Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 2 months 3 days ago) and read 19613 times:
The F-22 Raptor or the Typhoon Fighter (Eurofighter)? Which is better, and in what ways?
The F-22 instinctively (correct me if I'm wrong) strikes me as being the faster of the two, and possessing the lower RCS of the two. The Eurofighter strikes me as being more maneuverable and having better acceleration, and better AAM load-out, consisting of METEOR's and modern day ASRAAM's but possessing a higher RCS of the two and speed more affected by missile capacity than the F-22.
They strike me both as being amazing aircraft actually. Which do you thinnk would win in an air to air fight? And how...
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 19651 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter): They strike me both as being amazing aircraft actually. Which do you thinnk would win in an air to air fight?
The Eurofighter will get smoked before he ever knows the Raptor is in the area. That is what the F-22 is suppose to do. You cannot fight what you cannot see. With the Raptor in supercruise, it will be long gone before the Typhoon's wingman can start looking for him.
Lurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 19636 times:
Naah the Typhoon can Super Cruise as well so Dont count your Raptors before they have Hatched.
Never under Estimate the Typhoon the same thing Keeps Happening to USAF F-15s in the UK and the US at Nellis on the Ranges the Typhoon has a nasty habbit of Killing every thing sent up to Kill it in Air Combat exercises!
The Typhoon has the new Missile the BVRAAM that has a Longer range than the AMRAAM as its Ramjet Powerd not Rocket and is also equiped with ASRAAM Missiles as well.
Also the TYPHOON has its Look Shoot Helmet Mounted sight.
If you can se the Bad guy you can kill him even if he is behind you and with the BVRAAM the Typhoon can Whack a Raptor long before it can Whack the Typhoon!
Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 19617 times:
Quoting Lurch (Reply 2): If you can se the Bad guy you can kill him even if he is behind you and with the BVRAAM the Typhoon can Whack a Raptor long before it can Whack the Typhoon!
Checksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 896 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 19624 times:
Quoting Lurch (Reply 2): Never under Estimate the Typhoon the same thing Keeps Happening to USAF F-15s in the UK and the US at Nellis on the Ranges the Typhoon has a nasty habbit of Killing every thing sent up to Kill it in Air Combat exercises!
Your mistaken if you thing Typhoon has been involved in any exercises in the US.
Quoting Lurch (Reply 2): Naah the Typhoon can Super Cruise as well so Dont count your Raptors before they have Hatched.
With a full combat load, I seriously doubt that.
Quoting Lurch (Reply 2): The Typhoon has the new Missile the BVRAAM that has a Longer range than the AMRAAM as its Ramjet Powerd not Rocket and is also equiped with ASRAAM Missiles as well.
Please, I'd like to see a single picture of a BVRAAM in service, thanks.
Quoting Lurch (Reply 2): Also the TYPHOON has its Look Shoot Helmet Mounted sight.
Right and if the pilot survives to close WVR, he might have a slim chance.
If you think that, then you havn't seen a Raptor fly.
To answer your question...While they are both outstanding aircraft (the Typhoon will be great once it actually flies with all the equipment its supposed to have), I'd have to put all my money on the Raptor. FYI, this post will turn into a war VERY fast.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 19581 times:
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 4): With a full combat load, I seriously doubt that.
With 4 AMRAAM and two AIM-9, Eurofighter can maintain Mach 1.2 or 1.3 without afterburner.
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 4): Please, I'd like to see a single picture of a BVRAAM in service, thanks.
Three years before Meteor goes in service. Most tests are accomplished.
Surely the F-22 would win a (thankfully highly unlikely) match against a Eurofighter. At the same time, the Eurofighter would probably be the last thing you, as an F-22 pilot, would like to see behind you.
But I would opt for Typhoon if it comes to swing-role capabilities. Anyone here who wants to provide close air support in an F-22?
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 19584 times:
Quoting Lurch (Reply 2): Never under Estimate the Typhoon the same thing Keeps Happening to USAF F-15s in the UK and the US at Nellis on the Ranges the Typhoon has a nasty habbit of Killing every thing sent up to Kill it in Air Combat exercises!
The Typhoon has the new Missile the BVRAAM that has a Longer range than the AMRAAM as its Ramjet Powerd not Rocket and is also equiped with ASRAAM Missiles as well.
It really has not been in any exercises. It has flown combat tests against USAF F-15s where they were suppose to get killed. Remember, the Eurofighter is not operational, yet. When it does become operational, if it has to go against a very good pilot in an F-15 or F-16, It may get grabbed by the talons. While the Typhoon should be able to handle the F-35, or F/A-18E/F, it is not going to do well against the F-22.
There were rumours that the Eurofighter can see an F-22, but I'm not giving too much on it. More importantly: What I cannot see today I may be able to see in 15 years.
Still, I have no doubts that the F-22 is the better air-superiority fighter. It has to be as this bird is twice as expensive and less a swing role fighter as Typhoon is.
Maybe some of you have to understand that your are not only comparing two western models that may some day battle together but not against each other and (secondly) that both aircraft follow different concepts. The European nations behind Typhoon did not want a "pure" air-superiority fighter. Yes I know the F-22 can accommodate some JDAMs, but it really is not exactly a multi role fighter.
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1254 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 19540 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1): The Eurofighter will get smoked before he ever knows the Raptor is in the area. That is what the F-22 is suppose to do. You cannot fight what you cannot see.
Lots of hyperbole. Yeah the F-22 is a godmade weapon wich is unbeatable.
First the F-22 isnt from all angles same stealth. BAE said in some angles the EF betters the F-22.
I dont want playdown its capabilitys but i think generally it can said in the BVR Combat the F-22 will win mostly. However in the close combat the EF would probably win.
In this whole discussion we should mention that the EF has great defence systems(also the F-22) against homing missilies like DASS system, Towed Radar Decoy.
A lock down and fire doesnt mean necessary a kill. Specially in regard of older weapons like the AMRAAM. A other point is even the F-22 could lock the EF from far away the AMRAAM couldnt be fired over its range of 50km.
This will give soon a big advantage for the Meteor (Range 100km) hard to countermeasure and highly maneurable.
Of course he must have to track the plane first to play this advantage out from such a range. Wich wich will not be the case against the F-22. But for all other planes.
Accroding to the declarations of the manufacturers of the NG fighter in the world, the minimal frontal RCS of NG fighters are:
According to the page 3 of the document of above web-site:
d. Detective / Tracking range of 0.1m2 class target (F/A-18 E/F/G, EF-2000,
f. Detective / Tracking range of 0.001m2 class target (F-35 A/B/C)
g. Detective / Tracking range of 0.0001m2 class target (F/A-22)
1. AN/APG-77 AESA
d. 61 NM (113 km)...........EF-2k
f. 20 NM (37 km)..............F-35 A/B/C
g. 12 NM (22 km).............F/A-22
As for the CAPTOR radar for EF-2000 today, according to the declaration from EADS and pilot of UK, it can track the target of MIG-29G (RCS = 5 m2）at the distance of 185 km away. According to the formula for the relationship between the detective / tracking range of radar and the RCS of target:
CAPTOR
EF-2000 Tranch 1 and 2
d. 38 NM (70 km).............F/A-18 E/F/G, EF-2000, Rafale B/C/M, Cruise missles
f. 12 NM (22 km)..............F-35 A/B/C
g. 7 NM (13 km)...............F/A-22
Tracking range of CAPTOR/CAESAR will be able to increase 50~75% at least with AESA upgrading in the future:
CAPTOR
EF-2000 Tranch 3
d. 57 ~ 67 NM (105 ~ 124 km).............F/A-18 E/F/G,Rafale B/C/M, Cruise missles
f. 18 ~ 21 NM (33 ~ 39 km).................F-35 A/B/C
g. 13 ~ 19 NM (25~35 km)..............F/A-22
If Raptor still use AIM-120C/D (with the help of supercruise, the F/A-22 should be able to lock and attack EF-2000 40~60 km away theoretically) at that time, its advantage in BVR combat over EF-2000 will decrease, but still exist.
In the Close Combat the EF can accelerate faster, climb faster, turn faster at supersonic speed and has higher G-Limit.(9G F-22 /EF 12G)
My resume:
If i were a pilot i would feel safer in the F-22 against the EF, though we should consider that the plane costs 2 times more then the EF.
Checksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 896 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 19516 times:
Whoa! Thats incorrect info...the F-22A operational limit during everyday flight is +10G's. I'm not knocking the EF here, because I think its the nicest looking bird in the sky right now, but even the exchange pilot from the RAF said the available G loading on the Raptor was superior to the EF. Now there are many different G limits that can be discussed...such as airframe limits, actual everyday flight limits etc...Which limits are you referring to?
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4575 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 19516 times:
Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 8): BAE said in some angles the EF betters the F-22.
and the USAF has given an F-22 to BAE to test this? I think not...
As discussed in other threads, the F-22 exceeds the capabilities of the EF in most regards.
Supercruise... The EF can Supercruise with a limited load and can do so at M1.2. the F-22 can carry a full internal load and supercruise officially at somewhere between M1.4-1.6. Unofficially it has been speculated that it can supercruise at up to M1.8!
Top Speed.. The F22 can hit M2.4
Stealth... in a head to head the EF would never see the F22 coming... its that simple.
Endurance the F22 wins this too especially if fitted with drop tanks (which would lessen its stealth however. Stealth conformal tanks have been considered).
Manoeverability.... this is an interesting one.... empty the EF is more manoeverable...just, but with a load on the F-22 with its internal stores not on the wings is more manoeverable... ie when it counts).
Still for the price you could get a few EF... 3EF vs 1 F22... EFs win if within VR, out of VR the F22 could still win with a volley of missles before the EFs even knew it was there...
AutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1254 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 19487 times:
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 9): Whoa! Thats incorrect info...the F-22A operational limit during everyday flight is 10G's. I'm not knocking the EF here, because I think its the nicest looking bird in the sky right now, but even the exchange pilot from the RAF said the available G loading on the Raptor was superior to the EF. Now there are many different G limits that can be discussed...such as airframe limits, actual everyday flight limits etc...Which limits are you referring to?
If true thanks but do you have a source, i searched everywhere (Lockheed,Boeing) and i couldnt find 10g number. However the EF special Anti g suit able pilots to fly 10g manouvers without pressurebreathing. I couldnt find any source wich could say same about the F-22.
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 10): The EF can Supercruise with a limited load and can do so at M1.2. the F-22 can carry a full internal load and supercruise officially at somewhere between M1.4-1.6. Unofficially it has been speculated that it can supercruise at up to M1.8!
The EF can Supercriuse up to M1.3 not 1.2. With future updates (EJ-230) i will be able to 1.4 with payload and 1.7 without. Unofficially it has been speculated aliens are belong us.
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 10): Stealth... in a head to head the EF would never see the F22 coming... its that simple.
I never said anything else, if you read my post above the EF Tranch 1 & 2 would track the F-22 at a distance of 7Nm/13km.
However the F-22 is weapon limited until BVRAAM. So it has to come closer to the enemy.
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 10): Manoeverability.... this is an interesting one.... empty the EF is more manoeverable...just, but with a load on the F-22 with its internal stores not on the wings is more manoeverable... ie when it counts).
Still for the price you could get a few EF... 3EF vs 1 F22... EFs win if within VR, out of VR the F22 could still win with a volley of missles before the EFs even knew it was there...
Dont believe it, but maybe you have a source?
Quote:
The supersonic turn radius for EF-2000 and F/A-22 with 5G agility at the height of 40,000~50,000 fts is 40~60% of the supersonic turn radius for tradional fighters (F-15, F-16).
The EF doesnt have thrust vectoring and achieves this agility while the F-22 does. Imagine the EF with Thrust Vectoring wich is btw already developed...
And about the price wich other plane can win against the EF apart the F-22,F-35? You get the best performance/cost effective plane in the world for a third of the price.
Quote:
The US Air Force has already begun to take delivery of another superjet, the F-22 Raptor.
This is very stealthy but costs twice the price of the Eurofighter, and reports suggest that RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US.
Maybe this goes for the F-22, but as far as I know, Eurofighter is indeed operational.
Maybe some of you have to understand that your are not only comparing two western models that may some day battle together but not against each other and (secondly) that both aircraft follow different concepts
Yes, it is operational, the RAF and Luftwaffe have already squadrons.
Coulndt agree more thats what General John P. Jumper also confirmed. IMO the F-22 is a marvel of engeneering.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, RR: 15 Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 19485 times:
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 9): but even the exchange pilot from the RAF said the available G loading on the Raptor was superior to the EF.
That's certainly possible when you take into account that the F-22 has an internal weapons bay.
But I don't believe the machine is the problem here but the pilot. I believe the USAF did order the Auftoflug Libelle Anti-G-suits, did they?
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 9): I'm not knocking the EF here, because I think its the nicest looking bird in the sky right now,
Wouldn't that be either Rafale or the Su-30MKI? Either way ...
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 11): The look-shoot helmet... how does that work, and don't we have it?
I don't know about the F-22, but for years the German Mig-29s have been the only NATO fighters with helmet-mounted sights. This system allows pilots to lock onto targets the pilot can see within the missile field of regard. Basically, the missile "looks" where the pilot looks. Together with voice control, the pilot is a lot faster to fire the first shot as compared to other aircraft that are only able to lock onto targets more or less directly in front of the aircraft.
[Edited 2007-03-25 06:48:29]
Beautiful things can be built even from stones placed in your way. - Goethe
Venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 19462 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13): I don't know about the F-22, but for years the German Mig-29s have been the only NATO fighters with helmet-mounted sights. This system allows pilots to lock onto targets the pilot can see within the missile field of regard. Basically, the missile "looks" where the pilot looks. Together with voice control, the pilot is a lot faster to fire the first shot as compared to other aircraft that are only able to lock onto targets more or less directly in front of the aircraft.
All US fighters that the capability to shoot the new Aim 9X has this system installed, you can tell when the pilots flight helmet has a huge new visor installed , each helmet costs over $100,000 .
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1859 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 19379 times:
Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 12): This is very stealthy but costs twice the price of the Eurofighter, and reports suggest that RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US.
Comments about this activity have come up over and over again. As I've said in a previous post, an RAF Operational Evaluation Unit team is said to have come to the U.S. to evaluate the Typhoon against the Raptor. The results are said to have been quite good, in the within visual range arena, and surprising in the Beyond Visual Range arena. Some within this forum have aggressively stated no such evaluation ever happened. Still, the "suggestion" that it did happen keeps coming up. I remain convinced it very likely did happen as both the United States and Britain would want to know how their respective star performers stack up against each other. Each country has a lot invested in its new super star jet fighter and both need to know where the deficiencies are in their respective machines while production is still in the early stages.
Rammstein From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 19285 times:
Of course the F-22 wins in the characteristics comparison. It would be an enormous failure for the US R&D if the F-22 wasn't better than the EF, given the double price per unit.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Remember, the Eurofighter is not operational, yet.
In which sense? The EF is operational in the Italian Air Force and IIRC also in the Spanish Air Force, at least.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 19261 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6): Remember, the Eurofighter is not operational, ye
Quoting Rammstein (Reply 16): In which sense? The EF is operational in the Italian Air Force and IIRC also in the Spanish Air Force, at least.
The Eurofighter Typhoon has been operational in all three major partner nations since 2003, when the 'Type Acceptance' was signed upon delivery of the first production units to all three airforces.
The RAF has three operational squadrons at the moment, with more being converted each year.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19178 times:
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 17): The Eurofighter Typhoon has been operational in all three major partner nations since 2003, when the 'Type Acceptance' was signed upon delivery of the first production units to all three airforces.
The RAF has three operational squadrons at the moment, with more being converted each year.
Actually, to date, the EF is flying with the British, German, Italian, and Spainish Air Forces. But, none of these airplanes have been updated to the Block 2b configueration (still in developement). As I understand it, the Block 2b software, is required to fully use all combat systems and air refueling and is the minimum combat configueration. I understand all 100+ airplanes delivered to date, do work, but some cannot multi-task without the software upgrade. Is that not correct?
The RAF and Luftwaffe are scheduled to receive their first Block 2b airplane this year, I believe. Then the airplanes they have now will cycle through the factory for the upgrade.
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 651 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 19161 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 15): Still, the "suggestion" that it did happen keeps coming up.
"Suggestion" in this case seems to be very close to 'rumor'. I cant say either way, but unless the F-22 did piss poor vs the EF and the event was classified a secret, I am sure the USAF would be yanking their own chain and everyone would know about it. IMO it would be impossible to keep something like that a secret.
RichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 19070 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18): Actually, to date, the EF is flying with the British, German, Italian, and Spainish Air Forces. But, none of these airplanes have been updated to the Block 2b configueration (still in developement). As I understand it, the Block 2b software, is required to fully use all combat systems and air refueling and is the minimum combat configueration. I understand all 100+ airplanes delivered to date, do work, but some cannot multi-task without the software upgrade. Is that not correct?
There have been three 'partial performance' types delivered as part of Tranche 1 - Block 1, Block 2 and Block 2B. Block 2B has been the delivery standard for a while now.
Block 5 aircraft are the next version to be delivered starting this year, it received type acceptance in January 2007, and it will add additional Air to Ground capability, increase the aircrafts envelope and improve other areas of the aircraft.
All previous blocks are currently undergoing upgrade to Block 5 at the moment.
These aircraft are fully capable of the roles in which they are deployed at the moment, with performance and capabilities increasing as each Block and Tranche standards are delivered.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18): The RAF and Luftwaffe are scheduled to receive their first Block 2b airplane this year, I believe.
Block 2B aircraft were delivered in early 2006, 2007 will see the arrival of Block 5 standard aircraft.
CF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 18988 times:
Quoting Checksixx (Reply 4): If you think that, then you havn't seen a Raptor fly.
from videos I have seen, and also in person.... the Eurofighter can out maneuver the F-22 in a dogfight , however both aircraft have a somewhat significant size difference. Also, hands down, the Raptor is meant to intercept , and destroy, and minus the dogfight....so lets say the F-22 was approaching a little quicker than expected and broke a surprise interception..and the Typhoons became aware of their presence, .. then it would indeed, be very interesting to see who would come out in one piece.... Chances however, are slim to none, as the Raptor will indeed destroy the opposition before they even know they have arrived.... the "element of surprise" usually wins. i think it depends on the man/ woman holding onto the stick if it is a dogfight situation,
Oroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 651 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 18928 times:
The F-22 does not have an approved flight demonstration as of yet and simply does some fly-bys and minor maneuvers, nowhere as interesting as developed F-15, F-16, F/A-18 displays. There is one video of a air display at Edwards that shows a Raptor doing some post stall maneuvers.
CF188A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 18905 times:
Quoting Oroka (Reply 22): The F-22 does not have an approved flight demonstration as of yet
they kept the audience at the Canadian International Air Show (two F-22s) ripped the skies apart with a full routine of maneuvers, a virtual replica of the F-16 / F-15 air demo teams....
Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 18796 times:
So nobody knows how the look-shoot system?
Andrea
25 Checksixx: It sure does! Just started flying it at shows this year. Next year all the kinks will be worked out and we should see roughly the same demo at every
26 AutoThrust: NoUFO already explained it also that a EF Pilot can do such things faster with help of DVI. Maybe this video helps to show how this system works whic
27 AutoThrust: Sorry for doubleposting but found a better video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYY0UR1ozHc at minute 4:10 it shows the helmet mounted sight system.
28 Blackbird: So the pilot looks at the target... and presses the trigger? Doesn't the F-22 have that as well?
29 AutoThrust: Yes the F-22 does it have as well. The point is a EF pilot can use DVI to act faster and also with other systems and sensors of the plane. At the mom
30 DeltaDC9: You just contradicted yourself. The F-22 can outmaneuver an F-15 or F--16 just like those can outmaneuver an F-4. If they indeed did a "a virtual rep
31 Lurch: Hmm a while vack i saw some Photos of a Typhoon with Vectored Thrust Nozzels Similar to those in use on the MIG-29OVT If they get fitted the Raptor wi
32 Checksixx: Vectored thrust is vectored thrust. If its 2D and the system is designed to compensate with the aero surfaces, then it has no disadvantage to the oth
33 AutoThrust: Dont agree with that. 3D thrust vectoring offers significant improvements over 2D. You can also fly higher AOE and make closer turns and it increases
34 Lurch: If you whant to se a Demonstration of 3D Thrust Vectoring just watch a Display of the MIG29OVT or the SU-37 VT if you can as it can do things no other
35 NoUFO: The Suchois do not have 3d thrust vectoring, since they have a rear-facing radome in-between both engine nozzles.
36 DeltaDC9: IIRC LockMart determined that what the Raptor has is what the Raptor needed to perform in the specified envelope. Since NASA developed "3D" and consi
37 KevinSmith: If I remember correctly those were 15E they were fighting. While the Echo does maintain an air-to-air role it is not it's primary role, hence the poi
38 AutoThrust: Agree fully, however the same applies for the EF. The new ITP 3DTVC, offers improvements in the maintenance and was also based on the X-31. For the F
39 Connies4ever: Current edition of "AIR International" (Vol 72 No 3) has an interesting comparison of the Su-27/-30 Flanker vs F-22A Raptor. Author's conclusion is th
40 Baroque: Would it be impolite to enquire how many blue on blue problems there will be with these vast BVR distances. There seem to have been a few problems whe
41 Connies4ever: G'Day ! I don't think it's impolite and it's bound to happen. However, from the article I read, F-22 pilots are reporting the APG-77 radar is better
42 Blackbird: Regarding the EF-2000 Typhoon, the 3D thrust vectoring nozzles do appear to be impressive. They don't appear overall that complex in design either. I
43 Jutes85: The Raptor vs Typhoon is like putting the F-18 against a Sopwith Camel and giving the pilot a Glock 5.
44 AutoThrust: IMO without a doubt the APG-77 is the best radar in the world. Second best is the CAPTOR Radar.(fighter radar) Good we have such "experts" on a.net w
45 Blackbird: What's the "CAPTOR" used on? Andrea Kent
46 Baroque: Oh dear, FY end madness - nasty, at least you presumably are coming out of the deep freeze - assuming you had a deep freeze! Presumably you cannot re
47 PADSpot: Talking about the EF, the CAPTOR radar is capable of "non-cooperative target recognition" in which it matches the radar signature of a given target a
48 AutoThrust: I' ve already posted it above..... 1. AN/APG-77 AESA d. 61 NM (113 km)...........EF-2k There is only a problem: the F-22 is weapon limited with the A
49 PADSpot: ... I should add that was talking about a long-range missile with terminal IIR guidance. Something like AMRAAM C5 + IIR or METEOR + IIR Ah, ok. I kne
51 AutoThrust: Oh thanks for clarifying this. From the sources i found i always thought only the future BVRAAM will be able to do 100+ km range. I agree again, the
52 Lotsamiles: I just saw the F22 demo at the Point Mugu Air Show this weekend and it was by far the most impressive versus the other military jets on display (F16
53 PADSpot: All sources indicate the use of AIM-9X, but anyway ... older variants are not better. In fact the step from L/M variants to the X variant was already
54 AutoThrust: Both the EF and F-22 can achieve 40~60 percent smaller turning radius at higher speeds then conventional planes like F-15,F-18,F-16. Exactly, thats t
56 PADSpot: It's unlikely that anyone will get the chance to shoot an AMRAAM or AA-10 against an F-22. But there will be new weapons and new radars around in the
57 Baroque: Thanks PADSpot and AT for all that information, now just a week or so to get all the acronyms and another to work out what it all means, but until the
58 PADSpot: A rather gloomy scenario, which would have grave implications far beyond technological sophistries of two fighter aircrafts, which I think the follow
59 Baroque: Gloomy or realistic, you just never know. The F22 does not seem likely to be sold widely, which may mean that the EF finds its way around a bit more.
60 DeltaDC9: I think a factor most have missed here is that one F-22 can network with and use many other fighters as its 'weapons' also. Combined with our AWACS th
61 PADSpot: And so can the EF ... MIDS is pretty much standardized within NATO, because it doesn't make any sense otherwise. F-22 sneed to be able to interoperat
62 DeltaDC9: It would be useless in joint operations if it could not, right? This is why we really dont do much with anyone but the RAF right now in a big way. An
63 AutoThrust: True, it can access all external resources the F-22 can. Thats not quite a realistic/fair comparison, however for the EF F-15,F-18 and F-16 arent so
64 Checksixx: What sources say the Raptor is carrying the 9X!!??!! I'd love to know...and I think we all know that newer is certainly better than older.....Check
65 DeltaDC9: The point I am trying to make is that since the F-22 can use the F-15/16/18 basically as its weopons platforms, and since we have thousands, the impa
66 PADSpot: You miss the point entirely. This thread is not about the thousands of F-15/-16/-18 you might have or the principle of passing on on older planes to
67 DeltaDC9: I ill make no furhter posts then, since this thread is obviously limited to certain posters and specific content. Who said "need"? No. Not being able
68 PADSpot: Nope, it is limited to what the thread starter limited it to and I keep with it. The way F-22 and EF communicate with allied aircraft is identical. H
69 DeltaDC9: I am glad you think so highly of your own opinion and I wonder why you think you have the right to dictate subject matter in a thread that is not you
70 NoUFO: DeltaDC9, ok, you have partially missed the point of this thread. Nothing wrong with that, it happens to everyone of us, and sometimes (or right now)
71 PADSpot: NoUfo, that exactly what I thought and intended to say. However, DeltaDC9 is right with his "background-thought" that the impact of a new fighter is n
72 Checksixx: Just caught this...be careful chief...its not that cheap! Certainly not $100M difference either. Make sure your doing the conversion from UK pounds t
73 Baroque: That is certainly what I thought it was about, not how certain air forces would fare in battle against each other. As to possible situations, it is p
74 DeltaDC9: With only a couple hundred F-22s in an Air Force that has thousands of fighters, the light is what the light is. This is absolutely false. The F-22 s
75 PADSpot: Well, the problem is that there is not one price for the EF. Almost each participating nation pays a different price, because of differences in order
76 DeltaDC9: My post was not about "Air Forces" fighting each other, it was about how the F-22 will be used in battle. The most likely scenario played out in Alas
77 NoUFO: And 396 are still active plus 217 Strike Eagles (www.af.mil), all of them aging. USAF has a total requirement for 381 Raptors, and the somewhat small
78 PADSpot: The F-22 does not carry more or advanced missiles than the F-15C. If the next big air war is again such a skeet shooting as the last ones quantity is
79 Sebolino: I have a question about the F-22. Some people like to say things like "opponents will be destroyed before they can even see it", as a religious argume
80 PADSpot: I can imagine the process of opening the weapons bay and launching a missile is a matter of less than a second. That would be negligible. Most "victi
81 AutoThrust: I'm not sure how stealth the plane will be in this seconds, however thats only a short time. As PADSpot said, a launch of the AMRAAM could be eventua
82 Sebolino: About the RCS, I've read different things, including the opposite, but that's not the subject. You're right about the rafale's radar RBE2, which has
83 AutoThrust: The problem, older planes F-15,F-18,F-16,MIG-29 etc.. have small chance to know they are being locked because the LPI AGP-77. Only very modern RWR an
84 PADSpot: It's not necessarily the receiver that cannot detect an LPI scan, it is the software behind it that has to combine time-shifted measurements from dif
85 Checksixx: Yes, it is capable of carrying more missiles than the F-15C. Not at all...actually the process happens in a second. All information is passed on to t
86 Sebolino: Let me doubt. The range of an AWACS is 400 Km, far beyond a BVR missile.
87 Checksixx: I meant you have to put it in a safe stand-off area...never said a missile had neverending range. Besides, having an AWACS 400KM away isn't going to d
88 AutoThrust: Maybe you do some research first please, the EF can indeed do that: EF-2K(2 WVRAAM + 4 BVRAAM): 30,000~55,000 ft --> Maximum speed 2.00 Mach 60,000ft
89 Checksixx: If you take a second to read my post, I never said it wasn't capable of reaching that altitude. I said it would probably be out or nearly out of fuel
90 PADSpot: No, missiles guided by radio data-link during cruise phase. AMRAAMs may be practically ineffective against F-22s (and EFs as well) for various reason
91 Checksixx: I'm missing something from your argument. Why would you want to pull the throttle and slow down if you had a missile on your six?
93 AutoThrust: And thats totally wrong it can even do 65,000 fts at 1.7 Mach, with 4 BVRAM + 2 WVRAAM. I didnt say he flown at this altittude, he said that the F-22
94 DeltaDC9: Your numbers are very very old, by '99 it had dropped to 339. The curent number is far less now at 177 and that number is dated (2005). Curent long i
95 Checksixx: Sure it can... Nor did I say you did. I'd love to hear what amount of compensation the Govt. would give a EF pilots family when he/she lost cabin pre
96 Sebolino: ?? I guess you mean "ridiculous" in proper English. If the AWACS is at 300 km, the missile is still out of range. But if you think radar range is not
97 PADSpot: A fast missile shot from a fast jet has more range and needs less kinetic energy to reach its speed, than the same missile shot from a slow jet. That
98 Sebolino: Yes, it's what I thought. 1) The plane doesn't transfer its kinetic energy, otherwise the plane who descelerate to 0 (a bit dangerous). It accelerate
99 PADSpot: That depends on the missile. Missiles with "burn-out" engines do have an advantage when shot from a higher speed. But it is not a clear pro. It reall
100 NoUFO: From what a Luftwaffe pilot told me, pilots indeed try to pass as much energy as possible to the missile before launching it. Hence the phenomenal th
101 Venus6971: The F-22 has been certified to drop JDAMS at MACH +2 , physics was not my strong suit but a mk82 modied into a jdam traveling at a target at mach2+ a
102 Checksixx: Okay, then I'll dismiss your argument then. Oh and thanks for correcting my spelling, I hope it made your day. Send me your address and I'll pull a g
103 NoUFO: I'm not a math genius either, but wouldn't the (horizontal) kinetic energy allow the F-22 to drop J-DAMs earlier, thus turning them into kinda short
104 Venus6971: Yes, I saw it on the Discovery channel on future weapons with the F-22 dropping it at high speed and altitude and wings level, which means you don't
105 PADSpot: That story was told in a magazine called "Aircraft". It was published as part of a documentary that spread over three or four volumes starting with v
106 AutoThrust: Yepp, exactly for the girls, what else? We shouldnt forget Tranche 3 with the EJ-230 the supercriuse capability of the EF will be further enhanced. I
107 Checksixx: PADSpot, although our opinions differ I certainly believe you when you describe what you've read. No need to post it.
108 Blackbird: You know, I don't know why it's considered so special being able to do Mach 1.3, or 1.7 without afterburner. I mean the F-104 could do Mach 2 or 2.2 f
109 PADSpot: Still a question if they are being ordered. Sometimes I think the greatest thread to the EF is not some advanced Russian fighter, but its owners. Bec
110 Sebolino: OK, let's admit that the plane "transfers" its kinetic energy, without losing it Nice feature. I know what you mean anyway. But you're talking about
111 Blackbird: PADSpot, From what I remember, the old English Electric Lightning could penetrate the sound-barrier without afterburners, and the F-104 could (once up
112 PADSpot: .... which was ok, given the tactics and strategies of the cold war (safe return was not anticipated). If you recall the latest wars,, fighters are t
113 GDB: All aircraft are compromises. Performance, available technology, cost being 3 major ones. F-22 is light on compromise on the first, takes the second t
114 Blackbird: PADSpot... The F-104 could do 15-minutes at Mach 2 after using it's AB to get it up to speed, and had enough fuel to make it back to base with the bul
115 DEVILFISH: Even that is looking to be very difficult to achieve with cost escalations the way they are..... http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...un8AAAEAAELQR
116 Blackbird: The thing that I'm really thinking about is this... Okay... the F-22 is obviously a more capable, faster airplane than the F-15 is right? Do you guys
117 Rwessel: Remember that most of the F-15 speed records are for a clean airframe. It just ain't gonna do M2.5 dragging a drop tank and half a dozen missiles alon
118 NoUFO: Huh? Could it be that you are even worse at maths than I am? Let's assume you have -20°C (-4F) at 29,000 ft, than the speed of sound would roughly b
119 KevinSmith: Define what speeds you all are talking about. CAS could be the same at X and Y altitude but TAS will not be.
120 Blackbird: RWessel, what do you mean when you say "general consensus"? NoUFO, Well I'm not all that knowledgeable about the speed of sound at 29,000. I'm more kn
121 DeltaDC9: You would if you were in an engagement in a plane that can't with a plan that can. A single F-22 routinely goes up agains against 5 F-15s and routine
122 NoUFO: Sure, there's always a safety margin. But it's a good idea not to exceed the flight envelope if you don't really, really have to. That's CRAZY!
123 SCAT15F: Sorry to burst the F-15 bubble, but no F-15 has ever exceeded mach 2.35; that is documented and was during testing back in 1972/3. I know a couple of
124 DeltaDC9: First of all, the USAF has preset operational limits on these and other birds based on peacetime/wartime conditions. You can't exceed them without th
125 Blackbird: To DeltaDC9: Well, technically any advantage can be an edge. But as I was telling you, there were planes in the past that could cruise at Mach 2. To m
126 SCAT15F: The Streak Eagle never exceeded mach 2.25 on any of its flights, according to the Jim Goodall book, which is one of the most comprehensive on the F-1
127 DeltaDC9: Off topic, but were you aware that WWII fighters pulled 9gs? The Hellcat IIRC Not for very long, that was the problem, they used so much fuel that it
128 KevinSmith: I understand 9Gs is nothing to sneeze at however there are other considerations besides just the amount of Gs pulled. The most important factor is is
129 Checksixx: Uhhh...not really...the first flight was in '72....first delivery was in '74 and first delivery to Langley in '76. While it could, it doesn't. We don
130 DeltaDC9: After some research, here is what I found.... Here is a list of the top 50 fasted recorded speeds for jet powered aircraft... 1. X-43 (Unmanned) Mach
131 Baroque: Fascinating list Delta and thank you. The most amazing entry to me is the Nimrod at M0.87 bearing in mind it is a Comet 4. Is not one of the major ch
132 DeltaDC9: This is why the comment about questioning the benifit of supercruise puzzled me. If you can fight at a higher speed than your enemy, how can that not
133 NoUFO: Apparently, it's not too uncommon to pull 10g. http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/images1/det9.jpg
134 PADSpot: I wouldn't doubt that the MiG-29 can pull 10g, but I doubt that someone makes photos while doing it. I guess this picture was made during maintenance
135 Checksixx: Agreed...picture is WAY to clear to have been taken during actual flight. Its also clear that anything over 9 is bad...in the red. Raptor is operatio
136 NoUFO: Could it be that none of you two bothered visiting the site? All you need to do is to reduce the URL to http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/, visit the ga
137 Blackbird: As DeltaDC9 stated the maximum recommended speed the F-15, meaning the maximum speed the plane can safely fly at is 1,875 mph or Mach 2.84, appears to
138 KevinSmith: Are you saying that that speed is at which point (weather factors aside) the a/c would cease accelerating and hencforth be its maximum point of veloc
139 747400sp: If you got any information HSCT engines, please send me a instant message of there size and by-pass? Thank You
140 Baroque: Indeed, it has relatively unflattering bulges where Comets never had bulges! Apparently, the buried engines have a considerable advantage in terms of
141 KevinSmith: If she does that she really mysteriously comes down with cancer.
142 DeltaDC9: Only with full tanks, in real life situations fuel consumption was always a limiting factor. Extreemly damaging, sometimes only able to do it once be
143 Baroque: Your earlier post made it clear that there was a bit of gloss being put on at least some max speeds. Do you have any numbers for the Gs that can be p
144 SCAT15F: What about the B-58A Hustler which also uses the same J-79's as the F-104C? The coast to coast record it set was at mach 2 (they hit mach 2.2), and t
145 DeltaDC9: The B-58A was yanked from service after only 10 years due to excessive operating costs. Those costs included very frequent overhauls of the engines.
146 Checksixx: Since this is drifting off topic...Nothing is the end all/be all fighter of anything. A Raptor vs. Typhoon would be a great matchup...I think both sid
147 Rwessel: In an air superiority scenario, supercruise greatly enhances the ability of the F-22 pilot to pick and choose his fights. A bit simplified, by being
148 Baroque: Yes, with all this speed about, it is worth remembering that at the time of its retirement, the few frames of Concorde accounted (IIRC) for more than
149 Zkpilot: Thats quite interesting about the F-14... Obviously the newer F-14s had different engines, but as the new ones had more thrust I would have thought t
150 Baroque: I "fell" across a 1957 listing of aircraft and was reminded of a feature that was common in descriptions of many of the faster planes in those days. A
151 DeltaDC9: Remember that the F-14 originally had the F-111 Ardvark engines that were meant for high speed cruising and not dogfighting. Certain manuvers would c
152 Blackbird: To Baroque, The aerodynamics of the F-22's inlets are at this moment purely speculation. However judging by from what I've seen the contouring at the
153 Blackbird: To KevinSmith, Correct. I'll keep the HSCT engine-data under my hat then! Andrea Kent P.S. I hope I don't get a heart-attack for trying to speculate t
154 DeltaDC9: Yep the guys in the black Suburban with federal plates....
155 Baroque: In times gone by, there was a fairly large weight (and cost, but heck with the F22 who is counting costs!!) penalty for inlets suitable for really hi
156 Blackbird: Baroque, In times past high-mach numbers usually required heavy inlets generally because of the variable geometry components! However even in the 1960
157 NoUFO: The Harrier, Dornier 31 (prop engine), Yak-38 and Yak-141 had thrust vectoring and were developed in the 60s or earlier. It's not that designers had
158 AutoThrust: Agreed, it also adds weight, depending the method you use the gains arent significant. Well said, couldnt agree more. Its only a matter of time IRIST
159 AutoThrust: I just saw that the IRIS-T has already being ordered by most countrys and German Airforce has already got it. http://www.deagel.com/Air-to-Air-Missile
160 NoUFO: Checksixx was talking about IRST, not IRIS-T. IRIS-T is a short-range AA-missile, IRST is short for Infra Red Search and Tracking: From what I know,
161 AutoThrust: Oops, thanks for notification that i mixed it up. From what i've readed the PIRATE Sensor is very expensive and complex, that must be a reason why it
162 NoUFO: All right, it should of course read block 2b, not tranche 2b.
163 DEVILFISH: This may be a new competitor in a few years or a decade's time..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...oi-t-50-fighter-images-emerge.html
164 PADSpot: Maybe I should clarify on the PIRATE FLIR/IRST Sensor. It is a plug-on component, similar to a laser pod. Albeit it is attached to to nose with its ho
165 AutoThrust: Not that i dont believe you but do you have a source the DASS can locate a LPI Radar? From what i've readed BAE Systems was working on it but its pre
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
B4e-Forever New Frontiers 
From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7477 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1254 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4575 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 651 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
