Eurofighter Snipes Lockheed, Says Typhoon More 5th-Gen Than F-35, Latter Not Even A Fighter!

The Eurofighter Typhoon is much more of a 5th-Generation fighter than the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning-II. That’s the refrain of an article in the latest edition of Eurofighter’s magazine Eurofighter World. Suggesting that the “generation sequence and headings used by Lockheed-Martin for fighters are generally shared by the defence community”, the piece goes on to point out that “these classifications are truly too rigid and schematic to have any credibility, in the sense that a fighter such as the Eurofighter Typhoon exhibits all the qualities of a 5th generation fighter with the exception of full spectrum stealthiness (VLO) but is well above the legacy 4th generation platforms in all other measures of performance.” Eurofighter says the US “uses and sometimes abuses” the generations issue.

If we take the key attributes defining a 5th generation fighter the JSF satisfies only a few of them. Scoring the Eurofighter Typhoon against the same “admission criteria” as the 5th generation club, would produce a much higher compliance than JSF, for example, as the only missing part would be the VLO stealthiness,” the article states, with a table depicting this compliance.

Here’s the rest:

  • So, if the F-35/JSF is not a 5th generation fighter, what is it then? Where does it belong? That is a very important question and needs a definition before it can be answered properly.

    A fighter is a combat aircraft whose aerodynamic characteristics, sensor suite and weapon capabilities are optimised to achieve the control of the air. Fighters actively look for and engage the opponent’s fighter force. Strike aircraft generally avoid engagements with other fighters. The fighter generations concept obviously applies and is restricted to fighters. It cannot apply to bombers, strike and attack aircraft, even if sometimes these are inaccurately termed as fighters. Where does the good old A-4 Skyhawk or the Close Air Support A-10 belong in terms of fighter generations? Where does the F-117 fit? Certainly not in the fighter generation classes. The same is true also for the F-35/JSF.

    So, the inclusion of a tactical strike and attack platform in the fighter generation concept is a mistake. Simply put, the JSF is not a fighter and the two classes are not comparable. The process of designing a combat aircraft will inevitably result in a number of trade-offs. Any fighter is a compromise between aircraft manoeuvrability; high specific excess power; weapon effectiveness; highoff bore sight; IR/RF missiles; gun; combat persistence; high fuel fraction; maximum firepower; aircraft systems/sensors; human machine interface; situational understanding; helmet mounted displays; threat warning; countermeasures; good cockpit visibility.

    Survivability can beachieved by means other than Low Observability. For example thanks to layered information systems; mission definable preferences;automation of routine tasks; threat prioritisation; sensor fusion and inherent safety, you are able to avoid compromising the performance and flight characteristics of the aircraft and create a weapon system that does not suffer from the same inflexibility issues that the F-35 JSF appears to have. During the first Desert Storm attack against Iraq on the 17th January 1991, only 10 stealth aircraft from a total of 658 non stealth attack aircraft successfully hit targets in Iraq and Kuwait. That night there were no losses at all. So what is the lesson learnt? Clearly if you can hide an F-117, the primary stealth bomber of that time… you can also hide a B-52! However, if any air force is going to choose just one platform, they have to make sure it is fit for purpose. The main considerations should be: forget the generation labels and instead consider requirements & capabilities. Overall, military capability must meet a nation’s needs. If you cannot have the F-22, you need something of similar air-to-aircapability to support your attack aircraft at the same time. Survivability can be achieved by means other than stealthiness. A single platform designed only for strike missions is unlikely to satisfy all combat air power requirements. Today the Typhoon is the only aircraft capable of evolving ahead of the threat and in step with maturing technology.

21 thoughts on “Eurofighter Snipes Lockheed, Says Typhoon More 5th-Gen Than F-35, Latter Not Even A Fighter!”

  1. "Today the Typhoon is the only aircraft capable of evolving ahead of the threat and in step with maturing technology."

    Apart from that last sentence I totally agree. there are a couple of aircrafts other than the Typhoon that are capable of that. Gripen for example. 😉

  2. The article is well written to ensure that no one ask the question "Why Europeans look forth to acquire JSF when Typhoon is all good?" But then, is this a hint of what MMRCA is all about?

  3. Seriously , that's just propaganda for children 😉

    Exercices like the last ATLC only shows only the high RCS and the poor efficience of the typhoon …

  4. maybe the royal navy should have invested more on eurofighter naval version than buying f35…if what this article says its true….

  5. EF is one of the best aircraft in 4.5 gen , but not comparable to F-35 . if its equal to f-35 than y UK has placed orders for f-35, they could have purchase typhoon itself.
    typhoon is the best for mmrca , but not comparable to 5th gen .

  6. Interesting, more in the sense that Dassault says similar things while quoting Rafale as pure mutirole/omnirole and calling Eurofighter as Fighter first-striker second…

  7. Andreas Johansson

    "EF is one of the best aircraft in 4.5 gen , but not comparable to F-35 . if its equal to f-35 than y UK has placed orders for f-35, they could have purchase typhoon itself.
    typhoon is the best for mmrca , but not comparable to 5th gen . "

    That's a bunch of baloney NJS.

    The answer is of course that the UK is buying the aircraft as a striker in the first place. They already have an air superiority fighter. As Eurofighter pointed out very clearly the generations are for comparing fighters and not strike aircrafts so they are correct.

  8. dogfight eurofighter vs french RAFALE:
    ATLC in the EAU: 1-7 for RAFALE
    at SOLENZARA in CORSE: 1-8 for RAFALE
    without commentary!!!!

  9. This entire funda of generation labels gets people so steamed up it is actually funny to watch fan boys go at each others throats over a machine they have no real idea about, other then press releases and speculation. The fact remains that stealth is not the only thing that an aircraft requires. This article is correct in the way that all aircraft must be chosen based on doctrinal need and capability that fits that need. But then again we really donot know which planes failed the leh trials i think that will be the tipping point for this contract and also the tech transfer.


  11. @ Andreas Johansson
    as per striker EF is not so good , earlier it has problem in air to surface , now it was corrected but not test in real time like f-16/f-18.

    comparing 4.5 with 5th gen capability is senseless

  12. JSF fighter is basically a dummed down version of the F22 Raptor …. the USA would never part with the best technology used in the F22 program and incorporate that into the JSF fighter …. the JSF fighter is getting very expensive to develop….glad that India is not getting it …. hopefully the PAK-FA fighter that India and Russia are jointly developing comes through soon …..

  13. Rants of a dying programme…and ofcourse british arrogance….dont see germans, espana and italian people coming out to defend euro-frightened!!!!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Scroll to Top