Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-22 VS. Eurofighter
mike14    2/15/2005 2:24:35 PM
Who would win.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57   NEXT
cwDeici       4/2/2009 9:11:19 PM
And I'm half European.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/2/2009 9:40:48 PM
*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).
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/2/2009 11:03:46 PM
'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.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/3/2009 7:37:39 AM
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.
 
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.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/3/2009 8:46:38 AM
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.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/3/2009 8:48:47 AM
Oh, I reread, and I see that was covered too.  Well, then I'll just say that I certainly agree with what's been said!  Ooops.
 
Quote    Reply

Arklight       4/9/2009 5:01:16 AM


 

Don't use Wiki unless you have too. I didn't discuss the hardpoints situation (you did) because it was not relevant to the aircraft mission. When you can carry eight BVR and two WVR  missiles and cannot hit me at all with any of them, to my six and two and each one of mine will in pairs guarantee 100% kills, then I am of the opinion that a 4-0 kill statistic is more important than the 10-8 carry one. I'm also of the opinion that if you called me a liar, I'd at least like you to back it THAT claim up.

 

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


 

I can detect low observables with the Mark 1 eyeball and have done so. What you failed to understand is what low observable is and MEANS. Its an electronic warfare (light actually) strategy that exploits the characteristics of light to our (American) advantage so that when you see us, there isn't anything you can do about it. Low observable has, as GF likes to say, been with us forever since the first days when the first human dressed up like a tree to ambush another in the woods.

 


 

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. 


 

Couple of tidbits. There are some mistakes that others made when they talked about CAPTOR  Its a good radar. It can see far and it is adequate to current threat. It cannot see heat because heat's light frequency is wrong for the receiver. 

 

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 a
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Contradicting yourself eh?   4/9/2009 9:03:46 AM
You cannot dismiss me as a source and then claim me as a source, Arklight.

If you respect my observation about CAPTOR then you tacitly concede ALL of my expertise. I come as a bundle, guy.
 
You are cooked.
 
 
That is why you should use REPUTABLE sources or know what you are talking about.
 
Me? I try to at least know what I am talking about.
 
Now let's deconstruct the rest of you.
 
Wiki unlike you has its own sources and direct information. I would rather use Wikia rather than your sourceless statements ime afraid. Yes well, if you changed that around and I could hit you at any time 100% with my 10+ missles and you had a lower chance of hitting my plane with your 6 missles then you will be equelly worthless. Ime asking you to back up your own claims, your under the burdon of proof fallacy, do you not debate much or are you a lazy debator who makes statements without evidence?
They cant be "dealt" with, the guy stated they were both top notch, quality planes and he could not put one above the other, his opinion is far above your own at the moment, since he is more official and has flown both.
 
Wiki can be modified day to day. It has lies and propaganda posted in it, (Read the articles on the RAFALE or the Black Eagle for example) Some of its so called scholars are intellectual buffoons grinding axes. 
 
 
As ive shown, the Eurofighter can use PIRATE to see Stealth, simple fact.....youve claimed yourself the Captor already has similiar range and ability in most areas compared to the Raptors, combine that range with the fact the PIRATE system can combine with the radar to track heat and the F-22 is screwed stealthwise.
 
I never said that a radar has a range. I said and you didn't read this right that a radar has a detection threshhold. That is a radically different concept. And I never said that the CAPTOR is equal to the RAPTOR'S AN/APG-77. It isn't What I said was that CAPTOR was equivalent in many respects to early AESAs and that it doesn't have sidelobe issues like many pof the early AESA radars did and do. The US is into its fourth generation airborne AESA fighter radar (hundreds of sets). The EU has fielded exactly two experimental set series one which didn't and doesn't work. (Guess which one). But at least you figured out that PIRATE cannot range gate (look it up-AVIAPEDIA is good.). I also told you what an AESA can and a MST cannot do, which is target discriminate small objects in the mid intervals of detection threshhold.     
 
No I want evidence, you can beat around the bush and toss some supposedly clever statements by yourself as much as you want, until youve shown me evidence for your claims I may as well do the same thing, otherwise this is not a debate, its me debating with you, you tossing in statements that could have been clever or not.
 
Here is something for you to consider with what I just told you:
 
 
That is called a TECHNICAL MANUAL. Pay particular attention to the chapters on how radio waves propagate and how interference by such things as a thermal inversion can degrade RADAR. Range my left foot!
 
Also as an extension of any of this, what possible chance does an F-22 have using its own tactics? I assume the F-22 is going to think it has the element of surprise anyway, considering this battle is about tactics as well as weapons/the plane the F-22 tactics do not work against a Eurofighter. The F-22 will spend its time making sure its stealth keeps it hidden so it can fire a missle but missles do not have the same range as their radar not to mention the range of the F-22 lack of obserability distance. Problem with that tactic is that the Euro can use its PIRATE to find the F-22 and this battle will be over before it had begun.  The first shot fired by the F-22 will not be the Eurofighters last....it will be the F-22's because the Eurofighter would now know where it is, then it can screw it over with WVR boresight weapons, look and shoot
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/9/2009 9:19:04 AM
Lost bids? there is far more Eurofighters in production and in requirement (over 700?) in comparison to the USA's requirement for the F-22 (180?) so the Euro is not losing anything. Also have a look at what Herald says, the range nad the ability of the Captor already is not much behind the F-22, considering missles do not have their radars range and the fact that the PIRATE of the Euro can find the F-22 through its equally ranged radar, it does not really require enhancements to defeat the F-22.
 
First - if you care to actually read both open source and Heralds comments - there is no comparison between AESA and the current Captor.  The difference is like being able to log into a computer network and viewing a black and white TV from the 1950s.  AESA can penetrate networks and the F-22 has the computing power to do so.  It can also knock down missiles in flight - as demonstrated during the last tests.  So AESA is both and IW and EW asset while Captor is a simple radar.  AESA is also a weapon while Captor is a simple detection system with poor resolution.
 
If - as you claim with so little backing or evidence - that Captor does not need to be replaced - then why spend billions of Euros on Caesar?  Even then - it appears that Caesar may not make it because some of the partners don't fell like shelling out the cash needed to make it operational.  Thus, once again, your ignorance on the subject is clearly evident.  The RAF and Luffewaffe is staffed by pros - not armchair amatuers such as yourself.
 
Finally, the Eurofighter has funded 148 air frames so far - out of a potential contract of 800.  Whether it goes beyond that is a question related to purchases of a 4th gen fighter with all its weapons hanging outside - versus a 5th gen fighter with AESA and stealth - e.g. JSF.
 
Not gibberish, as I said before go read my damn source and stop trying to go crazy over any typo I make, PIRATE gives the Euro the ability to find the F-22 stealth, end of story.
 
You may think its end of story but it hardly accounts for much.  IRST technology is well known and there are various countermeasures that can be employed to confuse or even blind such systems.  IRST is also akin to looking through a straw as compared to a search and track radar.  The IRST in Pirate (on the Italian Eurofighters) is hardly new and not much of an advancement over similar systems employed on the F-14 decades ago.  So to place your trust in a pipe to view the whole sky is to force your pilots to function in the blind.  This is the reason why other nations in the Euro consortium may not even purchase PIRATE.  I suggest you look beyond wikipedia for a source ( try Janes or Aviation Week).
 
Not face down an SA-20? it will do it far easier than the F-22 by launching a cruise missle from long range.....
 
Hardly - the SA-20 outranges any cruise missile the Eurofighter can mount.  Besides it is designed to destroy cruise missiles - even Storm/Shadow are ineffective against a double digit SAM.  The only way to fly and fight inside the SA-20 kill envelope is with enough stealth to avoid detection and destroy the site.  Right now a Eurofighter would be dodging the SA-20 at 300+ mile ranges.  The SA-20 is also mobile - thus defeating a cruise missile that is pre-programmed to attack a single point.  You need someone to search and destroy - the F-22 qualifies.
 
While the F-22 pilot is hoping for dear god that his plane does not crash by itself and that his stealth is up to standard with all the many ground radar insallations.
 
Of course you still believe this is some sort of fan-boy game.  Too bad for you.  I suggest you take a course in the physical sciences and come back after graduating high school.
 
Quote    Reply

Arklight       4/9/2009 2:05:05 PM

You cannot dismiss me as a source and then claim me as a source, Arklight.




If you respect my observation about CAPTOR then you tacitly concede ALL of my expertise. I come as a bundle, guy.

 

You are cooked.

 



 

That is why you should use REPUTABLE sources or know what you are talking about.

 

Me? I try to at least know what I am talking about.


 

Now let's deconstruct the rest of you.

 


Wiki unlike you has its own sources and direct information. I would rather use Wikia rather than your sourceless statements ime afraid. Yes well, if you changed that around and I could hit you at any time 100% with my 10+ missles and you had a lower chance of hitting my plane with your 6 missles then you will be equelly worthless. Ime asking you to back up your own claims, your under the burdon of proof fallacy, do you not debate much or are you a lazy debator who makes statements without evidence?


They cant be "dealt" with, the guy stated they were both top notch, quality planes and he could not put one above the other, his opinion is far above your own at the moment, since he is more official and has flown both.

 

Wiki can be modified day to day. It has lies and propaganda posted in it, (Read the articles on the RAFALE or the Black Eagle for example) Some of its so called scholars are intellectual buffoons grinding axes. 


 


 

As ive shown, the Eurofighter can use PIRATE to see Stealth, simple fact.....youve claimed yourself the Captor already has similiar range and ability in most areas compared to the Raptors, combine that range with the fact the PIRATE system can combine with the radar to track heat and the F-22 is screwed stealthwise.

 

I never said that a radar has a range. I said and you didn't read this right that a radar has a detection threshhold. That is a radically different concept. And I never said that the CAPTOR is equal to the RAPTOR'S AN/APG-77. It isn't What I said was that CAPTOR was equivalent in many respects to early AESAs and that it doesn't have sidelobe issues like many pof the early AESA radars did and do. The US is into its fourth generation airborne AESA fighter radar (hundreds of sets). The EU has fielded exactly two experimental set series one which didn't and doesn't work. (Guess which one). But at least you figured out that PIRATE cannot range gate (look it up-AVIAPEDIA is good.). I also told you what an AESA can and a MST cannot do, which is target discriminate small objects in the mid intervals of detection threshhold.     


 

No I want evidence, you can beat around the bush and toss some supposedly clever statements by yourself as much as you want, until youve shown me evidence for your claims I may as well do the same thing, otherwise this is not a debate, its me debating with you, you tossing in statements that could have been clever or not.

 

Here is something for you to consider with what I just told you:

 


 

That is called a TECHNICAL MANUAL. Pay particular attention to the chapters on how radio waves propagate and how interference by such things as a thermal inversion can degrade RADAR. Range my left foot!


 

Also as an extension of any of this, what possible chance does an F-22 have using its own tactics? I assume the F-22 is going to think it has the element of surprise anyway, considering this battle is about tactics as well as weapons/the plane the F-22
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy