homepage Forums Read Only Forums Read Only Forums Typhoon (Read Only) What a lousy "Simulator" !!!!!!!!

Well, I'am a great fan of Hard Core simulator (my favorites are Janes F/A-18 and Falcon4) and it was with great expectation that I was expecting to see Eurofighter Typhoon and guess what?? It was the greatest disapointment in fight simulators since Comanche4!! In the subject I put quotes (") in simulator because a game like Eurofighter Typhoon hardly deserves the name SIMULATOR!!
Next I will describe why is this my opinion:
- Fist, one of the things that I like most in a fight simulator is the avionics. The avionics are far more less realist than EF2000. First there are no missile cameras or FLIR cameras, all this "functions" are displayed in the onboard IRST, and this of course is not realistic. At least EF2000 had a weapon camera (for Maverick that is not available in Eurofighter Typhoon, another fault!)!! An another avonics thing is that a radar (and real Typhoon radar is no exception) as several modes (for example, air-air TWS, air-air RWS, air-to-ground MAP, air-to-ground GMT, air-to-ground SEA modes, and this modes exists in real ECR-90 radar) and in the game there is only one radar mode that does all the thing!!! Totally not realistic!!!
Next cames the flight model that it is also not realistic, and as an example have you ever noticed how fast the aircraft accelerates?? When you takeoff and retract the landing gear the aircraft already goes at aprox. 400 Knots. Even with afterburner and tottaly clean that is another thing impossible!!
Another thing is the behaviour of the Air-to-Air missiles, they miss completely their target most of the time!! And they are the lastest Air-to-Air missiles (Meteor and ASRAAM). Imagine if they were older missiles!!?
There is also a less important fault, that concerns to other friendly aircraft. Where are, for example the F16, F18 and since the action takes place in 2015, where is the JSF?? It's possible that this late aircraft will be purchased by many NATO countries!! And of course, what are doing Sweden Grippens and Viggens in a NATO War, they aren't supposed to be NEUTRAL??
The only good thing in this "SIMULATOR" appears to be campaign and even this managed to disapoint me, because of that SUPER-MEGA-ULTRA-SECRET-MISSILE-PROF-FINAL-NUCLEAR-BOMBER-WITH-DRONES that appears in the end of the campaign!!! COME ON, that kind of bomber will never have sucess and probably will never be built!! The Germans tried that in WWI and WWII with Zepplins carring fighters and never was used in combat!!!
What the hell did rage do with the sucessor of EF2000??? EF2000 could not be one of the best sims ever but for the time it was made it was pretty good!!!

This was my way of release myself from the frustration that I had when I saw a game!! Well it appears that I will have to wait more time until a new Jet Simulator (modern jets) gets out to market!! The only good thing is that I didn't bought this game, I have a copy (but don't tell anyone !!!).

By the way, does anyone knows how I get my "letter" to the ones responsible for this "SIMULATOR"?

By the meantime I will continue to play my Jane's F/A-18 and Falcon4.

Thanks for "listen" me...

This must be your first time here cause if you'd been here before, you would not have picked up Typhoon with the hope that it would be a hardcore sim.

Typhoon has never been and never will be a hardcore sim. Nor was it EVER advertised as such. Sorry

I can understand your desperation, but as you ve read before, typhoon never was advertised as a "hardcore" sim. If you want such a hardcore sim, buy falcon 4 and use the SP3 patches, or buy TAW.

Here we go again
HAVE YOU FLOWN A TYPHOON????
then i dont think you are qualified to say if the flight model is unrealistic.....
e.g. I am taking it that the upgraded EJ2x0 are used, thus giving a total thrust of 240KN, or somewhere aroung 52,000 lbs of thrust. Typhoons max takeoff weight is 50,700 lbs. do the maths. Thrust to weight ratio in EXCESS of 1:1 while FULLY LOADED.
while in a basic A2A config, Typhoon weighs in around 30,000 lbs, so a thrust to weight ratio of 1.7:1 which is A LOT OF SPARE THRUST to play with! currently with the normal EJ200's it takes 7 seconds from brake release to gear fully up to take off.... so thats with a TTW ratio of 1.2:1.... so with a TTW ratio of 1.7:1 i think this number will drastically decrease!

But as said by others.... NO WHERE ON THE BOX OR IN ADVERTS does it advertise this as a hardcore sim...... and to add a bit, the Typhoon doesn't use mavericks.... and CAPTOR is capable of ground and air mapping simultaniously....... so it CAN display ground and air targets on the scope at the same time.

To valleyboy:

First of all the Eurofighter Typhoon doesn't have a trust of 50,700Lb as you say but have a trust of about 40,000Lb (each engine produces a trust of 20000Lb, see http://www.eurofighter.com ).
Ok that The Eurofighter Typhoon as an excelent High trust ratio, and so SU27 and the F15 also as excelent trust ratio.
For example the F15 as a trust of 50,000 (25,000 each) a normal takeoff weight (with 4 Sparrows) of 41,500 lb giving the F15 a trust to weight ratio of 1,2 when the Eurofighter is about 1,3 (using Real 40000 trust!!). And the F15 doesn't have a speed of 400 Knots when it takeoff, you can see that by playing the Jane's F15 (if you ever play it!!). That is a much more REAL SIMULATOR that Eurofighter Typhoon. Eurofighter Typhoon near Jane's F15 is an arcade game!! Despite I never flew one of this fighter jets I like military aviation and I read much about this.
And I can say that an aircraft that flies at 400 Knots with the gear down the most possible thing to happen is that the landing gear becames heavily damaged!!! That is one prof that Eurofighter Typhoon flight model sucks!!
Another thing the Captor isn't capable of doing Air and Ground mapping simultaneously because the Captor isn't an active electronically scanned array radar and only this kind or radars have that capability!! So a guess you are wrong about the Captor Radar!!
About the Mavericks, possibly the Eurofighter will be capable of carring those but I don't know if the UK or another country that will deploy the Eurofighter will use this missile.

One last thing, yes it was the first time that I came to Eurofighter Typhoon Message Boards!! I usually go to Jane's F/A-18, Jane's F15 or Falcon4 Message Boards!! The most real simulators available for PC!! Well it is yet to born a PC simulator better than those!!
And when I posted this Message I was only giving away my frustration of seeing this Simulator!!

Thanks for "listening" me...

Great he rips it to shreds and he hasn't even bought it!

I have no time for pirates like you! YOU that haven't got **NO** place here and deserve nothing more than to be banned.

By all means pass constructive criticism,*IF* you bought it, but you *didn't*.

So that puts you in no position to mouth off!

It's prats like you that push up bloody costs.

"This car is CRAP" said ricnunes after he just stole it......get the picture?


------------------
Check out my Customised/moded PC

"Flying is the second hardest thing known to man.........the first is landing!"

To Tracer[formerly of CS]:

I was thinking in buying Eurofighter Typhoon but in the meanwhile someone got me a copy of it!! If someone offers you a copy of a game that you wanted and you didn't got that game yet you would say no!!?? Yeah right, if you did that than I would be Donald Duck!! That's for sure!!
I usually buy games but in this case I got a copy first and I'm happy that it was the case in this game because I did'nt spend money in such a lousy "Simulator"!!!

By the way, I am thinking in getting rid of this copy, are you interested?

Sheeesh, you didn't get it did you....... the GAME is based in 2015..... which means TRANCHE 3 Eurofighters are likely to be used......... Tranche 3 aircraft are VERY likely to have UPGRADED ENGINES of around the 120KN class each... so thats 240KN total thrust! Which validates the above information given. Thus a total thrust of 52,000 lbs, for an air combat weight of 30,000 lbs would give a TTW ratio of around 1.7:1
AND I suggest you do some research on Typhoon..... my INFORMATION sources say it is capable of GROUND AND AIR MAPPING at the same time, and it isn't just AESA radars that can do this, as CAPTOR has such a high scan rate for a doppler radar, this feature has been implemented!!!!!!!!! Any way, by 2015 CAPTOR will be suplemented by AMSAR technology, which would make it an AESA radar.

So you want to talk hardcore sims????
JANES F-15 is based on the E model...... which DOES NOT have a high thrust to weight ratio AT ALL. So your above information is INVALID. It has extra drag, and a sh!t load of extra weight to carry while empty. and the Strike Eagles it was based on did not have the new P&W 229, but the older models, which gave it a crappy performance.
I suggest you look up this information, as you are living in a dream world at the moment.
I have been buying hardcore sims since 1990..... the list is too big to fit on here, so I think I know what a "sim" is

some include Strike Eagle series, Mig 29, EF2000, Longbow & longbow 2, JF-15, JF-15, JF-18, Flanker 2.5, Falcon 4, IL-2, EEAH, EECH, CFS1 & 2, BoB, and EF Typhoon.
So don't talk to me about "hardcore"

And if you look up some posts, some numbers were taken from the game and compared to real life numbers...... these again, were compared to the probable performance of the upgraded Typhoons, and the data was roughly the same, again, I am talking about the enhanced EJ2x0 series engine, and NOT the current EJ200 fitted to Tranche 1 Eurofighters. Such times were, brake release to gear up, acceleration from 200kts, to Mach 1.

Again, I suggest you look up CURRENT and FUTURE information regarding the Typhoon, as what was in the EF2000 manual has changed slightly since 1995

Also, half of the sims you claim are realistic, have major flaws in them..... they ALWAYS undermodel oposition aircraft. The MIG-29 IS superior to an F-16 in a dogfight, as the SU-27 is SUPERIOR to the F-15 in dogfights, and some cases BVR but sadly, we never see this in a sim

@ Valleyboy:
go to http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de and you ll find some really great pictures of German Mig 29 and Swiss F/A 18 during some dogfights. I don t know how the english text is, just read the german one, but if you need more details, i ll ask one of the MIG 29 Pilots,where the Advantages of this jets are.

To valleyboy:

I really did some reserch about the things that I said, and I've reserched in Official pages (as the page that I give you before), Aircraft magazines (such as Airforces Monthly) and I'm not based in this simulator manual like you because if the game it isn't real enough so probably the manual it isn't also!! So I advise you to see Official and Real information about these military aircraft!!
I didn't find anything that says that the Captor Radar is capable of Air and Ground Maping at the same time, I've seen information that tells me otherwise, so perhaps you could tell me were did you get that information? I would be appreciated!!
Even if you are right about the aircraft engines you have to take in account other forces that work against an aircraft when it takeoff (such as Gravity and friction)!!
- And say to you once again and do not ignore this, how about the landing gear, if you are so informed about aircraft you should know that an aircraft landing gear suffers heavy damage at speeds of 400 Knots!!! So tell me about this?? If is this true every time that an Eurofighter takeoff the ground it damage the landing gear!! That's ridiculous!!
You have to see that one thing is the accelaration in the air from one speed to other (for example 200 Knots to Mach1) and other thing completely diferent is the acceleration in the ground of 0 Knots to 400 Knots, that tottaly different!!

Other thing is that comparative or Mig29 Vs F16 and I say you are wrong. There was an article in Airforces Monthly (i don't recall the month and it was 1 or 2 years ago) that was Mig29 Vs F/A-18 that avaliated that F/A-18 was more agile in dogfight giving it an edge over Mig29 in dogfight! As you probably now F-16 is more agile that F/A-18 therefore is better that Mig29 in dogfight!! The only edge of the Russian Plane is that is equiped with an Helmet Cueing System giving the Mig29 a slight advantage in dogfights!! As you a person who likes future implementations must already now that both American airplanes are beeing equiped with similar (superior) systems (The JCHS)!! So the F16 (and F/A-18) are superior in dogfight to Mig29!!
Even in terms of BVR combat the only Russian planes that are comparable to is Western Similares are the Mig31 and Su35. The others (including SU27) have to rely mostly in AWACs or Ground Control for airborne interception because their radar (even having great ranges) aren't so advance as western aircraft as!! The same happens with BVR air-to-air missiles, the western AMRAAM is far more superior than AA10 (see Airforces Monthly article about Eritrea/Ethiopia conflict!!) and probably than AA12. Talking about Air-to-Air missiles the performance of the Meteor and ASRAAM is pathetic is Eurofighter Typhoon!!

About the AI enemies (not) using the BVR combat in the simulators I mencioned, Did you ever played Jane's F/A-18?? Probably not because in this game they usually fire fist in BVR (if they have the opportunity) and they use medium range Air-Air infrared missiles, something not seen in many simulators including Eurofighter Typhoon!!

I didn't say that The simulators I mencioned are perfect, but they are the most close to real that exists, even in terms of Flight Model.

Sorry if I sound a bit p!ssed off......I had little sleep last night. Too warm for my liking.

But I shall get the information for you
I get my information from official pages, http://www.eurofighter.com
and the most helpful,
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net


"Even though CAPTOR features a mechanically steered array, BAE Systems have indicated that the low inertia non-counterbalanced antenna coupled with four high torque, high precision samarium-cobalt drive motors allows extremely high scanning speeds. As a consequence of this the radar can interleave different operations such as air and ground mapping. This is quite an achievement for a non-phased array system."

note, interleave means it scans air to air one scan, air to ground the next. Thus giving simultanious scanning of air and ground mapping possible This is from the starstreak site.


As for the Mig 29...... it is better than an F-16 in a dogfight, one of the pages on this site has a turn rate chart for the Mig 29 against an F-16, the only hope an F-16 has against the Mig is to get low, but still the Mig has a slight advantage in turn rate down low. But at medium and high altitudes, the F-16 is dogmeat, the Mig holds all the advantages at all speeds.
Yes, the F/A-18's will get HMS systems, but the Russians still have an advantage there.... its called AA-11 Archer, and packs a hell of a punch for a dogfighting missile plus before you say the AIM-9X is about to be introduced... the AA-11 has been THE dogfighting missile over the last 20 years. So the -9X is well overdue! And I still regard a Mig a very dangerous oposition in WVR combat, as it has been underated by the go F-16ers for so long, that people actualy beleive the hype.

As far as F-16 against F-18 goes, the -18 is supposedly better, as the -18 has MUCH better handling at high AoA, it can use this if the fight gets slow and low to get in behind its target. The F-16 isnt as good a dogfighter as people would like you to think...... just try going against a Mig-29 guns only in Falcon 4 SP3, against ace oposition..... you REALLY have to work to get that kill, if you are lucky, but you get too low on fuel to make much of a fight.

I use to play JF-18 online years ago when combat.net was still up and running..... and i still think the Russian aircraft are undermodelled there. The Russians have some very capable weapons, but most sims give the advantage to allied aircraft. Take a look at the weapons available in Flanker 2.5... there are weapons of AMRAAM range that are IR guided, datalinked radar missiles to AWACS aircraft.... stuff that US weapons are only now catching up to. Though US weapons still have a higher PK, the Russian numerical advantage would make mince meat of anyone trying to take them on.

And as far as EF Typhoon goes.... yes the weapons do suck. BUT, Andy Bush has said along the lines, that the simulation community is misguided in its thoughts that OUR weapons are superior and always kill..... the truth is... if you can spoof his missiles... he can sure as hell spoof yours.



[This message has been edited by valleyboy (edited 06-24-2002).]

@valleyboy,
I must give ricu (sorry forgot the rest of the name) right. The real Typhoon could hardly be able to to accelerate in the vertical area as fast as in the horizontal. Climbing from zero to 20000 ft in 37 seconds or in one minute to 40000 ft is also unrealistic. Also the real Typhoon can reach Mach 2 not only Mach 1,83 but flys not Mach 1,37 at sea level.
In that way the FM in the game is unrealistic.

About the topic F-16 VS MiG-29:
first you guys never mention which versions fight against each other. But I take the MiG-29 (9.12) against the F-16C.

performance MiG-29/F-16:
Speed (Mach): 2,3/2,05
Ceilling: 17000m/15240m
climb rate: 330m/sec/254m/sec
AoA: 26 (max. 30)/25
substained turnrate (deg/sec): 22,8/21,7

only some examples, that shows, that the Fulcrum have the better performance. In combination with HMS and R-73 the MiG-29 is the better dogfighter.

In BVR-combat don't forget that the older F-16 had no capabilitys!!! Only the newer F-16C/D are BVR-capable. The newer MiG-29 (SMT-2/M...) have also good BVR capabilitys. I would mean better than the F-16.

*sigh*

This game was never advertised as being hardcore. When the performance of the weapons and the plane itself were questioned when the game was released Steve Hunt said that performance had been altered to better the gameplay. This was when he still made regular visits here, before some people made him feel unwelcome.

But I think this has gone far enough now. ricnunes: if you bought this game thinking it was a hardcore sim I can see how you would be very disappointed with it.

I'm trying to be the voice of reason here. I know there are lots of inaccuracies in this game, and I don't know how many (if any) have been resolved in the new add-on. I doubt any will have been as realism has never been a key issue for Typhoon. Playability is the key here. Do you think a newcomer to sims wants to memorise an entire keycard just to get off the ground? I enjoy the full realism of F4 as much as anyone here, but at times I just want to get in a plane and not worry about stalling during a turning dogfight, or remember the exact procedure for getting out of a deep stall.

I don't want this to turn into a Realism Vs Playability post, so i'll just say this: A number of decisions were made at the design stages of Typhoon that have made it into the game it is today. A lot of people don't like the outcome of those decisions, but a lot do. (Except maybe the "end-of-level-boss" thing, I've not seen many people that enjoyed that experience).

So, in closing: realism has been sacrificed in order to boost playability. That's a fact stated by the developers. If you don't like it then, well - maybe this game's not for you. One game can never live up to everyone's expectations. And remember, it is a *game*. If you want full and complete realism, join your country's air force and do it for real.

Right, sermon over - think i'll go play a game now
Tophat

Sheesh. Somebody has far too much spare time.

I'd love to add something intelligent but sadly I don't have time to even read it all, let alone reply!

------------------
---SVBS squad is playing Typhoon and ADF/TAW now at http://www.svbs.co.uk !---

it's kinda funny, ppl. here insisting this sim is kinda realistic or wat they call it semi-realistic ha..ha..ha... i don't know, the more i fly dis sim the more i feel it's kinda made by NOVALOGIC or let's just say it's really an arcade game wats the difference w/da Novalogic's Commanche 4? da way da Novalogic guys implement der avionics in der sim is really quite similar to RAGE's Typhoon.....the bottomline here RAGE's Typhoon is really for kids stuff..makes u smile ppl. here... playing dis sim are over 18 and dat includes me!

Hi valleyboy.

It's nice having this discusion with you! And I have more things to say to your last comment!!
First, the Russian BVR Air-to-Air missiles are far more inferior than the Americans (AMRAAM or even the lastest Sparrow versions)!! If you read the article that I have in my hand (Airforces Monthly - July 2000) in the article about Eritrea/Ethiopia conflict you would see that the Russian AA-10 Alamo (one of the best missiles of Russian arsenals) did have a similar performance of the AIM-7 Sparrow versions of the Vietnam War!!! That's what I can call, very lousy!!! So I didn't believe that AA-12 is a much better missile than AA-10 (several AA-12 were launched by Mig-29 in the Kosovo conflict with, of course no sucesseful results!!) So I can say that AMRAAM is a much better (precise) missile and more difficult to Jam!! Despite that reality the AA-10 IR guided missile is a very nasty missile in Jane's F/A-18 (I've got shot down some times by these *******s)!! And one more thing about Jane's F/A-18, is that F/A-18E Super Hornet (the plane in Jane's F/A-18) as the best Radar Defensive Contermesures installed in a fighter plane (mainly because the towed decoy, that is something marvelous!!)!! This Super Hornet IDECM is so good that it will be installed in the B-1 Lancer (a billion dollar strategic bomber!!). So it is more "easy" to deceive enemy missiles than for example in Falcon4 or Jane's F-15.
And don't get me wrong, but F/A-18 is better that Mig-29 (this one was in an Airforces Monthly as said before) in a dogfight because is more agile and will be equiped (not in 2015 but in 1 year, 2 years max.!!) with JCHM (helmet cueing system, more advanced than the Russian one) and the AIM-9X (of course more advanced than AA-11 Archer).

I will not comment about the Captor capability about Mapping Air and Ground at the same time and I will supose that it will be correct, but there are somethings about that page that are not correct and one of this things is the comparative about Eurofighter and another fighters (the F/A-18 Super Hornet is not a downgraded version of F-18+, but otherwise!!) and of course this one is completely outdated (because the same comparative appears in EF2000, so it as some years old!!). You can see more realist Comparatives of F/A-18 Super Hornet (that include Eurofighter) and other planes in this site:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/aircraft/fa18/combat2.jpg

So the data in the second site (that you gave to me) is tottaly realiable?? Maybe or maybe not!! As far as I know the more realiable site (you gave to me) is http://www.eurofighter.com (the real official one) than in the other (of course I'm not saying that Captor is both Air and Ground Map capable!!)!!
Well but about the Air-to-Air missiles I'm almoust 100% sure!!!

If you think that is easy to deceive enemy missiles in Jane's F/A-18 than try to lose your towed decoy!! I'm sure that you will regret that!! And even if you don't it is harder to lose enemy missiles than in Eurofighter Typhoon!! So, one more score to Jane's F/A-18!!

Even so, I'am sad about Eurofighter Typhoon, it was only necessary to improve some things in EF2000!! I think that wouldn't be so hard!!

Don't forget, that in real life Typhoon has a towed decoy drone, internal jamers, RWR receiver, laser warning receiver, a missile aproach warning system that covers both IR and Radar missiles and more importantly optical guided and laser guided missiles, and DASS that puts it all together so the pilot doesn't have to touch a button....... in that respect the Typhoon has the better self defence capability, IF full DASS is implemented, as you can mix and match the system to your requirements. Currently only the RAF are going for the full equipment fit.

And as far as some decoy systems that will be installed on US aircraft... take a look at the manufacturer..... it will say BAe Systems in a few cases! Especialy in the agile eye system that will be implemented.

As for Russian equipment... there are some arguments........ the Russians have export versions... which basicaly means downgraded. Unlike where the US would NOT sell AMRAAMS to people, Russia just gives them downgraded weapons. But as none of us are Russian weapon experts... (you need to go to Flankers forum to argue over them ) We can leave that one alone....

As far as the new F-18s are concerned... yes they are better than the Migs... but the Migs have had this technology for the best part of 20 years..... its about time that they caught up


as for the validaty of http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net
they get their information from a number of sources... BAe Systems, DASA, and in some cases the test pilots them selves
I find it a much more informative site in regard to the technology side than the official page.

Well, dont't forget one thing about the Typhoon's DASS in comparison with the Super Hornet's IDECM:
- The Typhoon will only carry the towed decoy externally. That means that at least one harpoint will not carry weapons if Typhoon's are to carry a towed decoy!! And in the case of Super Hornet the towed decoy is carried internally!
- The Super Hornet's IDECM will also be equip with an IR missile warning receiver.
- The IDECM is a modular system that means when new equipments are to be installed or to replace anothers this will be done very easily!!
- The IDECM as full Automatic mode so that the pilot will not be needed to do anything when the system works against an incoming missile threat (in exception of the evasive maneuvers, of course ).
- The Super Hornet as better "stealth" capabilities (reduced RCS) than Typhoon (see http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/archive/MILITARY/AA/fa-18ef-report.html ),
and this "stealth" capabilities will even get better in the Block 3 upgrade (due to 2007-2010).
- So because of this I can conclude that Super Hornet as a better self defence capability than Typhoon!!
- The only advantage of the Typhoon DASS over IDECM Super Hornet appears to be the Laser Warning Receiver (that is not available in SH IDECM), but even this isn't so necessary for a fast fighter aircraft like Super Hornet or the Typhoon (as you can imagine aiming a Laser on one fast fighter isn't such a easy task, even with FLIRs caged to a Radar System!!). The Laser Warning Receiver is more usefull for Helicopters or slow and low moving aircraft (such as A10 or SU25).

Finaly to conclude, the subject of the Russian downgraded exports:
- What you said about Russians only export downgraded versions was true during the cold war but it isn't true now!! The Russians have to compete will more advanced western weapons systems (including Air-to-Air missiles) so it is now often that Russian offers to possible export customers better equipment that it equips the Russian Armed Forces and that includes for example the Mig-29, that the export version it's now more capable than the Russians ones. And the AA missiles are not an exception (the exports are not more advanced than Russian forces but equal to those!!).
As a prof of this, the Mig-29 or SU-27 (in many cases the SU-35) as been considered by many Air Forces around the world (including NATO or other western air forces) and is losing in most of the cases because the missiles it carries that are inferior to their western rivals.

I have information that says otherwise about the IDECM system, The TRD on DASS does not take up any weapon hardpoints... actualy, I have information that the IDECM in full outfit takes up hardpoints. Also, IDECM has no MAW's, only a TRD, so IR guided missiles will only be detected I can guess by some IR system that tracks the heat signiture of the incoming missile.... only problem with this is that the missiles motor HAS to be burning for it to be tracked, DASS has no such fall back, there is a radar bubble that gives 360 degree coverage of ALL missiles, so it can take the apropriate measures to spoof it. All I can ascertain is that the TRD is also a form of IR decoy, as well as radar.
Also that link says absolutley nothing about the -18E RCS being lower...... actualy, it says nothing at all about RCS. And there is information that says that the Typhoons RCS is only bettered by the F-22.

Also, lasers are used by Russian IRST systems to range their targets.... and there are a number of SAM's that use lasers to range/guide their missiles.
In other places I have been, it has been said the F/A-18E's RCS is only smaller than the C/D models when no pylons are attached. Don't forget that the -18E is 35%-40% bigger than the C/D models.

plus the Super Hornet cant supercruise, and has been said that it cant go supersonic below 10,000 ft.... where as Typhoon will supercruise at around Mach 1.3 at sea level.

I would have given information, but i got disconnected, and my post got lost before I could post it So i had to re-write this....

lol I wanted to answer ricnuses, but Valleyboy allready did.

But some things I will add.

@Ricnuses,
MiG-29 fired R-77 missiles in the Kosovo war? Never heared about that and it's unrealistic because the MiG-29B of the serbian airforce don't support that missile!!!

@Valleyboy,
the Typhoon isn't able to reach Mach 1,3 in Supercruise at sea level. The top speed of the Typhoon at sea level is 1390 km/h (M. 1,14). At high altitudes it's right M 1,3 could be reached and as you also know in futur perhaps M. 1,5.

Ok, certainly you didn't read ALL the web page that I've shown so I will quote was is the conclusion that F/A-18 Super Hornet is more "stealth" that Eurofighter Typhoon:

"It would be fair to say that the F/A-18E/F employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the very low observable F-22 and planned JSF. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a forward sector RCS arguably an order of magnitude smaller than seventies designed fighters."

Well I will translate to english you this quote:
- This mean that the only fighter aircraft that are more stealth that the Super Hornet are the F-22 and the JSF. Did you get it?
The Super Hornet RCS it is said to be less or equal than the F-16 (A small fighter and of course with a reduced RCS over other simular fighters!!) and so more reduced RCS than the F/A-18 C/D models!!

Next, lets talk about the Towed Decoy:
Fist the Towed decoy (in both Tyhoon or Super Hornet) as only Radar deceiving capabilities. If you read the Web page that you gave to me ( http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/defences.html ) you'll see that the Eurofighter Typhoon Towed decoy is called TRD-TOWED RADAR DECOY, so the decoy in Typhoon it isn't IR capable!! When you read something (about aircrafts!!) make sure to READ everything, OK!!
The IR Warning receivers are passive systems that cover all around the aircraft (in Typhoon and Super Hornet when implemented!!) and have nothing to do with the towed decoys!!
Next thing, the Laser used in IRST systems or IR missiles only serves to measure the distance at which the target is (since the IR is not a ranging system like the Radar!!) and of course does't serve to track the target, for tracking you've got the IR seeker!! If you have an incoming IR missile OF COURSE YOU HAVE A LASER AIMING AT YOU, don't you think?? So, it's one more reason because Laser Warning Receivers aren't that usefull (for a fighter aircraft, of course!!).

Of course that the Typhoon as Supercruise capability and Super Hornet doesn't (as far as I know!!). The Typhoon is a completely new aircraft design, and Super Hornet (with more improvements) is based on a existing design, but even this is an advantage:
-The Super Hornet is far ahead in deployment schedule and than Typhoon!!

I forgot one more thing valleyboy:

The Super Hornet Towed decoy is carried internally in a bay!! So as you can imagine IT DOESN'T ANY WEAPONS HARPOINTS!!
I've reserched more in the Typhoon's Towed Decoy and as I said before the inicial deployments of the Towed Decoy are in external harpoints but there are work undergoing in term of miniaturize the Tower Decoy to allow it to fit in the external wingtip Pods (see http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/defences.html).
If this work will be sucesseful?? I don't know, it's a little hard to believe since Wingtip pod are so small and already carries equipment to work with DASS (see link above for more information!!)!!

To White Knight:

I read an article in a magazine (AirForces Monthly I guess!!) about the AA-12 deployment by the Serbs in the Kosovo conflict!!
I don't recall (And I didn't find) which article was but I think is has something to be with the Aerial engagement with Dutch F-16s and Serbs Mig-29!!
I'll try to find that article, than I will tell which article was!!

Hi Ricnunes,
ok look up.

About the small RCS of the Super Hornet. The same what in your quoted article stands, you can read about the Typhoon. The Typhoon have a much smaller RCS than the most other current fighters. I couldn't imagine that the Super Hornet have a much smaller RCS than the Hornet. It's only possible with RAM's. And RAM's you can use for all fighters! I only look at the newest MiG-29SMT-2 or the indian MiG-21.

The TRD is carried in the right wingtip pod of the DASS system.
I was given this link about the SH RCS.....
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/f14f18/f14f18_1.asp


And here is the TRD


This is the TRD system..... note, the wingtip hardpoints DO NOT carry weapons, they are exclusively used for the DASS pods.


Also, with the Russian IRST system, yes the IR detects you, but he still needs to range you.... to do this if he wishes to remain fairly passive, he needs to use his laser........ otherwise he would use his radar, which would give him away not only to his target, but several other aircraft in the area, THATS why Typhoon houses a LWR, so the pilot is fully aware that SOMETHING is ranging him, so he can be prepaired for an attack...... the F/A-18E/F.. without a LWR WILL NOT be aware that his aircraft is being lased/ranged... and will not be aware of any iminent danger to his aircraft.
As Typhoon will also be used for A2G missions, which bring it into low altitude operations..... I say again, that Rapier uses laser to range its target..... so the Typhoon pilot WOULD be aware that his aircraft is being lased, where the F/A-18E/F driver WILL NOT.

ALSO something else that DASS will be able to do, is share threat information with other Typhoons....

[This message has been edited by valleyboy (edited 06-26-2002).]

[This message has been edited by valleyboy (edited 06-26-2002).]

Hi Valleyboy:

First the site you gave me didn't tell much about the Super Hornet's RCS. I read it some times and didn't find anything but a a comparative between Super Hornet and F14 Tomcat, even that quite not realistic (the Super Hornet have a range of 1,930 nautical miles and the Tomcat a range of 915 nautical miles see http://www.iss.northgrum.com/products/navy_products/superhornet/superhornet.html , and the Super Hornet can stay 40% more time in a CAP station than Tomcat, which concludes that Super Hornet as longer range than F-14 as said in the web page you gave and all this data that I'm saying is official!!)!!
Secondly I now that work is being carried for use the TRD in the Wingtip pod but it isn't yet carried (normally)!! That foto of yours shows the TRD canister Gruesomely adaptaded to the wingtip (note that the usual Wingtip pod isn't adapted to that aircraft!!). Of course I know that wingtip doesn't carry weapons (the Eurofighter Typhoon is so good that have to carry ECM devices in external pods ). And if the miniaturize work for the TRD doesn't work out with sucess, you can bet that the TRD will be carried (if carried!!) in a Weapons Hardpoint, because of course, the Eurofighter will not be striped from it's starboard ECM sensors suite pod!!

Well for the laser issue, I have to say this:
- As you now the IRST is nothing more than an IR camera (you can even see this in EF2000 and Eurofighter Typhoon) and as you must now this system in reality doesn't track aircraft by simply pressing a "T" key (that one more thing not real in Typhoon)!! In reality you have 2 choices to operate the IRST:
1- You can move manualy the camera util you can see the target (in the camera display) and then manualy lock on it, of course this will be a very unlike procedure to use in a combat situation (don't forget that in real live there is no "T" key)!
2- Slave the IRST to a target illuminated by the radar or if available to a DATA LINK target, this of course is the most possible scenario for the use of IRST!!
As you can see IRST is not even close a first detection system onboard a fighter!! Even that you can have some reason that an using laser IRST can be detected by LWR. But even so an Eurofighter (for example) can be locked by an IR system without having been "painted" by a laser and I will explain why:
- The Super Hornet can also detect an aircraft using IR Systems, it is called the ATFLIR that is an external pod that detect air targets (and ground targets!!) as the Eurofighter IRST (with almost the same range and better image quality, the last one because IRST is a 2nd generation Imaging Infra Red and ATFLIR is a 3rd generation Imaging Infra Red)!! And this ATFLIR doesn't need a Laser to range to target, ATFLIR can do it by triangulation!! So if a Super Hornet or other fighter that carries a simular ATFLIR system can detect (using IR systems) and range another aircraft without using Laser thus not alert a LWR!!
Well, about the IR missiles I must say that if an aircraft as an IRWR it does't need a LWR to detect IR missiles because IRWR is capable of detecting an incoming IR missile (without the need of a LWR!!) and send the information for the aircraft to proceed with Flare depoyment!!
Another IR missile issue, the Super Hornet will carry ASTE IR expendable decoys that will be more effective than the normal flares in deceiving IR missiles!!
To conclude this LWR issue I must say that UK is the only country to deploy LWR to it's Typhoon's and so after all this I must conclude that the LWR isn't so useful for a fighter as you may say!!



[This message has been edited by ricnunes (edited 06-26-2002).]

Hi White Knight,

I now that my posted quote exists in some form for the Eurofighter Typhoon!! But I've seen this RCS information about Super Hornet in several site (more than those of the Typhoon)!!
I've read that similar about Eurofighter Typhoon in a Game Manual (Eurofighter Typhoon and EF2000 manuals) and I must say that most of the information (in that manuals) are outdated. Just look to that comparative of several fighter, There is no F-18+, that was something canceled several year ago and Super Hornet isn't a downgraded version of F-18+ but otherwise!! The Super Hornet is a new more capable aircraft than a normal Hornet will ever be!!
Because of this I find the information about Super Hornet more reliable than those concerning Typhoon!!
And don't forget that Super Hornet's Block 3 upgrade will have further enhancements in terms of RCS!!!
Of course one of the main keys for reducing RCS will be the use of RAM material's and to some extension the Super Hornet use them (another reason because Super Hornet's RCS is smaller than Typhoon!)!! That's what makes such a relatively big fighter (25% bigger than the normal Hornet) with such a reduced RCS!! The F-22 and JSF are of course more stealth than Super Hornet but one of the reasons is because the F-22 and JSF carry their weapons Internally and Super Hornet Externally!!
In theory most of existing fighter could be equiped with RAM materials but not without hampering their capabilities and performances and just not to mention the modifications in their airframe and the adicional cost that this would take!!
In the other hand the Super Hornet was designed from the begining to use this kind of materials!!

There is a difference between ATFLIR... and an IRST.

IRST is designed to find aircraft on its own. And the IRST on Typhoon is almost like a radar, it will detect up to 200 targets, which the pilot can then choose from, the IRST can scan in MTT STT and STTI. Just by simply pressing a button, It is not simply a camera. Its secondary function is as a FLIR which the pilot can put the image on the HUD, or his HMS. And he can also view his target in picture form through it. Also, Typhoon sports something called SENSOR FUSSION, something only the F-22 is better at.
ATFLIR requires the pilot to slave the image, or slew to the radar, or pan it. ATFLIRS PRIMARY function is for LASER GUIDED WEAPONS, i.e. GBU's and the like, not to detect aircraft. It can be used to view aircraft when slaved to the radar, IRST and ATFLIR are two completly different systems. ATFLIR is for LASER DESIGNATING, with a secondary function for viewing radar targets. IRST's primary function is to DETECT air targets, and the ability to view the tracked target, if radar is on, or off. With a secondary function as a FLIR.

The TRD HAS already been fitted in there..... THEY ARE IN PRODUCTION LIKE THAT.
and the IRWR is still INFERIOUR to a MAW... IRWR's can ONLY detect incoming missiles when the motors are burning... MAW's detect missiles by RADAR.... there is a bubble around the aircraft, that when the missile enters, it is tracked, and displayed on DASS..... where DASS will then spoof it.

Again........ a LWR will be able to tell you IF the enemy is ranging you, this could be a ground threat... or an air threat OR a AAA platform....... hows the F/A-18 going to cope then??? detect the incoming shells????
The LWR would give the Typhoon pilot the knowledge that he is being range BEFORE any weapons are fired. ANYWAY, the Super Hornets will probably never fly as low as the RAF Typhoons will.....

If the missile motor has stoped burning, and is traveling on kinematic energy.... IRWR is then useless for tracking the missile..... MAW's will still detect the missile.

Flares are now getting old........ If you must know, newer IR missiles use Imaging Infra Red, the missile doesn't track the IR signaturte of the aircraft.... it follows the shape of the aircraft, and they are smart enough to differentiate between flares and their target aircraft.

Typhoon also uses RAM materials, and stealth features are included in the design. And can carry few weapons without a huge increase in RCS as SH would duffer from..... Typhoon doesn't have any internal bays, but it has four semi-recessed hardpoints for medium/long range A2A missiles

you obviously havent heard of Tranche 2 and 3 Eurofighters then..... can you say thrust vectoring???? and more powerfull engines?? Meteor missile?? AMSAR?? CFT's??

[This message has been edited by valleyboy (edited 06-27-2002).]

Obviouly you don't know what an IR system is!! I advise you to read EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERY SYSTEM and not only those of the Typhoon!! For the last time I will say, IRST is a system that picks up heat sources VISUALLY USING A LONG RANGE IR CAMERA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The IRST is 2 generation IR systems (ATFLIR is 3rd generation, ATFLIR IS BETTER THAN IRST) and as any camera that pick's up heat sources need someone to "guide" the camera to lock in a heat source!!!!
If you played realist simulators that you said that you play (but I start do doubt that), you would know that STT mode isn't a seach mode BUT A TRACK MODE!!!! STT-Single target track!!!!!!
The use of the "T" key serves only to improve the "playability" in Eurofighter Typhoon AND IT IS NOT REAL, NO ONE IS A FIGHTER PRESSES A KEY IN A RADAR OR IRST OR FLIR OR WHATEVER AND "PUM" THE TARGET APEARS LOCKED, THAT'S SIMPLY NOT REAL!! IN REAL LIFE YOU HAVE TO SELECT THE TARGET IF IT'S THE CASE IT APEARS IN A SENSOR, THERE ARE NO "T" KEYS IN REAL LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I advise you to read more in more sources and to play more realistic simulators (A person can learn much from this ones)!!!
As far as I know Eurofighter DON'T USE RAM materials, they use special coating -> SUPER HORNET IS MORE STEALTH THAN EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON!!!!!! Surelly is you that haven't yet heard about Block upgrades in Super Hornet!!
Well About ATFLIR, the ATFIR can track an air target without using radar or whatsoever!! BECAUSE THE ATFLIR WORK IN TWO SELECTABLE MODES: AIR-TO-AIR and AIR-TO-GROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET IT, ONCE MORE, READ ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!
There are also proposed trust verctoring nozzles for Super Hornet, I don't know when it's gonna be implemented, but that idea came much sooner than the one thought for Typhoon I can assure you that!!!!!
And Super Hornet has also SENSOR FUSION IN CASE YOU DIDN'T NOTICED, once more you lost an oportunity of reading more about Super Hornet!!!!!!

If it makes you happy, I don't think that Super Hornet is better than Typhoon!! I think and have information that in overall performance both aircraft have similar combat efectiviness!! As everything else, surelly one aircraft is better in some fields and the another is in another fields!!
See image below (It's from a Official US NAVY related Link!!!):




I'm getting tired of trying to explain everything in every single detail, jezz I'm tired I think I'm going to get some sleep!!!






[This message has been edited by ricnunes (edited 06-27-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ricnunes (edited 06-27-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ricnunes (edited 06-27-2002).]

I know what an IR system is..... but you still don't understand, IRST is designed to SEARCH for air targets on its own... ATFLIR needs pilot input.

"PIRATE incorporates both a Forward Looking Infra Red (or FLIR) and Infra Red Search and Track (or IRST) capability. The system itself utilises a highly sensitive Infra Red sensor mounted to the port side of the canopy. This equipment scans across wavelengths from 3 to 11 µm in two bands. This allows the detection of both the hot exhaust plumes of jet engines as well as surface heating caused by friction. By supercooling the sensor even small variations in temperature can be detected at long range. Although no definitive ranges have been released an upper limit of 80nm has been hinted at, a more typical figure would be 30 to 50nm. The use of processing techniques further enhances the output, giving a near high resolution image of targets. The actual output from the system can be directed to any of the Multi-function Head Down Displays mounted within the cockpit. Additionally the image can be overlaid on both the Helmet Mounted Sight and Head Up Display.

The IIR sensor is stabilised within its mount so that it can maintain a target within its field of view. Up to 200 targets can be simultaneously tracked by the system using one of several different modes; Multiple Target Track (MTT), Single Target Track (STT), Single Target Track Ident (STTI), Sector Acquisition and Slaved Acquisition. In MTT mode the system will scan a designated volume space looking for potential targets. In STT mode PIRATE will provide high precision tracking of a single designated target. An addition to this mode, STT Ident allows for visual identification of the target, the resolution being superior to that provided by CAPTOR. Both Sector and Slave Acquisition demonstrate the level of sensor fusion present in the Typhoon. When in Sector Acquisition mode PIRATE will scan a volume of space under direction of another Typhoon sensor such as CAPTOR. In Slave Acquisition the use of off-board sensors is made with PIRATE being commanded by data obtained from an AWACS for example. When a target is found in either of these modes PIRATE will automatically designate it and switch to STT.

Once a target has been tracked and identified PIRATE can be used to cue an appropriately equipped short range missile, i.e. a missile with a high off-boresight tracking capability such as ASRAAM. Additionally the data can be used to augment that of CAPTOR or off-board sensor information via the AIS. This should enable the Typhoon to overcome severe ECM environments and still engage its targets."

and this:

"Most of the aircraft shell, >70% is comprised of Carbon Fibre Composite (CFC), namely; the outer fuselage, wings (including in-board flaperons) and rudder. Additionally a significant proportion of the structural members are also constructed from CFC. The canards, out-board flaperons and engine nozzles are subject to large stresses and/or high temperatures and thus are made from SPFDB Titanium. The SPFDB process yields a far more rigid structure resulting in an improved strength to weight ratio compared to normal, machined Titanium. The wing leading edges, fin leading edges, rudder trailing edge and wingtip DASS/ECM pods are made from a Lithium-Aluminium alloy imparting superior strength to weight than standard aluminium alloys. Additionally these areas are also coated in Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM). The canopy seal surrounds are manufactured from a Magnesium alloy."

also:
"The Eurofighter Typhoon cannot and is not classed as a stealth fighter (see fact box). However the consortium did take measures to reduce the aircraft's radar cross section. Many of these Reduced Observable (RO) features were tested over the years at BAE Systems covered radar signature range at BAe Warton near Preston, NW England. Some examples of this design include; the intakes which are shaped so as to hide the engine compressor blades, the sloped intake sides, the fuselage recessed medium range weapons, the wing hardpoint placement and design, radome construction, etc. In addition Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM) developed primarily by EADS/DASA coat many of the most significant reflectors, e.g. the wing leading edges, the intake edges and interior, the rudder surrounds, strakes, etc.

The actual radar cross section is of course classified, it is however set out for the RAF in SR(A)-425. According to the RAF the Eurofighter's RCS more than exceeds these requirements. More recent comments from BAE seem to indicate the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado. During a recent press event BAE Systems stated that the Typhoon's RCS is bettered only by the F-22 in the frontal hemisphere and betters the F-22 at some angles. Although the later comment is very questionable it still indicates a real attempt to reduce the Typhoon's radar signature. This should enable a Eurofighter pilot to remain undetected by his enemy until he his significantly closer than he may otherwise be able to achieve."

Do I see the word RAM used in there a few times?

Also that diagram you have posted is for A2G aircraft..... how do I know this???
It has no F-22 on it......... and it has the JSF on it. Which happens to look nothing like any of the JSF prototypes

I would say in the A2A area, the F/A-18E is inferiour to Typhoon, in the A2G role, the F/A-18E has a lot more space to put things on, plus Typhoon's A2G capability will not be fully functional for a few more years, it is an added extra to Typhoon, as Typhoons main mission is Air Superiority.


Note one 3D thrust vectoring EJ200 in test bed:




[This message has been edited by valleyboy (edited 06-27-2002).]

And also i just remembered....... IF you want to compare ATFLIR.... then compare it to TIALD. NOT the IRST, as IRST and ATFLIR are two different systems, TIALD is much closer to ATFLIR..... and ATFLIR SHOULD be better than TIALD.. ATFLIR is 10 years newer!

Well Valleyboy, you say that Typhoon is superior to Super Hornet in A2A combat, well let's see:
- The Super Hornet will be equiped with AESA radar that have a range of more than 180km. Other sources said that this radar will give more 50% range than the previous APG-73 (this will surpass the 200Km). This of course is more than the 160Km Radar range of the Typhoon.
- The Super Hornet carries 14 missiles (12 MRM and 2 SRM) and the Typhoon carries 12 (10 MRM and 2 SRM).
- The AESA will allow the Super Hornet to fire at 4 targets simultaneuosly!!
So with this the Typhoon is superior in A2A combat than Super Hornet? DON'T THINK SO!!!
I'm not in a great mood for writing so I'll give you some sites that confirms some of my sayings:

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0109/FR0109c.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/6480/f18e.html


About the IRST, This one is no more than a FLIR, and you obviously should now how a FLIR works!! see:

http://www.eurofighter.com/typhoon/avionicshome.asp


The ATFIR is also capable of "seaching" aircraft (even without being slave to a Radar)!!! see:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q2/nr_020605m.html

The Super Hornet A2G comparable to Typhoon it's superior to Typhoon!! One of the main reasons is the vast A2G weaponry it carries:
Cruise missiles, GPS Weapons (all kinds), IR missiles, Laser weapons, Electo-Optics weapons, etc...
Other reasons are their sensors, the Super Hornet Radar are capable of better and longer range ground resolution (much enhanced is AESA) and the ATFLIR that is far better than anything of it's type carried by Typhoon or other fighter aircraft!!
see F/A-18E loadout image (and there aren't all the weapons that Super Hornet can carry):

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

At first IRST (Infrared Search and Track) is a infrared sensor used to find AA targets. FLIR (Foward Looking Infrared) is a infrared camera used to find AG-targets or to simplify navigation on bad weather conditions!

@Ricnunes,
all sources say the Typhoon is better than a Super Hornet. And it's logical. The Typhoon is the newer aircraft, designed as fighter! The Super Hornet based on the older Hornet was designed as a multirole fighter!

I want to make a objectiv comparision between the Eurofighter and the Super Hornet. Both in dogfight and in BVR-combat.

The basic AN/APG-73 radar for F/A-18E, JHMCS and AIM-9X.

Dogfight:
The Typhoon is the smaller aircraft so it's more difficult to see him. Both aircrafts have a cockpit with a good view. About the performance the Typhoon is definitely the better fighter. He can pull more G's and can turn faster, with a lower radius. Also his acceleration and climb rate is better. The weaponary of both fighters is equal. Performance of the AIM-9X (F/A-18E) and the ASRAAM/IRIS-T (Typhoon) should be equal. At all the Typhoon is surely the better dogfighter.

BVR-combat:
Most sources, which I know, say the Typhoon have the lowest RCS after the real stealth aircrafts. This is a nearly sinnless discussion. So we say both have an equal RCS, ok? About the radars the Captor have better performance than the APG-73 it can track and engage more targets at once and have higher scanning speeds, is more ECM-resistent and have a higher range. Assists through the PIRATE IRST/FLIR the Typhoon could passiv find an enemy. Also the Typhoon is able to transfer position and target data between other Typhoon's, AWACS... the sensor fusion gives a very good SA. The Super Hornet Pilot haven't such a good SA, cause he must compare different instruments/displays to get a full overview! Also the combination of DVI and HOTAS (short VTAS) of the Typhoon gives him advantages, but that's a point more important in dogfight. Also the Typhoon have supercruise capabilitys and accelerates faster. He would be faster in the optimal fireposition. Also his EWS is fully automated, the EWS of the Super Hornet is good but not as good automated! The number of AA-missiles is unimportant in a 1 VS 1 fight and even in a 1 VS 4 or simuilar scenario. The Typhoon carriers up to 12 AA missiles 6 IR and 6 BVR missiles or 8 BVR and 2 IR. The Super Hornet carry's up to 16 AA-missiles 6 AIM-9X and 10 AIM-120C. The Typhoon can in future use the Meteor which should be better than the AMRAAM.
Short the Typhoon can detect the Super Hornet first and comes faster in better shoot position so he can fire from higher ranges. And the probably better EWS improve the Situation for the Typhoon.

You speak about the AN/APG-79, you know that a AESA radar is also under development for the Typhoon? It's called AMSAR.

The Super Hornet isn't a bad fighter, but it was designed as Multirole fighter and carrierborne aircraft. The Typhoon is more optimized on the AA-role and the better fighter.

Show me one serious source (except the producer or the customer) which say the Super Hornet is the better one. You will find no one, because all know what's up.

To White Knight:

The Super Hornet that I've compared to Typhoon uses the APG-79 AESA radar an this radar will be deployed in 2005!! And it's around 2005 that the Typhoon enters in service (scheduled!!)! For Typhoon there is no (as far as I know) scheduled data to AMSAR enters service and when AMSAR enters service it is possible that the AESA Radar as been upgraded!! Also makes sense to compare Super Hornet (with AESA) mostly because the F/A-18F (the most produced version and the one that will directly replace F-14 Tomcat) will only be tottally funcional when AESA enters service!!!
That's because I didn't use the APG-73 for comparison!! Even using APG-73 the Super Hornet can engage 2 targets (4 in AESA) at the same time (giving information about 2 targets to 2 AMRAMM or the double in AESA, do you understand me?)!! And as far as I know (specially using information in http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html and http://www.eurofighter.com) the CAPTOR cannot do that (allow giving information to AMRAAM's or METEOR's to more than one target)!! The CAPTOR can prioritise it's targets, something that the APG-65 carried by F/A-18A already done for several years!!
I can ensure you that the Super Hornet's pilots do not have to do compare their sensors data to have a Situation Awareness, the aircraft is capable of doing it autonomously by merging the Onboard and Outboard Systems (Radar, ATFLIR and DATA LINK) to a SA page or RADAR page, so this is equal than the systems in Typhoon!!
Other thing, the Super Hornet's IDECM can work in a Fully automated mode!!! IDECM in full auto mode can deploy Chaffs, Flares (or other more recent expendable decoys), towed decoy and activate onboard Jammers doing all this without any action from the pilot!! So IDECM as DASS can be tottaly automatic (I believe that in reality, DASS as the IDECM can work also in manual mode!!).
To conclude it's fair, if we want to compare Super Hornet to Eurofighter Typhoon that the Super Hornet be compared with AESA because when Typhoon enters service the Super Hornet will already have AESA (I must give you reason in BVR combat when Super Hornet is using the APG-73 in 1 vs 1 cenario). But with AESA and the reasons that I gave in my previous reply I must say that Super Hornet's got an edge in BVR A2A combat!!
In an dogfight cenario, I admit that I don't have any elements to compare both fighters, and I will take your word in most of it!! But I think (only think, I not sure!!) that Super Hornet handles better in a High AoA situation than Typhoon mainly because as far as I read Super Hornet is one of the best fighters in this kind of manouvers. One more thing in dogfight, in F/A-18F (pilot and WSO version) since both crew will use JCHS, this version could have an advantage in a dogfight will an other fighter (an extra pair of "eyes" can always be usefull, you know what I mean?).

About IRST, the IRST it is a FLIR, just go to the following link:
http://www.eurofighter.com/typhoon/avionicshome.asp
and choose the Infra Red Search & Track (IRST) option and read the text (this link is official)!!!

About my sources, they are serious as yours because my sources such as yours are from the producer or the customer (the ones than aren't web pages of those are based on those and those applies to Typhoon sources as well) and not more independent sources mainly because both aircraft are in a development stage (Low rate producion Super Hornet E model already entered service but didn't even receive the most of proposed equipment such as AESA or ATFLIR!!).

As I said before Super Hornet is better in some things and Typhoon is in others!!

This is from a forum..... its about CAPTOR:

"That the radar is able to engage 6 targets at once it's clear, I read that some times, for example in the collection "Fazination Fliegen", also in the simulation EF2000 from DID the radar is able to engage 6 targets, but at this time it was said, that the radar can track 12 targets simultously. As we know newer information say, the radar can track up to 20 targets or perhaps more. In a french paper (special) Air&Cosmos from 1997 stand that the CAPTOR (ex ECR-90) can engage 8 targets. I'm not sure, but if I remember right I read somewhere else that the radar can engage 8 targets."

also,
"In 1997 Marconi indicated CAPTOR had detected fighter sized aircraft at ranges of well over 160km and larger aircraft at double that. More recent information indicates the systems range accuracy is within 10 metres while it can obtain a target angle to within 1 miliradian. The system is capable of tracking 20 air targets simultaneously, automatically identifying and prioritising them. When in the track list the appropriate weapon can be automatically selected (a function in part of the ACS) and using auto-attack the aircraft can be flown under autopilot to a selected air target. All of these capabilities are designed to significantly reduce the workload of the pilot during combat operations."

There goes your theory on only engaging two targets at once


[This message has been edited by valleyboy (edited 06-29-2002).]

valleyboy,
that's right. You was faster :-) It's exactly the same I wanted to answer.

@ricnunes,
The inservice date for the Typhoon is end of this year. FOC is in 2005 or perhaps 2006. It's right that the Super Hornet will get at this time the AESA AN/APG-79 radar. The AMSAR will probably be available from 2010 on.
The AMSAR will be able to scan an area of +-90 degrees (azimuth). If you look what the Captor can do now, imagine what the AMSAR will can!

I just want to know how the X-31 and the TV EJ200 get on and the then how the TV EJ200's and Typhoon get on

As I said before when AMSAR enters service the most possible thing is that Super Hornet gets an enhanced version of APG-79 AESA or even another Radar (remember that F/A-18 Hornet had APG-65 and some still have in some countries and then received APG-73!!).
Don't forget that Super Hornet was designed to have much spare space for improved or addicional avionics!!

To Valleyboy:

If you read with more attencion the my last reply to you, you would see that the Radar that can attack (or deploy AMRAAM's) TWO (2) targets at the same time was the APG-73 Radar (the AESA as the capability for 4 targets)!!
The APG-79 AESA radar can also track 20 targets at the same time. The AESA radar range is more than 185Km, as you can see more than the 160km of the CAPTOR radar!!
see:
http://www.flightdailynews.com/back_issues/paris2001/june20/defence/raytheon.shtm

Of course that any radar can detect larger targets (for example heavy bombers) at larger ranges than the one specified by the producers!! The range of the radar gived in any technical data (185+ Km for Super Hornet and 160+ Km Typhoon, for example) is the range that a Radar can detect a fighter sized target!!!!

@ricnunes,
I don't think the USN introduce the AN/APG-79 and replace it 5 years later. The Captor is much better than the AN/APG-73. What will the AMSAR be compared to the AN/APG-79? We will see, but I guess it will be better. But it's only an opinion...