I was reading Air force montly June 05. They had an article that question the F-22 air superiority. They talk about how the 2 F-15, F- 16 couldn't touch the Eurofighter Typhoon. Gen. Jumper flew both aircrafts and said "that technically, they are equal although they perform different roles."
Any thoughs on the matter?
Sponsor
Posted: Jul 25, 2008 - 6:03 AM
F-16.net Sponsor
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
falconfixer860261
Posted: Jun 16, 2005 - 08:13 PM
Elite
Joined: May 17, 2005
Posts: 984
Status: Offline
Eurofighter Typhoon is not stealty. And you can't shoot down what you can't see (visually or electronically that is). I think Jumper meant performance and handling.
Polaris
Posted: Jun 17, 2005 - 01:31 AM
Active member
Joined: Apr 19, 2005
Posts: 137
Status: Offline
Even performance wise, the Eurofighter cannot match the F/A-22 in sustained supersonic performance. The F/A-22 can make 1.72 mach without afterburn. The Eurofighter can make 1.2-1.3 mach without afterburn. In the BVR arena, the F/A-22 dominates. The F/A-22's radar is a powerful AESA. The Eurofighter is currently using a pulse doppler radar and will not recieve AESA until later. Just my two cents.
Sniper69
Posted: Jun 17, 2005 - 02:16 AM
Veteran
Joined: Jan 12, 2005
Posts: 262
Location: New Hampshire
Status: Offline
Eurofighter isnt as manuverable either, no t/v...
toan
Posted: Jun 17, 2005 - 02:53 AM
Elite
Joined: Nov 27, 2004
Posts: 535
Status: Offline
About Gen. Jumper's comments for F/A-22 and Eurofighter and the comparison between them:
One of the Eurofighter's biggest problem (at least in my opinion) is that it's not as stable as most other planes. I know the fighter's computer has to control some of the surfaces on the plane to keep it "stable." At least I think so. Eurofighter jocks, correct if I'm wrong.
_________________ Leatherneck, Jarhead, Devil Dog...yeah, those are my names.
One of the Eurofighter's biggest problem (at least in my opinion) is that it's not as stable as most other planes. I know the fighter's computer has to control some of the surfaces on the plane to keep it "stable." At least I think so. Eurofighter jocks, correct if I'm wrong.
Welcome to just about every advanced fighter built since the 70's! That is one big reason 'fly by wire' came around.....
_________________ Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Polaris
Posted: Jun 19, 2005 - 02:20 AM
Active member
Joined: Apr 19, 2005
Posts: 137
Status: Offline
The idea of the instability of most fighters since then is that the instability provides greater maneuverability.
Yeah, but what if you have a malfunction, or during combat you take damage to the computer. Wouldn't that pose a BIG problem?
Pennies for your thoughts.
Quick off-topic question. A friend asked me this and I could not answer him 100% sure. Is the EF-2000 and the Typhoon the same thing? They are aren't they?
_________________ Leatherneck, Jarhead, Devil Dog...yeah, those are my names.
TenguNoHi
Posted: Jun 19, 2005 - 07:43 AM
Elite
Joined: Sep 29, 2004
Posts: 922
Status: Offline
Quote:
Yeah, but what if you have a malfunction, or during combat you take damage to the computer. Wouldn't that pose a BIG problem?
Yes, and sometimes that happens *cough* migs *cough*. But in the case of most modern jets, they are extremely safe thanks to the diligant work of life support crews, and maintanance crews. Keep in mind how often your car malfunctions, and remember that your car doesnt see a mechanic EVERY day. The Viper was the first of a series of highly unstable air craft though... And the ammount of instability is irrelevant. If any of these planes lost their computers, the pilot would be SOL. Good thing for technology...
Same thing could happen before fly by wire and the associated computers; take a round in the right spot and you'll lose the control cables to most of your flight controls, and you're in the exact same situation....
_________________ Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
2sBlind
Posted: Jun 19, 2005 - 10:30 AM
Active member
Joined: May 18, 2005
Posts: 159
Status: Offline
Back to the EF vs. the Raptor: The Raptor wins in every category that exists. BVR: no contest, stealth and a greater capability to supercruise put the Raptor far ahead - now, if the shi! really hits the fan and they have to merge: the EF has a tremendous instantaneous and sustained turn rate - possibly equal to what the Raptor can do - but no one really knows, and if they do know and are saying it here, the OSI will be all over their A$$. Based on the wing loading and thrust of the two jets, the EF would probably have the advantage, but with TV in the equation, I can't imagine the Raptor wouldn't be able to slow down and turn inside the EF without trouble. Think about the size of the wing on the Raptor, it's HUGE!!! If you put TV on a wing like that, it's slow speed handling characteristics would be off the charts. Add that to JHMCS and the AIM-9X.... and it's scary....
Break Break - Off Topic, but here goes: Does the WVR performance numbers matter that much anymore? Can you outmaneuver an AIM-9X, or ASRAAM, or Pyhton IV, or IRIS-T? I sure as he!! wouldn't want to merge with somebody that has those capabilities. Does A/C performance really matter anymore? Can a better performing A/C defeat the newest IR missiles? I pose the question.
hansundfranz
Posted: Jun 19, 2005 - 04:20 PM
Active member
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 238
Status: Offline
Yeah but even the USA can´t really afford the F22. Imagine how many F22 the Italians could buy.
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
