Joint Strike Fighter vs. Eurofighter

[Bill]

"I'm an engineer on the F-15."

Good for you. I know a guy that's an engineer on the F-22, he posts at my board. I have dozens of load toads and a few Eagle drivers that post on my board, a former Nellis Weapons school instructer, and myriad other USAF pilots and personnel.

I know what the Eagle can do, and there are things the Raptor can do that the Eagle CAN'T.

"If you're going to tell me that I'm completely wrong, how about supporting it with some real facts instead of just talking out of your ass."

I did, quite clearly.

"The F-15 has all the precision that the F/A-22 will have in strike warfare. The F-15E has this so called extreme precision that you speak of,, it's actually a strike aircraft. It CAN hit every target with extreme precision as well,, therefore, if it can carry 5 times the air to ground ordinance, it is 5 times more effective a bomber."

Except that it has nowhere near the standoff range with like munitions, it has nowhere near the turnaround time, and it has NOWHERE near the survivability that the F-22 does.

Besides that, sure, it's great. The F-15E is an excellent contemporary strike fighter. The F-22 is just at another level. That's just a fact. The ONLY thing the Raptor lacks is internal payload.

You DO know the F-22 can mount weapons externally, right? When it does, it hauls plenty of iron, and it does it with a level of performance that the F-15, any model, can not match.

First day of war ops the F-22 can go places that F-15 can't unless massively supported.

Once the enemy IADS is attrited the F-22 can mount it's external pylons and has plenty of ordnance load potential, with greater range and greater sortie regeneration.

That's just a fact.


"And where exactly did you get this sortie regeneration rate of 2x higher than any other platform? The F/A-22 is a fighter which the pentagon decided to tack on strike capability to make it look more viable so congress wouldn't cancel the program."

Nonsense, strike capability has been planned since day 1, just as it was on the F-15A. The pentagon has merely added the A to emphasize that it can do the strike role, not because it was ad hoc slapped on at the last minute. The F-22 is fully JDAM capable.

The F-22 has 2x the sortie regeneration rate because it has double the cruising speed as the F-15(or anything else).

It will get to and from the target 2x as fast because of it's much higher cruising speed. If an F-22 and an F-15E leave the same base to hit the same target at the same time, using the same ingress and egress routes, the F-22 will already be landing back at base when the F-15E starts it's bombing run. The F-22 can supercruise at Mach 1.8.

Try that in an F-15E.

The F-22 also has considerably longer unrefueled range than the Beagle.

"We also make the SDB here. The 250 lb bomb means that it contains the equivalent explosive power of 250 lbs of conventional explosives. If it was 5 times more powerful than conventional explosives, it would be called a 1250lb bomb."

Ummm, WRONG.

The GBU-39/B SDB weighs 130kg total. It uses a hardened steel case that has equivelant penetration to the 2000lb BLU-109/B. Released at Mach 1.8 from an F-22 the SDB is projected to have more KE(penetration) than a BLU-109/B released at 500-600kts as is typical for ALL US tactical fighters. That combined with the superhardened case allows it to penetrate DEEPER than the BLU-109/B(primary penetrator weapon of the F-117A) when released from a supercruising F-22. KE is mass x velocity squared my friend. The F-22 will release SDB at roughly double the initial velocity.

"The Small Diameter Bomb is a 250 pound weapon that has the same penetration capabilities as a 2000lb BLU-109, but with only 50 pounds of explosive. The 250 pound-class warhead that has demonstrated penetration of more than 6 feet of reinforced concrete. With the INS/GPS guidance in conjunction with differential GPS (using all 12 channel receivers, instead of only 5) corrections provided by GPS SPO Accuracy Improvement Initiative (AII) and improved Target Location Error (TLE), it can achieve a 5-8m CEP. The submunition, with a smart fuze, has been extensively tested against multi-layered targets by Wright Laboratory under the Hard Target Ordnance Program and Miniature Munitions Technology Program. The length to diameter ratio and nose shape are designed to optimize penetration for a 50lb charge. This weapon is also a potential payload for standoff carrier vehicles such as Tomahawk, JSOW, JASSM, Conventional ICBM, etc."

Like i said, it is a 250lb class warhead that weighs 50lbs. That would be 5x more powerful than Tritonal.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...itions/sdb.htm

http://www.armada.ch/03-6/article-full.cfm

It contains 23kg of a new explosive filler called , it is 5x more powerful than PBXN-109(Tritonal), which is the current explosive filler of the Mk80 series US weapons. The Mk84 does not have 2000lbs of explosives in it, the Mk83 does not have 1000lbs of explosives in it, and the Mk82 does not have 500lbs of explosives in it. A 2000lb bomb is called a 2000lb bomb because, you guessed it...it weighs approx. 2000lbs.

The SDB also has a range of 74km when released from the F-22 at supercruise. Try that with an unpowered bomb in an F-15E.

"As far as the "you don't haul gravel with a ferrari" statement,, it was an analogy smartass,, perhaps you've heard of it."

Perhaps i merely enjoy being a smartass....
Regardless, if you want to haul a lot of iron onto a target you send a plane that's title starts with a "B".

"Furthermore, the Lockheed JSF concept was selected based upon the STOVL variant and how well that variant worked."

Which was only a tech demonstrator. Further, the Boeing design was a chronically poor performer that could not meet the specifications even in tech demo form. The Lockheed proposal won by default.

"Yes, it is a problem child, but that's because of the nature of a modular aircraft. The problem is advertised weight, not capability."

There are myriad problems with the F-35B, and weight is not the only one, and it's modularity is not the only reason for the weight problems. It's engine core had to be redesigned to handle higher RPMs(hence higher heat and pressure) because the weight gains meant the original engine configuration was no longer adequate. The increased thrust has reduced the TSFC of the F-35's motor, and has forced a need to either add more fuel(weight) to maintain the design range, or sacrifice fuel(range) to stay on target for it's programmed weight.

"The pentagon should have known better than to build an SUV. "

Yes they should. On that we agree.

"And they don't know if the other two work as advertised or not,, they haven't even started building them yet."

The A and C models are both within 5% of their weight windows. They are a hell of a lot farther along than the problematic B model.

"They only discovered that the STOVL variant would be over weight when they tried building the production version."

No kidding.

"The other two may work as advertised on paper, but so did the STOVL. The Navy doesn't even want the damn thing,, they're getting stuck with it."

The navy should be very excited to relegate the stupid bug to a bomb truck, cause as a fighter it's a total non-hacker.

"Maybe you need to do your homework on the F-35."

Come to my board and tell that to the lockheed engineer that keeps us all updated on the F-35 and F-22.

He's only been building military aircraft 30 years, i'm sure he'd love to have you 'enlighten' him.

www.a-10.org

[Bill]

"You're wrong about that. If two aircraft are experiencing the same 9G turn rate at the same velocity, they will be turning at the same radius, and that's it. However, the heavier jet will have to generate much more wing lift force to even make that turn. Higher force, yes. Higher acceleration, no. The mass of the aircraft has nothing to do with it's acceleration, they are independent of oneanother.

The same goes for cars in a 1G skid pad rating. The heavier of the two cars will have to have tires and suspension capable of handling a larger turning FORCE without slipping to even obtain the same turning radius as a lighter car. If it cannot, it will not obtain the same G skid pad rating. If it can turn the same radius at a given speed as a lighter car, then yes they do have the same G rating."

We already had all of that explained to us in great detail by a test pilot that posts at my board about six months ago, which you would know if you bothered to read the whole thread.

There's a link and all skippy...

[jgetti]

"I'm an engineer on the F-15."

Good for you. I know a guy that's an engineer on the F-22, he posts at my board. I have dozens of load toads and a few Eagle drivers that post on my board, a former Nellis Weapons school instructer, and myriad other USAF pilots and personnel.

I know what the Eagle can do, and there are things the Raptor can do that the Eagle CAN'T.

"If you're going to tell me that I'm completely wrong, how about supporting it with some real facts instead of just talking out of your ass."

I did, quite clearly.

"The F-15 has all the precision that the F/A-22 will have in strike warfare. The F-15E has this so called extreme precision that you speak of,, it's actually a strike aircraft. It CAN hit every target with extreme precision as well,, therefore, if it can carry 5 times the air to ground ordinance, it is 5 times more effective a bomber."

Except that it has nowhere near the standoff range with like munitions, it has nowhere near the turnaround time, and it has NOWHERE near the survivability that the F-22 does.

Besides that, sure, it's great. The F-15E is an excellent contemporary strike fighter. The F-22 is just at another level. That's just a fact. The ONLY thing the Raptor lacks is internal payload.

You DO know the F-22 can mount weapons externally, right? When it does, it hauls plenty of iron, and it does it with a level of performance that the F-15, any model, can not match.

First day of war ops the F-22 can go places that F-15 can't unless massively supported.

Once the enemy IADS is attrited the F-22 can mount it's external pylons and has plenty of ordnance load potential, with greater range and greater sortie regeneration.

That's just a fact.


"And where exactly did you get this sortie regeneration rate of 2x higher than any other platform? The F/A-22 is a fighter which the pentagon decided to tack on strike capability to make it look more viable so congress wouldn't cancel the program."

Nonsense, strike capability has been planned since day 1, just as it was on the F-15A. The pentagon has merely added the A to emphasize that it can do the strike role, not because it was ad hoc slapped on at the last minute. The F-22 is fully JDAM capable.

The F-22 has 2x the sortie regeneration rate because it has double the cruising speed as the F-15(or anything else).

It will get to and from the target 2x as fast because of it's much higher cruising speed. If an F-22 and an F-15E leave the same base to hit the same target at the same time, using the same ingress and egress routes, the F-22 will already be landing back at base when the F-15E starts it's bombing run. The F-22 can supercruise at Mach 1.8.

Try that in an F-15E.

The F-22 also has considerably longer unrefueled range than the Beagle.

"We also make the SDB here. The 250 lb bomb means that it contains the equivalent explosive power of 250 lbs of conventional explosives. If it was 5 times more powerful than conventional explosives, it would be called a 1250lb bomb."

Ummm, WRONG.

The GBU-39/B SDB weighs 130kg total. It uses a hardened steel case that has equivelant penetration to the 2000lb BLU-109/B. Released at Mach 1.8 from an F-22 the SDB is projected to have more KE(penetration) than a BLU-109/B released at 500-600kts as is typical for ALL US tactical fighters. That combined with the superhardened case allows it to penetrate DEEPER than the BLU-109/B(primary penetrator weapon of the F-117A) when released from a supercruising F-22. KE is mass x velocity squared my friend. The F-22 will release SDB at roughly double the initial velocity.

"The Small Diameter Bomb is a 250 pound weapon that has the same penetration capabilities as a 2000lb BLU-109, but with only 50 pounds of explosive. The 250 pound-class warhead that has demonstrated penetration of more than 6 feet of reinforced concrete. With the INS/GPS guidance in conjunction with differential GPS (using all 12 channel receivers, instead of only 5) corrections provided by GPS SPO Accuracy Improvement Initiative (AII) and improved Target Location Error (TLE), it can achieve a 5-8m CEP. The submunition, with a smart fuze, has been extensively tested against multi-layered targets by Wright Laboratory under the Hard Target Ordnance Program and Miniature Munitions Technology Program. The length to diameter ratio and nose shape are designed to optimize penetration for a 50lb charge. This weapon is also a potential payload for standoff carrier vehicles such as Tomahawk, JSOW, JASSM, Conventional ICBM, etc."

Like i said, it is a 250lb class warhead that weighs 50lbs. That would be 5x more powerful than Tritonal.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...itions/sdb.htm

http://www.armada.ch/03-6/article-full.cfm

It contains 23kg of a new explosive filler called , it is 5x more powerful than PBXN-109(Tritonal), which is the current explosive filler of the Mk80 series US weapons. The Mk84 does not have 2000lbs of explosives in it, the Mk83 does not have 1000lbs of explosives in it, and the Mk82 does not have 500lbs of explosives in it. A 2000lb bomb is called a 2000lb bomb because, you guessed it...it weighs approx. 2000lbs.

The SDB also has a range of 74km when released from the F-22 at supercruise. Try that with an unpowered bomb in an F-15E.

"As far as the "you don't haul gravel with a ferrari" statement,, it was an analogy smartass,, perhaps you've heard of it."

Perhaps i merely enjoy being a smartass....
Regardless, if you want to haul a lot of iron onto a target you send a plane that's title starts with a "B".

"Furthermore, the Lockheed JSF concept was selected based upon the STOVL variant and how well that variant worked."

Which was only a tech demonstrator. Further, the Boeing design was a chronically poor performer that could not meet the specifications even in tech demo form. The Lockheed proposal won by default.

"Yes, it is a problem child, but that's because of the nature of a modular aircraft. The problem is advertised weight, not capability."

There are myriad problems with the F-35B, and weight is not the only one, and it's modularity is not the only reason for the weight problems. It's engine core had to be redesigned to handle higher RPMs(hence higher heat and pressure) because the weight gains meant the original engine configuration was no longer adequate. The increased thrust has reduced the TSFC of the F-35's motor, and has forced a need to either add more fuel(weight) to maintain the design range, or sacrifice fuel(range) to stay on target for it's programmed weight.

"The pentagon should have known better than to build an SUV. "

Yes they should. On that we agree.

"And they don't know if the other two work as advertised or not,, they haven't even started building them yet."

The A and C models are both within 5% of their weight windows. They are a hell of a lot farther along than the problematic B model.

"They only discovered that the STOVL variant would be over weight when they tried building the production version."

No kidding.

"The other two may work as advertised on paper, but so did the STOVL. The Navy doesn't even want the damn thing,, they're getting stuck with it."

The navy should be very excited to relegate the stupid bug to a bomb truck, cause as a fighter it's a total non-hacker.

"Maybe you need to do your homework on the F-35."

Come to my board and tell that to the lockheed engineer that keeps us all updated on the F-35 and F-22.

He's only been building military aircraft 30 years, i'm sure he'd love to have you 'enlighten' him.

www.a-10.org

What exactly is your job title you arrogant smart a$$? I'm just trying to tell you some facts about weapon systems that I know something about because I work on them. If you just want to insult my intelligence with some figures that someone else thinks they know about the F-15, then let me know what you do and I'll have some fun pretending to know more than you do. If your just another lockheed pole sucker for some pentagon big whigs, go back to sucking pole.

I never said anything about what the F/A-22 couldn't do, just what I know the F-15 could do,, and it's is a superior strike aircraft. I never said it was better than the F/A-22 in any other area. I'm not allowed to go throwing around data on a silly forum, and so I won't go fabricating BS to try and make myself sound right. I know what my aircraft is capable of. Aren't you special that you can regurgitate something you read second hand on a forum and took as fact.

As far as the SDB's go that are made in a factory a mile from where my desk is you snide pompus a$$, perhaps you should read what I said a little closer and check again. The explosive capability of all bombs are rated in equal explosive power to a weight of conventional explosive. A 2000 lb bomb has the explosive equivalent of 2000 lbs of conventional explosive. It doesn't matter how much of any given explosive a bomb has or how much it weighs, only what it's equivalent conventional explosive weight is. That goes for all bombs no matter what chemical they use be it tritonal or nuclear fusion. This new explosive might be much more powerful than tritonal,, that is irrelevant. What matters is that however much they use of whatever chemical, it is equivalent to 250 lbs of conventional explosive or they wouldn't call it a 250lb bomb.

If you'd like to have an intelligent conversation about any system, I can contribute with what I do know is fact about the things I work on, and I like to learn about the things that I don't. If you just want to be a righteous prick, then go f**k yourself.

[Bill]

I didn't fabricate anything.

Those things you questioned i answered in great detail with links to the pre-eminent military reference site on the www(globalsecurity.org).

I also explained that the SDB is a 250lb weapon, but has a 50lb explosive warhead, but that it is classed as a 250lb warhead weapon because it has an all-new explosive filler that is 5x more powerful than tritonal. I provided a link to global security.org with a direct quote as my evidence(which i know to be 100% correct from discussions at my board by USAF personnel).

The rating of a bomb goes by the bombs approx. mass, not by it's explosive warhead. The explosive content of the BLU-109/B is NOWHERE near 2000lbs, yet it is called a 2000lb weapon(even though it's actual gross weight is 2700lbs).

I've been running one of the very best USAF military websites for the last 3 years. That's why i know so much about all of this, i read every post on the forum, and the boards membership is 85% current or former military personnel from several NATO nations. The level of technical conversation and knowledge there is quite frankly unmatched on the www in my opinion.

Having an excellent memory, and a decided interest in the USAF, i have absorbed a LOT of knowledge.

My board boasts every aspect of the USAF, from the guys that test the jets, to the guys that hammer out the tactics for the jets, to the guys that fly the jets, to the guys that load the jets, to the guys that fix the jets, to the guys that backshop the jets, to the guys that build and design the jets.

You jumped me first, i merely responded in kind. If you dont like getting jumped, dont initiate a jumping action. ;)

All this being said i am sure you have a lot of knowledge about the F-15, but you were definitely incorrect about several things, and i explained in detail why.

So if you don't like it, you can tell me to "go f**k myself" again. It doesn't matter to me, because i'm right.

And if you notice, i actually agreed with you on some other threads on this forum.

As far as what i do for a living, i am a self-employed vehicle repossessor in Philadelphia, and a former US Army Infantry Sniper.