new radar right before scrapping it.

[-]

BillWilberforce@reddit

BelowAverageLass@reddit

Then the Typhoons didn't have AESA radar but the mechanically scanned Captor radar. That said, it is a damn good radar

[-]

flippydude@reddit

“Fastest cart horse in the world”!

I think the RAF is still upgrading their typhoons to AESA.

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't we in an age of airfighting where detected almost always means destroyed before a visual engagement can take place (unless one gets destroyed first themselves of course)? With stuff like AWACS and Meteor missiles ...

Feel free to throw me some keywords I can google if you don't feel like explaining.

[-]

Strega007@reddit

No, no air battle or engagement is perfect.

Visual merges occur regularly, especially in large force exercises. Missiles do not have a Pk of 1.0. The pink meat-bags can miss seeing things on sensor displays, make errors of perception/decision/execution, and be deceived by EA-decoyed/deceived sensor nodes.

Sensors and weapons are great, but they are not magic.

[-]

lemonfreshhh@reddit

very insightful, many thanks!

[-]

Lonely_Accountant524@reddit

Was this with the CFTs on or off? I heard somewhere else that the E is not bad with the CFTs off, but a pig with them on because of the extra weight/drag.

[-]

Strega007@reddit

The norm is to train and employ with the CFTs on. The only time I flew the jets with CFTs off was taking them to/from depot maintenance at Robins AFB.

An E model with the PW-229 engines and no CFTs is quite a beast.

[-]

Garoustraightsavage@reddit

Did you ever battle the raptor in the F15E?

[-]

Strega007@reddit

Yes, and we were also f'n annihilated by them. Not even close.

[-]

Garoustraightsavage@reddit

That's awesome. I read a story where the put several F15E's against what I believe were 2 Raptors and the Raptors took them all down.

[-]

Strega007@reddit

In the 2006-2007 timeframe, my squadron participated in the F-22 Large Force Employment tactics development. We were flying 12xF-15Es vs 2xF-22 is a couple vul periods each day for about 10 days.

The specifics of what/why/how are not appropriate for the internet, but the gist of the exercises is that even with zero restrictions on tactics, sensors, or weapons, there was *one* shot taken at *one* Raptor during *one* engagement.

You can guess how it turned out. A murder scene.

[-]

Garoustraightsavage@reddit

I imagine It was a massacre. Im curious as to how the brand new F15EX's would fair against the F-22. With all the new modern day tech and upgrades in avionics. Do you think it would fair any better?

[-]

Lonely_Accountant524@reddit

Do you think anything would have changed in the engagements w/o them, given that the Eagle is a much older design and y'all likely didn't do as much A2A training?(Also what load out would both sides be flying for BFM?)

Thanks so much for answering man. Y'all are awesome.

[-]

Strega007@reddit

The training load-out was whatever the Blue Air wanted. If we were bandits, we were usually simulating Flankers, and running 6x0x2xgun and simulating the PL-12/AA-12 or AA-10.

I'm sure the maneuvering would have been better without the CFTs, but the gas would have been limiting in terms of how much training we could get accomplished. On these sorties you're nearly always trying to accomplish a specific crew training/upgrade list of events or a specific tactic or a specific bandit presentation.

Ultimately it isn't the win or loss that is important to accomplishing those training objectives. You can learn just as much from getting your ass handed to you as you can winning.

[-]

Mike_Mac72@reddit

As an ex-British Grunt always nice to have you chaps up and about. The 50ft, unannounced show of force in Iraq however was bloody terrifying particularly when the afterburners singed my hair. (Scared the enemy though that was the key point!).

You know, the finger?

Well, there's no actual photo to depict "missile truck" because it is not a thing. Plus, that's a humorous way to show it.

How about a shot of me going through the Mach Loop instead?

Can confirm

[-]

da-noob-man@reddit

Answering from a solely warthunder basis

In game the eurofighter (AESA variants) are the third best plane in the game behind the rafale su30sm/sm2 while its better than the f15 2006 golden eagle upgrade package and J10C

The non AESA eurofighter variants are below the J10C and Golden Eagle in terms of meta but better than Gripen E, F16 poBIT, J15T, and both hornets(super and upgraded) due to their captor Es frankly being dogshit in game.

Extremely favorably, those invasion stripes are unimaginably sexy.

[-]

The_IrishRomeo@reddit

I’ve flown with them a few times. IMO;

The good: Excellent maneuverability and energy management. BFM machine. Shockingly good high altitude performance. Great defensive suite. Good weapons loadout options.
The bad: Poor radars, even the new ones. Good defensive suite but not LO. Difficult to be lethal when you are constantly defending against missiles shot from an enemy you cannot see.

To answer your question, it’s on par with US 4th gen fighters in most ways. I don’t view it any differently.

I will say they were some of the most professional pilots I have ever flown with. Knowledge, easy to work with, always calm and composed. These were RAF pilots I am referring to.

[-]

Bright-Scallin@reddit

Poor radars, even the new ones.

I don't know how to verify this, nor do I know how you managed to do it, given that it's extremely confidential information. In any case, these fighter jets aren't designed to fly with their radars on; they're meant to be used with AWACS.

Difficult to be lethal when you are constantly defending against missiles shot from an enemy you cannot see.

I think people don't know that stealth fighters can indeed be detected by modern radars; the problem is having an exact location, not the fact that it's there.
The Rafale and Eurofighter in their most recent versions not only have stealth components (hence not being classified as generation 4), but also have electromagnetic warfare kits.
The Meteor Missile was literally made for this. It's a ramjet that is fired in a suspicious direction and then uses its own radar in the final approach.

There have been many war games where in aerial battles both the Rafale/Eurofighter and the F-35 achieved kills from tens/hundreds of kilometers away.Stealth isn't a winner-takes-all approach. Especially against peer-to-peer attacks with access to sophisticated technologies like missiles and cutting-edge radar.

[-]

The_IrishRomeo@reddit

Getting AWACS into the fight can be challenging depending on the adversary and environment. I would not assume they will always be there, or that they are effective even if they are there.
Very true, stealth does not mean invisibility.
The meteor is a good missile and I am happy that our allies use it and continue to work to develop weapons like it and storm shadow. Competition in the market breeds innovation.

[-]

Bright-Scallin@reddit

Getting AWACS into the fight can be challenging depending on the adversary and environment. I would not assume they will always be there, or that they are effective even if they are there.

An AWACS will always be there. It's NATO doctrine, and they fly about 100-200 km from the action so they realy aint gona get hit.

The problem with turning on the radars is that the fighter stops being stealthy and becomes like a giant red bullzie yelling "pick me picl me" to a missile following radar waves.

[-]

MountainView55-@reddit

There are literally not enough of them any more. Certainly not enough to provide the 24/7 cover that you would want. Chinese are also designing AWACS-killing LRAAM, so you really don't want to assume they'll be there.

Doctrine is one thing, reality is another. You're increasingly likely to see 4th Gen use their radars to provide SA for 5th Gen.

Source: I flew in the back of E-3s and have the hearing damage and daughter-only lineage to prove it.

[-]

Bright-Scallin@reddit

There are literally not enough of them any more. Certainly not enough to provide the 24/7 cover that you would want.

There are 130 AEW&C and AWACS aircraft in NATO. I genuinely don't know what you're talking about.

In all wars involving NATO, the use of AWACS has been widespread, 24/7, even in contested airspace. Currently, there are always at least 2-3 AWACS flying 24/7 in support of Ukraine; Ukraine itself has 2 AEW&C and also has some now operating 24/7 in the Middle East.

Chinese are also designing AWACS-killing LRAAMs, so you really don't want to assume they'll be there.

"AWACS killing missiles" It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. So-called AWACS killing missiles are actually long-range defense systems, and they've existed for decades, since the 1980s in the US and USSR. They were never a real problem because there are many ways to circumvent that issue, as was done in Iraq given the absurd number of S-300s the country possessed.

Doctrine is one thing, reality is another. You're increasingly likely to see 4th Gen use their radars to provide SA for 5th Gen.

This has literally never happened, much less in a war scenario. In the war in Ukraine itself, which is the reality, neither the Ukrainians nor the Russians use their radars to track each other because, as I said, when they turn on the radar they get hit by an anti-radiation missile.

Source: I flew in the back of E-3s and have the hearing damage and daughter-only lineage to prove it.

You could be a truck driver for al I care about. The topics discussed havenothing to do with your job and is public information.

[-]

MountainView55-@reddit

You're right, working in an AWACS as an operator, being literally paid to do the job you've learned about over drinks, means nothing. The job where I died if I got any of the above wrong. So let's do some math:

130 AWACS. Assume that's a true number. 25% OOA at any one time, and that's being generous. That leaves 97. No NATO member has EVER allocated all its forces to NATO and even in a massive conflict would want to keep some back under National Control. Call it 20%. We're now down to 70. To keep one on station for 8 hours, one aircraft is on task, one en-route, one going home, one on turn around. We're now at 18 AWACS for the whole world. 20 if all NATO countries give them up. You cannot cover every CAP station with that.

PL-17 is the new generation PLA air-launched AWACS killing missile. It has nothing to do with GBAD, which, as you say, you can avoid. It doesn't even have to shoot you down, just make you mission ineffective by causing you to dive for the deck or turn tail. PL-17 has been in service for 4 years.

Anti-radiation missiles are around (ALAMO E) but are rare. They're certainly not used much against fighters as all you need do is turn off your radar or frequency hop to avoid being hit by them. They're mostly used to hit... AWACS. Result being that 4G and 4.5G fighters share their picture with 5G fighters when AWACS is not around.

[-]

-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit

There are literally not enough of them any more. Certainly not enough to provide the 24/7 cover that you would want

Reference: the recent story of them ferrying E-2Ds across the Atlantic to deploy them from land. It's crazy how small the E-3 fleet has become, and when the Air Force dithered on E-7s... well, here we are.

[-]

AWACS will not always be there. There is a book about EC-130 compass calls in Gulf War and a night where their AWACS for northern Iraq was down for mechanical issues. It wasn’t the end of the world because they were able to alert patrolling F15s when Iraqi planes were taking off from their com talk. It’s war and unexpected things will always happen.

[-]

sofixa11@reddit

An AWACS will always be there. It's NATO doctrine, and they fly about 100-200 km from the action so they realy aint gona get hit.

There are air to air missiles with ranges longer than 200km.

[-]

Bright-Scallin@reddit

There are air to air missiles with ranges longer than 200km.

No, they dony.

The one with the longest range is the Meteor, which has a range of 200km. But there are surface-to-air missiles with greater range, such as the SMAT, Patriot, and the S family. If there is suspicion that the airspace is contested, the AWACS are further behind. Just like what happened with the invasion of Iraq, Yugoslavia, and more recently Ukraine and Iran.

My God, do I need to explain everything?

[-]

No, they dony.

Pl15, r37m, pl21, aim174 and soon probably r77m and aim260.

Aim174b has range that is well more than 300km 8n all likelyhood

[-]

FLABANGED@reddit

If you keep pulling stats off Wikipedia and your ass you're going to keep getting clowned on.

At this point you can safely assume the Meteor, the PL-15E(The Export variant), PL-15/16, R-77M, PL-17, and R-37M are all capable of reaching beyond 200km and the latter two well beyond 300km.

This content was removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.

This subreddit is dedicated to aviation and the discussion of aviation, not politics and religion. For discussion of these subjects, please choose a more appropriate subreddit.

If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.

[-]

BriefCollar4@reddit

For what purpose? To attack the US forces for another unprovoked war in the Middle East that drove those prices up?

Please adhere to the sub rules and keep politics out of it.

[-]

RainbowSushii666@reddit

To fight the USA you mean? Someone whos still an ally on paper?

[-]

TheThiccestOrca@reddit

I'm a bit caught up on the "poor radars" too, for its time CAPTOR was excellent and the E model brings that legacy back, i'm not a aviator but i've worked with Typhoons a little and talked to a lot of pilots that flew European and U.S. jets and the radar being bad or constantly being forced to be on the defense due to the RCS is something i've never heard of, closest was complaints about the comparatively big EM-Signature of the aircraft itself but the aircraft in an engagement are usually quite well within detection/targeting and engagement distance once that becomes an issue.

The Typhoons raw RCS is pretty big compared to a F-35 or 22, but it's pretty normal or even good in comparison to anything that isn't either of those two, especially once it's not raw anymore.

I can't go into detail for obvious reasons but i can say with certainty that a Tranche 3 Typhoon can duke it out with pretty much every contemporary aircraft in service under equal conditions if it is used in its original role and with its intended equipment and that it most definitely would perform excellent in actual air combat, a thing that a lot of aviation enthusiasts don't seem to know is just how much aircraft get cucked in exercises because otherwise you couldn't do them, electronic warfare is extremely hard and in its full capacity impossible to simulate and training weapons like CATM's especially do not like it or simulate it well, exercises are usually meant to train specific scenarios under specific scenarios for the pilot, not to compare aircraft or determine their capabilities against each other.

Meteors absolutely fucking slap though, if someone finds Meteors disappointing they either weren't allowed to or capable of using them to their full capabilities (likely) or has been using some super secret unknown to the public hyper modern missile and is probably breaking their contract and committing a crime by even insinuating that they have tested or used or are testing/using something better. (unlikely)

However fully have to agree with him that air-ground integration is comparatively bad, not unusable or horrible, but it's very noticeably an aircraft with a heavy air-to-air focus, newer versions (T3, T4) are getting better at that and the proposed new cockpit helps but it is comparatively bad at that.

Also no one seriously classifies aircraft (and most other systems) by generations, especially not based off whether it has "stealth components" or not, that entire generational system is pure marketing.

[-]

Tailhook91@reddit

With all due respect I stand by my Meteor stance. I didn’t say it’s bad, just that it’s hyped up as the-best-missile-that’s-ever-existed-of-all-time-forever-and-it’s-not-even-close of which I fell victim to believing when the MBDA brought their shiny brochures around, but since becoming a weapons and systems test pilot fully integrated and fully informed with international partners, I found it quite whelming. I won’t elaborate more.

[-]

_AnalogDoc_@reddit

Cool. This conversation sounds like us doctors talking about drugs. But instead of treatments it's about missiles. Cool indeed.

[-]

TheThiccestOrca@reddit

I don't know man, it does pretty much exactly what the materials say it does but people can draw very different expectations from the same material depending on who presents them how.

I only got into this industry after a lot of the original big problems with the Meteor and the Typhoon were already sorted out and after most customers were already established so our experiences may differ significantly depending on the timeframe.

But i agree that we can't really argue this without stepping on eggshells, ignoring that there isn't really a point in it in the first place.

[-]

Tailhook91@reddit

I’m currently serving and this information was as of January. Like I said there are some cool things it does well that you can plan around, but from what I’m looking for in a missile in other regards it was an “oh” moment.

I’m not trying to circle back and forth here, I think we both are informed. I’m just trying to point out “this is from a pilots perspective of a modern jet from a very recent time frame” not an old guy from like the early 2000s (I was in middle school then)

[-]

TheThiccestOrca@reddit

You know what, that's fair.

AESA radars usually work in the X-band according to publicly available information, but we don't know what AWACs can do and we don't know if the fighter AESA can go lower.

[-]

wggn@reddit

given that it's extremely confidential information

Speed-wise it's the 2nd fastest and is the only one to have supercruise. Radar package is pretty equal across all latest variants of the compared aircraft. Of all the aircraft listed, it's considered the most lethal in BVR combat. This is credited to Supercruise, the Meteor missile, and IRIS-T. Once you get into visual range of targets, it's equal or better to it's US counterparts.

Later Typhoons were given strike capabilities, and it's totally competent as a striker. However the US counterparts beat it in strike capabilities.

Basically the Typhoon leads in:

Air superiority
High-Altitude Combat
BVR lethality
Agility and energy fighting
Passive Detection

The US counterparts lead in:

Payload and range
Strike depth and mission variety
Electronic warfare
Logistics and sustainment.

[-]

Tricksilver89@reddit

Anecdotal, but I've been told on fairly good authority, that the EW suite on the Typhoon has surprised partners by just how good it actually is. It has recently been upgraded as well, which has significantly improved its capabilities on that front.

[-]

Time_Restaurant5480@reddit

The Typhoon's radar was the main thing holding it back for a long time. The inital design was never upgraded and the Luftwaffe's Typhoons were still flying around with mechanically-scanned radars until fairly recently. That problem has finally been addressed with the installation of AESA radars.

[-]

Schmittiboo@reddit

tbh, we are still far away from having all of the EFA equipped with the new radar. it only flew on a A320 last year

I'm a fucken idiot. Misread the title and missed the US part

ty anyway

[-]

Sea_Perspective6891@reddit

F-16 I think is supposed to be pretty similar but the Typhoon has newer tech.

The F-18 is 4 meters longer than the Eurofighter, and one meter shorter than the giant F-15.

The F-18 is the second largest fighter jet currently used by NATO, with the second largest capacity behind only the F-15 Striker.

and the F-35 isn't a medium fighter either.

The F-35 is slightly smaller than a Eurofighter, which is a medium-sized fighter. The F-15 and F-18 are large fighters, while the F-16 and Gripens are light fighters.

[-]

stevecostello@reddit

As someone who spent the better part of the early 90s on the flight deck of the Eisenhower, the difference between the legacy Hornets and the Super Hornets is just funny to me. I remember seeing the Super Hornet up close for the first time at Oshkosh about 10 years ago, and was shocked at the size difference. It's really hard to discern that difference when you just see an E/F in the air by itself.

[-]

Montjo17@reddit

Legacy hornets are not, the super hornet is similar in size to the F-15. Gets tricky when two different aircraft have the same designation

[-]

Doggydog123579@reddit

it's a light fighter

F-16 I think is supposed to be pretty similar but the Typhoon has newer tech.

The most modern version of the F-16 doesn't compare to the Rafale and Eurofighter... Not even close. If anything, it would be to the Gripen.

They are totally different aircraft that have no equivalent in the American arsenal. If anything the closest relative in terms of capabilities would be the F-35.

[-]

flippydude@reddit

Later block F16s have way better avionics than Typhoon

[-]

Tricksilver89@reddit

Vs older Typhoon maybe. The latest avionics suite has come a long way and is still being upgraded.

[-]

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Your comment or post has been automatically removed from /r/aviation. Posts/Comments from new accounts are automatically removed by our automated systems. We, and many other large subreddits, do this to combat spam, spambots, and other activities that are not condusive to the sub. In the meantime, participate on Reddit to build your acouunt age and this restriction will go away. Also, please familiarize yourself with this subreddit's rules, which you can find in the sidebar or by clicking this link. Do not contact the moderation team unless you feel you have received this message/action in error. We will not manually approve comments or posts from new accounts.

Silent Eagle was a fever dream that was trying to capitalize on FMS customers. Canted verticals and internal weapons storage was reducing the RCS from the size of Africa to the size of Antarctica.

The Eagle will never be an LO airframe regardless of such mods.

[-]

Tailhook91@reddit

Yeah Rhino still cornholes EX here and it’s not even close.

[-]

BandicootNo4431@reddit

I feel the Blk 3 gets slept on more than it should.

[-]

-BigDeckEnergy-@reddit

I feel the Blk 3 gets slept on more than it should.

As u/Tailhook91 says, Rhino as a whole beats EX and everyone else here, easily. It doesn't get the attention other platforms gets (a lot of this is a conscious choice), and a bunch of loud bitter ex Tomcat guys (the O.G. influencer crowd) rambling about the early 2000s means there's a lot of noise around it, but there's a reason it is on the front line of everything and why the Navy will continue making it the bulk of its forces into the 2030s.

The Navy has a lot of problems, but the Navy's air forces have been living good

[-]

There are some things the Tornado radar could do that the current E-Scan can't even do. So the ECRS Mk2 can't come soon enough.

[-]

And Rhino drivers always get butthurt when I call their jet slow. 🤷‍♂️

[-]

Would you say the EX is slightly better at BFM than the legacy Eagles? (IK you talked about how BFM isn't everything, but was curious bc of the impressive QA demos)

[-]

Tailhook91@reddit

Airshow Demo flights are designed to impress spectators and Saudi princes. They don’t really mean much of anything.

But the 15C is going to better than 15E and 15EX. They’re comparable if you take all the externals and things that make it a strike eagle off but then what’s the point?

[-]

Lonely_Accountant524@reddit

True. I suppose the strike role is the more pertinent one in many scenarios.

Although I did read that some 15Es were flying w/o CFTs, but that is probably a rare thing.

Thanks for answering though man. Y'all are awesome.

[-]

Lonely_Accountant524@reddit

Would you say the EX is slightly better at BFM than the legacy Eagles? (IK you talked about how BFM isn't everything, but was curious bc of the impressive QA demos)

[-]

MetalSIime@reddit

ever get an opportunity to fly on the Rafale or Gripen?

[-]

Tailhook91@reddit

No. They both are very pointy and good looking. I’ve heard good things about the Rafale, and the Gripen is also a jet that exists.

[-]

rsta223@reddit

and the Gripen is also a jet that exists.

Lol

[-]

This is why the designed to f-35 to handle WVR better, the F-22 airframe is not designed for the optics needed to match even the F-35.

[-]

CONCORDE-204@reddit

i remember from another interview for forces TV a few years ago during a red flag exercise out in Vegas, i think it was 2023,RAF typhoon's managed to down 3 F22 during one of the days events for the same reasons you listed.

[-]

Tricksilver89@reddit

Makes sense. The Typhoon excels at high speed interception.

[-]

Echo61089@reddit

It's prettier than the American jets... Even in its standard grey.

But in this D-Day memorial livery it's stunning.

Be nice to see some of the American jets in a heritage livery... An F16 in a P-51 livery would look damn nice.

[-]

That was for the UK's requirement. It was intended as an interceptor by the European consortium, A/G was a provision, it just wasn't a priority compared to the A/A interceptor role it was designed for.

[-]

Timmymagic1@reddit

No it was designed to be multirole from day 1. For all users.TKF90 and ACA were both designed as multirole.

The issues came in the early-mid 90's...after the prototype had flown...Germany was looking to leave the programme due to the costs of reunification. The programme got saved by deprioritising the A2G aspects. This was acceptable to the others to retain Germany as a consortium member because all of the partner states had ample fighter bombers (Tornado GR, Jaguar, Harrier, AMX and EF-18) but needed new fighters asap..

Following service entry the UK in particular added A2G capabilities in an incremental manner to restore the descoped work from the 90's.

[-]

longsite2@reddit

Yeah, it was a provision and not available on the T1 aircraft. It became a feature at P1E and with the T2 aircraft as standard from then on.

It's the reason why the remaining T1 aircraft based in the Falklands and Austria can't and don't use A/G weapons.

The UK pushed for it to be included and adopted as we wanted to get rid of the Harrier and Tornando and would have lost the ability for any A/G capability.

[-]

FLMKane@reddit

Sounds like an Eagle with bombs.

Ohhh... Wait

[-]

Cumulus-Crafts@reddit

I don't have anything to add, just that I get to hear these take off every day, multiple times a day :) They're very loud.

I worked at a livery yard and we had to contact the RAF to get them to change their flight passes because they kept doing low passes over our yard and spooking the horses

[-]

SpasstmitAst@reddit

Compared to which type, in which mission, against which enemy?

The question itself is problematic because there is no specific "battlefield" where these aircraft types can be compared.

Your comment or post has been automatically removed from /r/aviation. Posts/Comments from new accounts are automatically removed by our automated systems. We, and many other large subreddits, do this to combat spam, spambots, and other activities that are not condusive to the sub. In the meantime, participate on Reddit to build your acouunt age and this restriction will go away. Also, please familiarize yourself with this subreddit's rules, which you can find in the sidebar or by clicking this link. Do not contact the moderation team unless you feel you have received this message/action in error. We will not manually approve comments or posts from new accounts.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

Afraid_Aardvark5048@reddit

Is this the new adidas fighter jet? Always wanted one to show off on my block.

[-]

Low-Refrigerator-713@reddit

From my thinking, as a non-Yank, European or Soviet (you can argue that the Soviets are gone, but Putin is saying otherwise with his actions if not his words), it doesn't have the stealth of gen5 because it doesn't need it.

It's designed to be dispersed on highways etcetera, ready to intercept incoming targets at command of centralised C3, either ground or air based. Therefore, it gets a command to take-off and a bearing to target, and then kills whatever it sees on that bearing. While on the ground, it doesn't need stealth and it won't be in the air long enough for stealth to matter.

It needs to be able to be refuelled and rearmed from a truck on a country road. Be able to take-off at a moments notice with bearing and range to a target. Kill the target and any targets of opportunity then return to the same or other country road, land, be rearmed and refuelled in a short period of time, maybe let the pilot have a piss/shit and a bite to eat and then get back in the cockpit, listening to a podcast or audio book, waiting for the next stupid idiot to wander in to his kill box.

The Yanks need stealth to be able to fly from aircraft carriers or bases a significant distance from the target so that the target doesn't see them coming.

Very powerful jet with buckets of energy available for manoeuvring / carrying payload. Also has an excellent defensive suite.

However the US leads the field in multi-sensor integration, including widely fielded AESA radars in most 4th gen F-jets.

A typhoon kitted out with a decent radar and a Lockheed/Boeing designed cockpit, now that would be a killer.

[-]

Comprehensive_Cow_13@reddit

The latest ones have AESAs - some of the older ones are being retrofitted too - the RAF ones for example.

[-]

Timmymagic1@reddit

And BAE's Striker 2 helmet and BAE's large area display...

[-]

spooliodonjulio@reddit

All good kit, but still in development/test/evaluation. And playing catch-up to technology that's now ubiquitous across recent frontline F15/18 types (and has been for some time).

[-]

Timmymagic1@reddit

It already has a superior helmet mounted sight in the Striker 1 operational right now...Striker 2 is a different league entirely.

Only F-15 EX, Superhornet Block III and F-35 have a wide area display...none of the other variants or Superhornets do...

Only limited numbers of EX and Block III have been delivered.

[-]

spooliodonjulio@reddit

Phew, this is turning into a marketing material exchange.

Stryker 1 is decent, but is comparable to JHMCS rather than superior. Sadly no night capability, which is where JHMCS II and Scorpion have it beat. (You could also at least take the old JHMCS off to put NVGs on if you really had to, and had nimble fingers).

Stryker 2: yesterday's technology, tomorrow!

There are a lot of Rhinos, and 15 models fielding large area displays already. WADs are as you say less common. But tbh it's less about the size, and more about the utility (ain't that always the way).

Typhoon was designed as an Interceptor to replace the Tornado F3 and the entire system was based around ground controllers (GCI), using multiple radar heads across the Baltic, North Sea and AWACS as part of the NATO early warning system. That’s why we had RAF, FAF and NATO E3’s as a common airframe permanently running race tracks over Western Europe.

These days we call the UK system ASACS, and we’re bringing the E7 Wedgetail onboard to replace the E3. The first is due to be delivered to Lossiemouth by the end of this month albeit quite a few years late.

I’m an ex RAF Tornado WSO and QWI (GR4; not the dirty pointy nose Tonkas) 15, 9 and 31 sqdn on Tornado and worked on 41 Sqdn (TES) before I left. Spent a lot of time backseating as an instructor to Typhoon jockeys in a twin stick on 41 switch to teach the ground role.

Tiffy is now an amazing multi-role airframe that’s doing a lot more than it was ever expected to do.

Shame it’s introduction consigned my days in fast air to the history books.

[-]

Skyremmer102@reddit

Blisteringly fast, terrible radar. Its defensive suite is decent though.

ECRS Mk0 is what is on Saudi/Kuwait/Qatar aircraft currently and is basically MScan with an AESA antenna.

ECRS Mk1/2 are the big upgrade, functionally very different and a complete new architecture.

HOLY MOLY

That's the most beautiful Eurofighter I've ever seen, gonna make a grown man cry😭

[-]

Jaxta_2003@reddit

There was another a few years before this one in a similar paint scheme but without the invasion stripes

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

aviation-ModTeam@reddit

[-]

Sniperonzolo@reddit

I flew the F-16 and been on the Typhoon for a few years now. In terms of raw power i don’t think there’s anything out there except the F-22 that is on par, it’ll out climb and out accelerate anything. It can pull 9g all day long and the high altitude performance is outstanding. Plus we can supercurise.

Al89nut@reddit

Thanks. Why Rhino?

[-]

nosecohn@reddit

Supposedly because of a protrusion on the front part of the radome that resembles a rhino horn, though I don't really see it, unless it's a rhino that's had its horn cut off.

[-]

CorrodedLollypop@reddit

It's big and gray and if you get it's attention, it will gladly fuck your day up.

Everything looks better with invasion stripes