Joint Strike Fighter vs. Eurofighter

Praxus · 11-02-2003, 10:38 AM

F-35 JSF

EF2000

What is a better overall aircraft and why?

bigross86 · 11-02-2003, 11:00 AM

JSF. Cuz American planes are historically better and more combat proven than European ones.

s_qwert63 · 11-02-2003, 11:14 AM

Very bold statement there.

Praxus · 11-02-2003, 11:29 AM

Once they develope a good Solid State Laser for the JSF the JSF wins hands down(which they are doing by the way). They could fire all the missiles they want at you and they aren't gonna touch you. Then you move in and blow the engine apart with your multi-megawatt laser.

**TopHatter** · 11-02-2003, 12:33 PM

Setting aside beam weaponry for the moment, does anybody have a good data on either aircraft? Naturally, true performance data will be sketchy at best but can we at least debate this like we did the Super Hornet?
Just because an aircraft is American does not mean it's a sure thing.
Granted, historically speaking, some of the most powerful and lethal aircraft have been American, but that doesnt mean that everything that is produced on the other side of the pond is Eurotrash.

Praxus · 11-02-2003, 13:03 PM

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER-AIRFORCE VARIANT
Cost: $36,000,000
Engine: Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 derivative
Thrust: 40,000 lbs
Weapons: 4 Air to Air Missiles in Stealth(8+ out of stealth)
Payload: 17,000 lbs
Combat Radius: In excess of 700 miles
Radar: AESA Radar

EUROFIGHTER 2000 TYPHOON
Cost: $60,000,000
Engines: Two Eurojet EJ200 Engines
Thrust: 40,000 lbs
Weapons: 8 Air to Air Missiles
Payload: 14,000 lbs
Combat Radius: Around 800 Miles
Radar: X-band pulse Doppler radar

bigross86 · 11-02-2003, 13:10 PM

I still say JSF

**TopHatter** · 11-02-2003, 13:18 PM

I think the stealthy aspects of the JSF will definitely give it an edge, but what about the Eurofighter? Is it a "low-observable" design, somewhat analogous to the B-1 Lancer?

Praxus · 11-02-2003, 18:56 PM

It's made to moderatly reduce it's signature, it isn't meant to be stealthy like the JSF.

Anon · 11-02-2003, 23:07 PM

When we say 'which is better', we should be also asking 'which is better at what'.

The JSF has a few very odd features.

First, it lacks a bubble canopy- a seemingly stupid item that can make a WORLD of difference in ACM. The EF has one, JSF does not(why, why....WHY?)

Second, it doesn't have vectored thrust- a very strange ommision in a 5th generation tactical fighter.

So far right now the USN version looks to be the best performer, but all the variants are supposedly 20% overweight, and if that's true this will be a media and congressional circus once they get closer to production.

One significant cut in the acquisition numbers(like the USN bailing as so many fear), and the unit cost will skyrocket.

Praxus · 11-03-2003, 16:25 PM

The Eurofighter does not have much of a bubble canopy...

I have heard that the actual F-35 will have thrust vectoring.

From what I have heard the F-35 will be used primarily to deliver bombs and the F/A-22 Raptors will fly to protect them(which is why I think they should double their Raptor Orders, on top of the fact that the increase in order cuts the price per plane in half).

Anon · 11-03-2003, 16:36 PM

Yeah, the bubble canopy on the EF leaves much to be desired too.

Most odd.

troung · 11-03-2003, 19:52 PM

You posted a 2 seat EF-2000 here is a singel seater..........

Praxus · 11-03-2003, 19:53 PM

Oops, my bad, I was wondering why there was a big space between the pilot and the back of the cockpit.

Anon · 11-04-2003, 01:32 AM

Much better. now that's a bubble canopy.

11-02-2003, 10:38 AM	#1 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	Joint Strike Fighter vs. Eurofighter F-35 JSF EF2000 What is a better overall aircraft and why?

11-02-2003, 11:00 AM	#2 (permalink)
bigross86 401 Ikvot Habarzel *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-07-03 Location: Ra'anana, Israel Posts: 3,148	JSF. Cuz American planes are historically better and more combat proven than European ones. __________________ You're a naughty girl, go to my room!

11-02-2003, 12:33 PM	#5 (permalink)
TopHatter Administrator Join Date: 09-03-03 Posts: 9,937 Country:	Setting aside beam weaponry for the moment, does anybody have a good data on either aircraft? Naturally, true performance data will be sketchy at best but can we at least debate this like we did the Super Hornet? Just because an aircraft is American does not mean it's a sure thing. Granted, historically speaking, some of the most powerful and lethal aircraft have been American, but that doesnt mean that everything that is produced on the other side of the pond is Eurotrash. __________________ If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader. ~John Quincy Adams

11-02-2003, 13:03 PM	#6 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER-AIRFORCE VARIANT Cost: $36,000,000 Engine: Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 derivative Thrust: 40,000 lbs Weapons: 4 Air to Air Missiles in Stealth(8+ out of stealth) Payload: 17,000 lbs Combat Radius: In excess of 700 miles Radar: AESA Radar EUROFIGHTER 2000 TYPHOON Cost: $60,000,000 Engines: Two Eurojet EJ200 Engines Thrust: 40,000 lbs Weapons: 8 Air to Air Missiles Payload: 14,000 lbs Combat Radius: Around 800 Miles Radar: X-band pulse Doppler radar Last edited by Praxus : 11-02-2003 at 13:07 PM.

11-03-2003, 16:25 PM	#11 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	The Eurofighter does not have much of a bubble canopy... I have heard that the actual F-35 will have thrust vectoring. From what I have heard the F-35 will be used primarily to deliver bombs and the F/A-22 Raptors will fly to protect them(which is why I think they should double their Raptor Orders, on top of the fact that the increase in order cuts the price per plane in half). Last edited by Praxus : 11-03-2003 at 16:30 PM.

11-02-2003, 11:14 AM	#3 (permalink)
s_qwert63 Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-29-03 Location: everywhere Posts: 790 Country:	Very bold statement there.

11-02-2003, 11:29 AM	#4 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	Once they develope a good Solid State Laser for the JSF the JSF wins hands down(which they are doing by the way). They could fire all the missiles they want at you and they aren't gonna touch you. Then you move in and blow the engine apart with your multi-megawatt laser.

11-02-2003, 13:10 PM	#7 (permalink)
bigross86 401 Ikvot Habarzel *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-07-03 Location: Ra'anana, Israel Posts: 3,148	I still say JSF

11-02-2003, 13:18 PM	#8 (permalink)
TopHatter Administrator Join Date: 09-03-03 Posts: 9,937 Country:	I think the stealthy aspects of the JSF will definitely give it an edge, but what about the Eurofighter? Is it a "low-observable" design, somewhat analogous to the B-1 Lancer?

11-02-2003, 18:56 PM	#9 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	It's made to moderatly reduce it's signature, it isn't meant to be stealthy like the JSF.

11-02-2003, 23:07 PM	#10 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	When we say 'which is better', we should be also asking 'which is better at what'. The JSF has a few very odd features. First, it lacks a bubble canopy- a seemingly stupid item that can make a WORLD of difference in ACM. The EF has one, JSF does not(why, why....WHY?) Second, it doesn't have vectored thrust- a very strange ommision in a 5th generation tactical fighter. So far right now the USN version looks to be the best performer, but all the variants are supposedly 20% overweight, and if that's true this will be a media and congressional circus once they get closer to production. One significant cut in the acquisition numbers(like the USN bailing as so many fear), and the unit cost will skyrocket.

11-03-2003, 16:36 PM	#12 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	Yeah, the bubble canopy on the EF leaves much to be desired too. Most odd.

11-03-2003, 19:53 PM	#14 (permalink)
Praxus *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-26-03 Posts: 3,237	Oops, my bad, I was wondering why there was a big space between the pilot and the back of the cockpit.

11-04-2003, 01:32 AM	#15 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	Much better. now that's a bubble canopy.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
INDIA’S NEW "COLD START" WAR DOCTRINE STRATEGICALLY REVIEWED	Ray	Land Forces	125	06-20-2008 23:33 PM
Favorite Naval Book(s)	Ytlas	Naval Forces	62	02-09-2007 04:46 AM
2003 Navy Global Conops	Defcon 6	Naval Forces	6	07-06-2006 22:26 PM
Who needs the USN?	rickusn	Naval Forces	10	07-05-2005 00:47 AM
Rumsfeld clashes with air force over Joint Strike Fighter	Franco Lolan	Military Aviation	1	01-04-2005 03:19 AM