I dont understand the joke  

 

The F-22 is an overpriced failure of a plane who nt only is not required for the current technology of any enemies in the near future but is inferior to the Typhoon type Jets in many areas.

Thank you, it's about time someone pointed out the obvious that we all knew but were afraid to admit to ourselves--and you did it so concisely yet convincingly, too!  USAF clearly should have bought Eurofighters instead of those F-22 lemons; your argument proves it!

 

To True What an inciteful observation how stupid of you Yanks to build an aircraft so advanced it out classes everything else in the sky. where would we be without school holidays to guide defence strategy.
 

I mean what possible reason could you have for building such a worthless piece of crap. mind you its clear some of youre english Ancestry creeps through, that curiosly british sense of fairplay is obviuos.

 

Its clear that you want to give youre enemy a slim chance otherwise you would have bought Rafales.

 

Sarcasm Off

 

I can see value in The USAF operating the Tiffy,  i suspect the Typhoon will be cheaper to operate (smaller) and possibly a wider A2G capabillity.  The Typhoon will be good enough in most situations and given the F22s limited production run will give the USAF a cheap(ish) multi role fighter , perhaps air defence  and   limited A2G leaving the F22 as a silver bullet or perhaps offensive air superiority.

 

F22 Expensive - yes,

 extremely advanced compared to its rivals - yes,

Inferior to the Typhoon in some areas -  possibly (WVR, A2G -however id take my chances in the F22)

failure  - nothing so far has given me that impression

 

Exportability  - catch 22 most the world would have it if they could afford it. but Uncle Sam aint selling.

 

Fan boys aside - i think most people believe the f22 to be the best thing since sliced bread.   I hope the Typhoon is the next best thing.

 

 

If your not going to take any professional bearing on the situation and only want to create an unamusing sarcastic remark then dont post, I dont think this thread is meant for trolling with such things, the guy who posted after you at least made some kind of worthwhile assessment.

 

 

 

 

Its not proven that at all, it does not outclass everything in the sky by any credible evaluation and most of its specific advantages leave it badly wanting in most other areas.

 

What the British use is not fairplay, the Eurofighter is arguably the best plane created so far since regardless of whether its better than the F-22 in an A2A role, its built for many many roles and is cheaper by far, to say were playing fair is a little too much, what is fact is that suggesting I did actually agree that the F-22 is superior in the air by such a margin to the Eurofighter, its obvious its not required because its often seen that the Eurofighter is also the next best in the air and greater than most future concievable threats by a fair margin, what then can you see in the use of the F-22 which is vastly more costly and not as useful in half as many roles?

 

If they operated the Typhoon they would not only have a plane that could defeat fairly easily the opponents the F-22 would ever likely face but also a multi-role platform that in the future will have a far superior BVR missle to the F-22 and the use of A2G cruise missles and a variety of bombs. Your own mentioned advantages also apply, cheaper, easier to maintain etc.

 

The F-22 is not "extremely advanced" compared to its rivals, ime not sure if there have been many more that have flown both aircraft but the American general (I think that was his rank) who flew both planes claimed the Eurofighter is top notch even in comparison to the Raptor and he even went as far to say it was the best plane he had flown.

 

The only area the F-22 has in advancement on the Euro and other rivals is the fact it has masterful stealth and a good radar, the latter will be installed in the final development Eurofighters alongside the Meteor missle.

 

Failure? ofcourse its a failure, on the part of America but also as a project, for one thing we have both listed many advantages the Euro has over the F-22 AND the fact its far far less costly, you also have to take into account what they are likely to be fighting in the future, the Euro is more than sufficent AND has many other roles besides all in one plane.

 

Also lets look at other factors, first what has its stealth actually proven to be capable of decieving, the Eurofighter can supposedly detect low observable aircraft, what chance does the F-22 stealth have against a few AWACS or ground radar? both which are developing and upgrading while the F-22 stealth features including its shape quickly become obsolete. Not to mention, does the Raptor even have boresight capability? the Euro can shoot behind it, ive seen no evidence of the f-22 being capable of such, ime not even sure it can carry missles capable. Other disadvantages include that in its stealth loadout, it has a very very small amount of missles, I think it can only carry 6 long range weapons....less stealth interested planes such as the Euro has like 12 hardpoints for missles, bombs etc.

 

Its obvious to anyone who is non bias (I am bias but still) that the F-22's minor advantages in some areas are worthless when comparing to its possible future threats and how its inferior as a plane to the Euro due to its smaller loadout, and in the future inferior weapons (Meteor missle on the Euro) not to mention far less roles that it can undertake.

 

onto the battle the only chance the F-22 has against the Eurofigher is using its stealth and long range, the Eurofigher can supposedly detect F-22 and other low obserables but the fact remains is that both planes have defences, its not likely true that the first missle fired will end the fight, the Euro for instance uses Decoys, chaff/flare and ECM and its extremely manouverable, the F-22 was built with stealth in mind well the Euro was built with manouverability in mind. Taking into account that once it fires the F-22 will lose its surprise/stealth advantages likely losing it the battle. Consider also that in WVR the F-22 does not have afaik boresight missles nor the ability to get a lock at such an angle, the Euro uses HMS and depending on the country operating it, either IRST high boresight missles or 130's meaning the Euro will just toss a missle in the F-22 face killing it if it gets too close. Understand that both are moving at twice the speed of sound, it does not matter who is quicker, if the Euro has an F-22 behind it and turns, its almost certain the F-22 will end up overtaking it, even if it does attempt a move which will quickly destroy the gap between them and forcing the F-22 into WVR where it fails at.

 

 

 

 

I could not find an edit feature on the forum but heres the sources from where I got my information on:

 

"The Eurofighter can detect low observables"

Some things.

1. He who sits above you, sees first and kills first.

2. Refusal of engagement means that the guy with the speed and altitude advantage picks when. .

3. A cruising ramjet air to air missile is better than a tandem burn rocket boosted air to air missile but not by that much and not at 25000 meters altitude.

4. A. Low observable super-cruise with altitude and fuel endurance and LPI radar advantage versus B. non low observable  after-burning (reheat) relying on an easily degraded non range finding IRST and a conventional radar means the guy in the B. DIES 90% of the time without even knowing he's been painted and locked up and SLAMMERED.

That is the technical discussion in brief.

 

Now the Typhoon can compete, but it won't be a joust, and it can't be alone. It has to have a lot of help from the ground, in the air, and from orbit.    

 

I already discussed in the RAFALE thread why an IRST doesn't work. I won't repeat it here. Go there for the tech discussion.

 

What I would be interested in, would be to see how you would use the Typhoon with support to defend against something like the F-22 with support?

 

Let's see what you got?

Herald

 

Once the enemy air force is blasted out of the sky or is scrap on the ground, it doesn't matter what kind of multi-role paperweights it had. the skies will be clear for the Sparkies and presumably Typhoons to do their thing.

 

The Typhoon is a very good aircraft, but it is not used the way you think it will be.  At least you mentioned that it will need AWACs and other off platform support. But you don't realize just how much support you need. Fortunately the RAF and the Luftwaffe do.  

 

Going the other way, the Raptor has much the same problems the Typhoon faces and much the same solutions. There will be EW out the wazoo, and all kinds of decoys and spoofs to help it do its job of hiding at altitude to humpo the unwary.

 

The question was raised about towed decoys and the claim thatn the Sparky won't carry any. This is a tactical and technical decision. There is a place for towed decoys (F-16s) and there is a place for expendables (F-35s). If the radar seeker needs to see a noisy radar return and its intended victim is a low-observable aircraft, then the LAST thing you want is a cable towed radar reflector. An expendable is better..   . 

 

Jetpipes can be masked. You'd be surprised at hard it is to see a cooled jet exhaust at forty miles and get any optical lock to establish any  kind of drop basket (YOU CAN'T) bercause you cannot range with a camera. 

Herald

 

 

The F-22 is that part of the US air fleet that kills an enemy air force in the air and maybe do a lirttle weasel work on the sode. It is an air superiority fighter.

A Eurofighter could arguably do the same, only it would then drop its ground ordanance as well...for half the cost...

All aircraft use support, the F-22 in a real war sitation will not be alone, other airforces or America itself would use what they had, including AWACs, making the F-22 useless, another piece of useless junk for a ridiculous price.

 

Yes well the stealth does not really matter, its not tested against the most advanced new radar and the Euro as my source shows can see JSF, how hard will it be for satellite and large ground radar to see them? not at all...so having a Decoy or not is a choice of defence. Obviously the way the F-22 will be used, its likely not to use a decoy for the reasons you declared.

 

Have you actually any evidence on how the F-22 will actually be a useful plane at all? it has less weapons, in WVR weaker weapons, no over-shoulder ability and is less manouverable. Take into account it cannot claim half the roles the Euro can and even now is crashing (and killing pilots god rest the mans soul). For its cost, its just not required, worth it and is a waste of a plane.

 

 

Here is a pretty good summary of AWACS vs. F-22 as posted before by DJim:

How far away an AWACS or any other radar could get a detection of an F-22 or any other target depends on the RCS of that target under the conditions at that moment.  If the radar can detect a 3m2 target at 400km (like an F-16 with some stores), then it can detect a 0.3m2 target at about 235km, a 0.03m2 target at about 135km, a 0.003m2 target at about 80km, and a 0.0003m2 target at about 45km (assuming the radar is even capable of detecting such a small return at all).  I think most people figure 0.003m2 is probably about the "worst case" ballpark-guess for the average frontal aspect RCS of an F-22 to a radar operating in the >1Ghz range, which basically covers all AWACS aircraft.  Sounds like someone's guess of 200km or even 100km like you later reference is probably pretty much just bullcrap.

 

Ive not seen that official information myself, can you show it to me please? that the AWACs detects the F-16 at 400km and all this just sounds like a member making calculations, not an actual official test of the F-22 against an AWACs.

 

The SMART-L can detect stealth missles which are a lot smaller than fighter aircaft at 85km and there is the more updated version of that called the S1850M

You apparently don't know enough to understand what I just told you in simple English.

 

So you do think its a joust?

 

The F-22 fights supersonic. The Typhoon does not. That is what is meant by sustained SUPERCRUISE.  

 

AMRAAM and the Russian long burners are ROCKETS. METEOR is not. That means at high altitude Typhoon with METEOR;  it is at a disadvantage when it is in thin air than as opposed to when it is in thicker air.where it has more oxygen to aid METEOR's ramjet engine combustion. Typhoon has to have METEOR and ASRAAM work as advertised to survive air to air. The Raptor with AMRAAM-D does not  RAPTOR could fight with DERBY or even MICA IR (guffaw) and win with ease over its competitors in an air brawl.

 

The low observability that the Raptor uses gives us an EW range advantage exploit of about, no I won't tell you that. Best use an analogy. If you have to search the sky at two hundred kilometers, which would be easier to see: a sparrow that looks like a flying barn, or a flying barn that looks like a sparrow to you on radar? Which one will be easier for me to mask with radio noise? Which one can I shoot at one hundred kilometers merge with a high confidence of killing?

 

I have seen the F-22.in the metal and plastics. have you? 

 

More importantly, do you even begin to know that you don't know what you are talking about here ? No over the shoulder shot capability? No maneuverability?  What other claims are you going to trot out?

 

You make assertions, but you obviously have never SEEN one in the air or on the ground, much less know what it can do, Arklight. Better read around a bit this site under HERALD and think carefully about your next reply.   

 

Assertions are not proof. For example, since I know the F-22 is fitted for AIM-9X and helmet cuing  I know your assertion that the F-22 is incapable of a 240 degree or greater missile shot is NONSENSE.

 

I would be interested now in seeing your evidence. So far you seem to be unable to prove your case. 

 

To other posters-especially the European ones, I am not after Typhoon. If you read me at all, you know this. My opinion is as of now Typhoon is the second best air superiority aircraft flying. I am however interested to see if Arklight understands exactly why Typhoon is used differently from the F-22 in the air as an interceptor and air superiority fighter and what makes that different use essential for the Typhoon to survive.

 

So............your EVIDENCE please.

 

Herald 

 

 

   

 

As Djim points out - this is math not guess work.  It would appear that your guess work does not add up.

 

The key to radar return is cross section.  The cross section return from a missile - which is designed differently from a manned fighter - can involve a different set of equations.  The body of the missile may be stealth but its fin and flight structure may radiate like a beacon.  The best example is the SS-N-22 which has a small body footprint but its ramjet cones and 90 degree tail fins are perfect radar reflectors.  Exocet is another 90 degree beacon with a nice little radar dish behind a thin nose cone which also lights up when illuminated.  The Quail decoy carried by the B-52 was tiny in comparison to the big bomber but its radar return was nearly identical by design.

 

Your quote of "stealth" missile raises one big of question - which missile are we talking about?  So far there has only been one "stealth" missile - deployed by the USAF on its strategic bomber force.

 

The AESA radar of an F-22 is designed to detect missiles and disable them - which the Typhoon cannot do.  The basic principle being that missiles are designed for one way operations - and have many vulnerable access points that a manned fighter would sheild.  The AESA can penetrate these vulnerable areas and disable, disorient or even destroy the electronics.

 

Thus - comparing a thin skinned missile with a sheilded manned jet is not valid.  Just as comparing the F-22 AESA to the Typhoon radar is not valid.

 

The Raptor is able to detect a non-stealth Typhoon with the AESA long before the standard mechanical radar can detect it much less lock on.  The reduced RCS of an F-22 would also allow it to maneuver into a shooting position before an opposing non-stealth fighter can detect it - as demonstrated by the USAF in multi-national exercises.  I should note that fighter radars with similar capability to the Typhoon were able to detect the F-22 at close range but not lock on long enough for a shot.

 

Now add in super-cruise - which the Typhoon cannot do - and you have a Raptor.

I would not know how to go about measuring that supercruise in kinetic energy, what I do know is the speed given for the F-22 on its home site is smaller than the Eurofighters

 

You see the parameters of those tests are always awry, how can a plane get 180 kills when it does not have that kind of ordinance, also what were the conditions? also the Typhoon was not amongst that crowd.

 

I dont know about the bird just because its in aviation week? I never claimed to have great knowledge on either plane, I claimed that striaght up informaton that ive already shown shows the Raptor at a major disadvantage, for someone (you) who hints at knowing a lot about both, I dont see a single link to any information, unlike me who has given some sources.

 

The Eurofighter will be killed if it attempts F-22 tactics? how so? its near as quick (and according to the home sites quicker) than the Raptor, has more missles, defences etc, what I meant really however was that it can clear the skies of opposition and gain air superiority.

 

US radars are most advanced? irrelvent tbh although ive not seen evidence for said claim its unimportant, what is important is your evidence for the F-22 being tested against the most advanced US radars please.

 

Ive seen many F-22 videos and Eurofighter vids, all showing impressive movements....although no, I know very little on aeronautics none of that makes me think "damn hes right" and your self idolising tones do not either.

 

The Eurofighter can also supercruise...

 

Can you show evidence for you claim of the Raptor being able to use such missles, and the Raptor with its larger ordanance count cannot? many missles have to be changed to fit in the Raptors bays for gods sakes, as if it could just take any missle and use it....

 

Youve seen the Raptor so that makes your knowledge more impressive? no....ive not seen the Raptor in person, ive seen the Eurofighter however.

 

So your saying the F-22 can make over the shoulder shots? can you show me evidence please.  And I said the Eurofighter is more manouverable, its manouverability its talked about the same tone as the F-22 stealth.

 

Helmet cueing? so the F-22 has look and shoot? I did not know that, can you show me the evidence for this please?

 

I like how you ask me for evidence when ive not really made any claims that require such, I have claimed the F-22 has less missles, this you can find on Wikipedia under the specifactions page, or on the F-22 own site, I would not insult you with posting it since I would hope this is obvious. My main claims were the Eurofighrer can detect low obserables and I provided the evidence, I claimed the F-22 and Typhoon are in the same league and that the Eurofigher is perhaps above, I provided the evidence of an American General who has flown both and agrees with me....so what is your standing? youve made many claims, but no real evidence.

 

I could sit here and claim that the Eurofighter can make 500km shots on the F-22 while launching rocket propelled breadsticks but its useless without sources or evidence, your words are not evidence, please show me the sources/evidence for your claims ive asked for.