Well, I can't help myself, the F-22 is awesome and it looks much better and more terrific, but it seems a littlebit hard and clumsy.

As far as I can see the only advantage of the F-22 is the stealth technology up to a certain armament.  Eurofighter has better agility, better pilot-aircraft-interface, higher speed and better (/more) weapons (a2a: amraam and/or meteor and a2g: Paveway III).

Well, I can't help myself, the F-22 is awesome and it looks much better and more terrific, but it seems a littlebit hard and clumsy.

As far as I can see the only advantage of the F-22 is the stealth technology up to a certain armament.  Eurofighter has better agility, better pilot-aircraft-interface, higher speed and better (/more) weapons (a2a: amraam and/or meteor and a2g: Paveway III).

Nevertheless, the English Wikipedia source may be right:
"In March 2005, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon
and the Raptor, gave a verbal comparison on the two aircraft. He said
that "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still
difficult to compare to the F-22 Raptor." "They are different kinds of
airplanes to start with," the general said. "It's like asking us to
compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance.""

Bewildering!

 

-DA

Well, I can't help myself, the F-22 is awesome and it looks much better and more terrific, but it seems a littlebit hard and clumsy.

As far as I can see the only advantage of the F-22 is the stealth technology up to a certain armament.  Eurofighter has better agility, better pilot-aircraft-interface, higher speed and better (/more) weapons (a2a: amraam and/or meteor and a2g: Paveway III).

Nevertheless, the English Wikipedia source may be right:
"In March 2005, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon
and the Raptor, gave a verbal comparison on the two aircraft. He said
that "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still
difficult to compare to the F-22 Raptor." "They are different kinds of
airplanes to start with," the general said. "It's like asking us to
compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance.""

Bewildering! If a person can read enough to use the internet. Is it possible to be this ignorant or perhaps by coincidence accidentally type this post by randomly pushing keys?

 

-DA

Phiad

link

I don't know why the Typhoon is being compared agianst the F-22.  A much better comparison would be between the Rafale and Typhoon, and which platform would benefit which countries best.

 

The best thing for Dassault and EADS to do know are to push their planes as hard as possible.  Once the F-35 export countries start seeing what the Lightning II is capable of, it will be harder to sell the Rafale and Typhoon.

Evolution of Rafale is funded.It will have a brand new electronic in the same time of F35 IOC including AESA and OSF NG.

"The Rafale will be equipped with improved sensors, including active array radar, a new generation missile warning system and new generation Forward Sector Optronics (FSO), plus a complete Laser Guided Weapon capacity. This contract also paves the way for obsolescence work with the prospect of a fourth tranche of aircraft thatwill allow the production line to be maintained. The order should be placed at the end of 2008, or early in 2009, with deliveries starting in 2012."

We simply ordered OSF2 and missiles warner separatly to give now third batch order for Dassault and negociate separatly a new contract with Thales and Sagem.Those equipements would be implemented in the months following third batch delivery.

Bull.  The OSF orders were cancelled due to obsolescence.  The MWR was not included because its development was taking too long so the aircraft were delivered without it.

Like the Dutch we consider Rafale to be on par with F35 on major capacities including survivability

You are misunformed Phaid!

Contract of 400 m? were awarded to Thales in 2006 for full development of AESA radar for Rafale to be in production in 2010 following various contract for the two AESA demonstrators already tested and under test, plus financing on AMSAR , plus financing on UMS for MMIC.We would habe spend twice on this radar than Raytheon has spend on APG 79 which will be fully operational in 2008 (we are so two years late).We expect to get better for this price!

 

ht*p://www.thalesgroup.com/events/bourget2007/web/presspack.pdf

 

h*tp://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-07/aesaradar_rafale.htm

 

Dassault promises.

 

Worth as much as the despicable Marwan Lahoud's word was, which is nothing.

 

Have any of those promised systems even been bench tested?

 

Not you, poseur 1. I want somebody, who knows, to answer my question!

 

Herald

Most of the senior members remember when FS claimed these capabilities would be present by 2007/2008...lol

-DA

Just my 2 cents worth as an impartial observer from neither the states or Europe:

 

The F-22 is a fantastic aircraft without a doubt and has some brilliant and unique abilities that are not going to be matched anytime in the future. HOWEVER:

 

I find that any discussion about the raptor vs anything else is mared by Americans aircraft buffs who instantly claim these abilities make the f-22 some kind of superhero fighter the kryptonite of which will never ever be found by anyone... ever, just becasause they're the US and they always dominate theair because that's just what they do. Wrong! Unfortunately yelling 'we're the best so nyaaaaah!' isn't going to down a cesna let alone a eurofighter, even if you are sitting in a SEMI-stealthy, supercruising aircraft. The battle for air supperiority in the next 50 years was lost a LONG time ago, late in the cold war, when the US and the rest of NATO decided to assume the Soviets were dumb.

 

NET RESULT: airframes like the MiG-29 and Su-27 which will still out-maneuver any other 4th generation fighter, solid fuel rocket powered BVR missiles that can outrange the AMRAAM by some 60km and infra-red dogfighting  missiles like the AA-11 archer that will out turn any variant of the sidewinder or ASRAAM and can be launched 160 degrees off boresite with a helmet mounted sight. All of this unmatched by the US who are in fact not interested in even attempting to match these advances!

 

I think when it comes to deciding the outcome of a pitched air battle by an f-22 armed USAF and their likely enemy, one important point is consistently left out:

 

No one really knows what the Russians have been up to in the last 30 years. Add to that the fact that NATO estimates of the capibilities of ex-Soviet aircraft and weaponry are CONSTANTLY bettered by the real article and that 5th generation fighters are starting to role out of Russian factories, to say nothing of the Su-27 and MiG-29 M variants and I think you've painted a very sorry story for any of these uber-patriotic f-22 supporters.

 

But like I said, just my two cents worth.

It's amazing how you could type all that, and yet be so very wrong on every point.  I'm sure you mean well and are sincerely trying to present what you think are the facts, but whatever the source was for your data ought to be discarded. Some quick observations:

 

1) F-22 is extremely stealthy, with no practical counter to its LO during air-to-air combat emerging among any threat nation for many, many years.

2) Maneuvering is far less critical today than ever, and we definitely are in a superior position in BVR combat against our threats, but even when considering maneuvering both the F-15 and F-16 are instantaneous 9g aircraft with the ability to sustain over 8g in the heart of their envelopes, and the MiG-29 and Su-27 can not match that.

3) The AIM-120C (which has been the primary armament of all our fighters for at least a decade already) outranges the R-77 (which very few Russian jets can even use), equals the range of the tactically inferior R-27ER, and the AIM-120D will soon give us even more advantage.

4) The AIM-9X (with several thousand in service already) and ASRAAM are equal or superior in every way to the R-73, notably kinematic range, seeker range, seeker ECCM, and off-boresight capability, and while I won't completely rule it out I don't remember the R-73 being able to engage more than about 90degrees off boresight even with use of a helmet mounted sight.

5) We have a very good idea what the Russians have been up to in the last 30 years, as our capability to know has only gotten even better over the years, and no, there are no 5th generation fighters rolling out of Russian factories any year soon.

 

Ten years from now the Russians will start putting into service as part of a network of systems a fighter that won't provide as much capability as the F-22 did when it joined our network of systems five years ago.

 

 

The current products of Russian aviation and rocket technology are in US hands so we have the benchmark..

 

Hate to burst your bubble like that.

 

Why would Russia produce better aircraft as a weakened ex world power than the US, which invests the most money in the world in its military, has better trained pilots, and better maintenance (mostly due to the aformentioned reason of bigger budget)?

 

 

As for the topic, F-22 + Eurofighter = win

As this topic seems to have raised its head again, there is a lot more information out there, with the General consensus, that the F-22 will have what can only be described as a 'healthy' advantage over the Typhoon, however, a number of reports state that WVR that there is little between the two aircraft, with the Typhoon having a slight edge (but you have to get to WVR first!!).

 

In BVR, whilst the F-22 dominates by a large margin, some of the more interesting comments coming out are that the Typhoon can obviously detect it has been 'painted' (though in the tests I understand PIRATE was not used), and also that in BVR there seemed to be "certain angles both in azimuth and elevation, in which the raptor could be spoted" (though no ranges etc were given).