Go and look 1 page behind....I give you a direct link to where he says the Eurofighter is better ,although thats not my main argument, my argumnet is that if the Eurofighter was far behind the F-22 at all in any area, the General would not have praised it so highly.

-Of course, when Gen Jumper was heaping praise on the Eurofighter for being better than any other USAF aircraft he flew, he had not yet flown the F-22 Raptor. He wouldn't do that for almost 6 more months.

 

What is with all the posters from the Continent who seem to be placing all their hopes and dreams into IRST?

I've noticed this phenomenon on other boards as well.

LOL... that statement there says it all....  Gawddddddddddd Maybe it's got a super duper laser eh? lol

 

Here's what I see. So far the Heralds, GF's and Softwars of SP have taken you to school and packed your lunch for ya. Now I guess they gonna feed it to ya as well!! Those guys have forgot more about high tech gadgetry then you obviously even have a remote clue about. You picked the wrong bunch to proudly display your ignorance to lol

 

Good luck hero ;-)

 

Beazz

 

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?

 

Upgrade path. 

 

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.

 

The American general's claims have been dealt with by others.

 

 

 

But I'm not here to educate you. I already have one Blue Wings fluttering around and I know how that goes. 

.  . 

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.

 

Want evidence? Rather you want understanding. Then do what I did and as others have done, work in the industry, or school yourself. I rather think the evidence I supplied was MORE than sufficient if you understood what I showed. 

 

 

It also as a mechanical scan track radar is not inherently range inferior. What it is compared to AESAS is target discrimination inferior. It can see, as in detect blob returns as far as  many AESA or PESA radars, *Fewer tracks than an AESA) It just cannot see the target DETAIL as well. It cannot be used as telemetry link as easily as it doesn't have multiple beam redundancy, It surely can be detected by a radar warning receiver since to my knwledge it neither frequency hops nor strobes.   

And interestingly enough while it will get radar returns off a missile (By the way SMART-L is a naval AESA a bit more advanced than the standard AEGIS, way to mix apples and rocks) it cannot SEE the missile because the signal returns are too course detailed for its receiver array. That is actually why people say that AESA sees farther, when it sees better.  AESA being multi-beam can generate a sharper image return off the object headed at you. It can also act like a microwave cooker at infinite focus and burniut the missile's seeker of the missile trying to kill you..

 

Looking at it from a simplifed explanation, CAPTOR behaves like a simple motion detector. it sends out a beam and then when it gets a positive return, it alerts you to bearing and range of a blob (Flanker?) based on time delay and where you point. You have to radio interrogate or get a visual before you shoot to be sure. Meanwhile an AESA like an AN APG 80n on an F-16, if you have the threat library takes a snapshot radio picture and tells you there's also an R-77 at X kilometers bearing, so and so speed such, with impact merge at so many seconds and you better do something like decoy or burn out its seeker, dodge it, or outrun it.  That is just a little beyond the current run of the mill state of the AESA radar artilect computer art, but its not that far off.    

 

Anyway...... Before you can talk about light at all you have to know something about it. Do you play the piano? If you do you realize that the high notes are located at the end with the short strungs, and the low notes are located at the end with the long strings Guess which end of the analogy has the radio waves? Now heat is more energetic than radio! Shorter frequency. That matters when you build a detector. Heat is towards the middle of the piano.

 

Anyway a radio apparatus does not detect heat wrong frequency.

 

 

Before you can even begin to discuss rocketry, aircraft, or electronics with me we have to get you started on the BASICS.

 

Herald

Late in the game, to what? 3 years? were not in a world war or any major aerial combat yet chuck so hold your horses....maybe by then the F-22 will have some decent weapon systems,look and shoot and an almost worthwhile price, then again...maybe America will put their thinking caps on and ignore the whole project and concentrate on JSF.

I like how this gave you a hissy fit, "zomg you sedz radar wich is wrong!", your like a whimpering child whos found something they can hold on to, stop grasping at straws please, the fact is, F-22 stealth is blown out of the basket and the Eurofighter can track it, stealth means very little, especially when you do not have the right weapons to use it with.

 

The Euro had like one crash and that was an old prototype in spain years ago, its hardly comparable to things like pilots getting stuck in their cockpits for 5 hours, or very recent crashes that kill their pilots.

 

<<Hey - you gotta fly it to crash it.  These are the risks you take with cutting edge technology.  As far as aircraft history goes - the F-22 has a much lower accident rate compared to previous generations.  So we are well satisfied with the result.  Of course, if you avoid the risk of cutting edge technology - build it with low risk technology - you also risk becoming obsolete and an overpriced hanger queen even before you are out of the box.>>

 

Ofcourse its not in the F-22 class,its a class above, sure itsn ot got the same radar but it does not need it, its just swapped that for more weapons and the ability to carry high level A2G ordanance such as cruise missles.

 

<< The F-22 was designed to be an air superiority fighter first.  It meets that specification - anything else is just an extra add on due to the versitility of the design.  I dare say a Typhoon is not going to face down an SA-20 and survive - but the F-22 can.>>

 

The F22, Eurofighter or any other design is a set of compromises. The the set of compromises made for the F22 are different from those for the Eurofighter. If you give the same design problem to 2 engineers you get 2 different solutions. It is the same here.

The problem here is that because of the advertising hype, I have no real data for accurately comparing the 2.

 

One example of the advertising is this:

Now is the extra AMRAAM range due to the F22's overall superiority, or is the extra AMRAAM range due to the fact that the AMRAAM missiles the F22 uses have their wings "clipped" to fit internally in the plane *1)? A missile with smaller wings having less drag and with that a better range.

 

It is stuff like this that makes me very suspicious about claims made about the F22.

 

*1) Source:  "http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-120.htm"

AIM-120B and AIM-120C versions are currently in production, the latter with smaller control surfaces to permit increased internal carriage capability in the F-22. AIM-120B deliveries began in FY 94, and AIM-120C deliveries began in FY 96. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please note on your chart the comparison is with the JSF which also uses internal carrage and will use the same version of AIM-120 - clipped wings and all.  Thus - the comparison may very well be valid and not hype.

 

I suspect this is more of a speed/altitude factor based on the F-22 - so far the USAF boys have found that full burner at 65,000 feet is a good profile to start an attack.  Even the best planes are going to have a hard time matching that or countering that.

 

The real cooker is the various engagements documented here.  It seems that the F-22 gets the upper hand and wins with a outragious kill ratio.  Hype on paper is one thing - "wow we didn't stand a chance" comments from opposing pilots is another story.

 

I have nothing against the Typhoon - its a fine plane - but it was designed from the outset to replace the Tornado - be a strike fighter.  It does that job well.  It will serve the RAF, Luffwaffe, Spanish and Italian air forces - plus has a nice export to Saudi.  All the better.  It does need an AESA radar - for both dogfighting and attack modes.  The debate is on as to whether or when to replace Captor.  I hope it gets CAESAR but right now... it does not have it.

 

The Raptor was designed as a penetration air superiority machine - to replace the Eagle.  It also does that job well.  The stealth characteristics - despite ark's contention - are key to making it a killer.  It also has other latent talents - some of which are IW related - due to the stealth and AESA onboard.

 

Now  which would I want in a dogfight?  Raptor.  Which would I want going up against a double digit SAM?  Raptor.

Most air to air missile launches at below Mach 1. Reheat or aircraft dash speeds are primarily used to outrun pursuit or chase missiles.

 

A chase missile that launches at Mach 1.5  has a 0.6 Mach velocity and potential energy edge over a missile that launches at Mach 0.9. Also noteworthy is the little factoid that if you launch a rocket at 25,000 meters there is less drag to impede it if you launch it at say 17,000 meters. Thinner air, faster initial velocity, longer fall as it drops into its drop basket. Longer reach.

 

The launch aircraft is the first stage in a step rocket. The faster it goes means that you have just sjhoved that AMRAAM faster and allowed it to coast further. The higher you are when you separate aircraft from rocket as you lob the AMRAAM, the farther along you can toss it over the curve of the Earth. Add all factors together and the book ranges you see for an AMRAAM can be a vast underestimate depending on the aircraft. Clipped wings doesn't affect the drag that much and I suggest  it doesn't  affect lift that much either. The main variable for the flyout is initial shove imparted by that first "stage"...   

  

Herald

 

 

 

the issue is tyhe integrity of the source.  in the case of the F-22, there are persistent feeds coming back from foreign (ie non-US) rated pilots (often their own air-forces equiv of combat and aggressor trainers) who are waxing lyrical.

 I've managed too many projects where vendors make spectacular claims - its why in procurement we always test the claims by using the relevant stakeholders to test to their own satisfaction and conditions.

personally, I don't give a flying ferk about what vendors will say - hence why I reacted so readily to claims about Rafale on IRST etc... because we get to see everyones data when they try to flog off product, or when we have to conduct ssessments by using day to day vignettes.

 

Just because they're forumgoers doesn't mean they don't know their stuff, neither does a General of the US necessarily know his. Many minds make short work of uncertainty, and that General's opinion is just one man (What branch was he btw.? Also I'd like the proof you request yourself. I'd love to hear his explanation, you've probably misunderstood him... or else he's probably really dumb or has ulterior motives - but I'm willing to give it a chance.).

*sigh* looking over your statements Arklight... you're either an unintelligent fanboy or a deluded fanboy without the ability to properly gauge others. Plus you're as sensitive as me at some of my worse moments. Plus you cry out about people 'crying out' when they point out THAT YOU WERE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT IR AND RADAR. Gosh, I mean... I know NOTHING basically about aircraft and I could smell that was a retarded statement a MILE off.

You can compare the AK-47 to a XM8 or a jam-proofed version of the M-16 (well, ok that's not fair to the F22, it's too weak) if you really believe in it and are falling for confirmation bias due a Soviet-style country, but the XM8 will still actually be superior.

 

You don't know jack about planes and you're basing your faith on dubious statements made by a few people (who said it before he had even flown the F22) in diplomatic Milspeak. You can find 10+ people who would claim F22 is superior for anyone who would agree with you. You can find open-source articles anywhere.

 

YOU are the one who is CLINGING on to a corner of the avionics community. Despite the fact that your main reference was proven wrong... I've been disappointed by the world many times - people will always make erroneous statements - and numbers do not matter as to who's right (though they're an indicator).

 

So how can I convince you? Well, I'm sure you weren't paying attention after your first line. I'd have to ask you to go with numbers in general, but I hate saying that. The better option is to aquire the wisdom to tell information apart or study the topic in question (too time intensive).

'Avionics Community' in gooseeyes of course.

To conclude, if kill ratios vastly in favor of the 22 over the Eurofighter (a good plane) against each other won't convince you then nothing will. 

 

The Eurofighter never even found the 22.

 

No, it's elementatry physics.  The F-22 cruises higher and faster than the other aircraft in the comparison.  Therefore the weapons it fires start out with more kinetic and potential energy than those launched from the other aircraft.  Therefore those weapons can fly farther.

 

The difference between the F-22 and any other fighter in those respects is that it can cruise supersonic and at very high altitude for sustained periods.  Other fighters can fly higher and/or faster, but only in dashes with afterburner engaged.  That translates into, among other things, an ability to make better use of existing weapons systems.  So it is a capability worth advertising, as the graph you posted indicates.

Of course Herald and Phaid are right about the increased range when launched at M1.6 rather than M0.9, but I suggest launch at 50,000ft+ rather than 30,000ft actually is at least as big a factor in increasing the range than the increased initial velocity, due to decreased drag through much of the flight.  Together these two factors add up to a significant increase to the missile's range, and clearly show yet again why you must specify the conditions of the engagement if you are trying to determine the range of an AAM.