# F-22 vs....



## The Nerd (Mar 15, 2008)

I have a great appreciation for the F-22 raptor, and I think its one, if not the best fighter of the modern world. but recently I recieved a book of jet war planes past through present. After reding about the newer Mig 29 and its capabilities as a close counter fighter, and the Su-34 Flanker with all its glories, I kinda got curious, which is the better in a dogfight?


----------



## Zarathos (Mar 15, 2008)

Any modern plane will wipe the floor with F-22 in WVR. 

And with very good enough ECM/ECCM it will have equal chances in BVR. F-22 is all about stealth, but it is not undetectable, and you can find him either with use of good radar with good computer, passive detection (IRST, electro-optical, detecting those tons of EM radiation from uber-cool F-22 radar) or simply with Eyeball Mk I if one have enough luck.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 15, 2008)

It's not just about the stealthy capability of the F-22. It's fast, maneuverable, and far more capable than you make it out to be.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 15, 2008)

Zarathos said:


> Any modern plane will wipe the floor with F-22 in WVR.



Hey Adler, put this in your siggy would ya?


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Mar 16, 2008)

Personally, I would like to see mock fight between F-22 and the latest MIG-29 and SU-34. Then I would decide which is better, but I think MIG and SUKHOI fighters are better than any US fighter. I once read an article, can't remember where, that there was a mock dogfight between MIG-29( or was it SU??) and F-15. It remained a secret one because of one reason, guess which one?


----------



## mkloby (Mar 16, 2008)

I think you guys would be in for a big shock if the F-22 ever engages these Russian aircraft. Chances are, as I'm sure you know, the MiGs and Sukois will be shot down BVR.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 16, 2008)

If if was an F-15 versus a Su-34, I am not totally surprised. The Su-34 is at least a generation newer than the F-15. Look at the first flight info on both aircraft.

It is quite easy for people to sit back and poo-poo the F-22 when they have never seen it up close, nor seen it fly a demo. 

But keep thinking that the MiGs and Sukhois are better, because if they ever do meet in a combat arena, there will be some very surprised adversaries.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2008)

Zarathos said:


> Any modern plane will wipe the floor with F-22 in WVR.
> 
> And with very good enough ECM/ECCM it will have equal chances in BVR. F-22 is all about stealth, but it is not undetectable, and you can find him either with use of good radar with good computer, passive detection (IRST, electro-optical, detecting those tons of EM radiation from uber-cool F-22 radar) or simply with Eyeball Mk I if one have enough luck.



 

Please enlighten me with facts that will prove your point. Where do you come up with this stuff????

Seriously please post facts to prove your point. 

This should be good, we are all waiting....

I dont wish to insult you here but you really dont seem to know what you are talking about.

The F-22 is highly maneuverable especially with its thrust vectoring.

The F-22 has a stealth advantage.

The F-22 has some of the latest avionics technology.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 16, 2008)

Here's a quote from Smithsonian's Air Space magazine that pretty well sums it up:

(Lt. Col. Michael Showers) has seen demos and videos of performances by the Russian MiG 29 and Sukhoi Su 35, and admits that their maneuverability is probably on a par with the F-22. "I can do everything they can do and vice versa," he says. "We can all do some pretty neat stuff. But I love this part of it: That’s all they have. They don’t have the stealth , they don’t have the supercruise, they don’t have the integrated sensors, the avionics. We have an aircraft that does everything a fighter pilot has ever wanted to do. It has it all—you can tell by the price tag," he says, (about $137 million per copy, or $338 million if you count in all the Air Force's research costs).

Here are some more informative quotes from the official USAF website concerning the F-22's first participation in last year's Red Flag excercises:

'Though better known for its stealth capability, the F-22 packs a list of surprises cherished by Raptor pilots and coveted by others. In addition to radar evasion, this fifth-generation fighter features unmatched maneuverability, surprising power (supercruise) and integrated avionics or sensor fusion (multiple displays combined into one). Even aircraft maintainers said they enjoy superior logistics such as computerized technical orders, reduced trouble shooting and faster remove-and-replace components, such as engine changes. These Raptor advantages were demonstrated and sharpened at Red Flag.' 

And:

'When the Raptor finds itself in a dogfight, it is no longer beyond visual range, but the advantage of stealth isn't diminished. It maintains "high ground" even at close range. 

"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me." 

Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, admits flying against the Raptor is a very frustrating experience. Reluctantly, he admitted "it's humbling to fly against the F-22," - humbling, not only because of its stealth, but also its unmatched maneuverability and power.'


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 16, 2008)

F22 is probably the best and definitely the most advanced fighter at the current time...I wonder what are the russians gonna throw at him...Mig29 was a great fighter but against an F22...


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 16, 2008)

MiG-29 is an awesome fighter. So is F-15. But these airframes and their avionic suites are old. Even with upgrades, their avionics 'backbone' is not capable of supporting the open architecture and integration that the F-22 enjoys. Today's fighter is more about the avionics allowing continual upgrades and modifications, pilot training, and integration with other battlefield assets. Certainly stealth plays a part, but lethality is all about situation awareness and ability to convey that information to nearby assets to act as force multipliers.


----------



## Zarathos (Mar 17, 2008)

VVS is *not* like USAF. They have different doctrine and their planes are built around that doctrine. Problem is, that Russia (and probably China) is only country that can use them as they were planned and build to be used. 

For example USAF planes are made so, that they can be used with each others and work with help of AWACS above enemy territory. VVS planes are made to operate above their own territory (or fight areas) with heavy support of SAMs and ground based radars. USAF is "stay there, shoot, take fuel in the air and shot a little more". VVS is "land, intercept, shot, land".

Different planes, different tactics. One on one in neutral ground - probably USAF fighters will win 7 fights out of ten. One on ten (as russians made their fighters to fight) - SAF fighters will loos most fights. Wanna comapare fighters - compare them with all factors in mind.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 17, 2008)

So that makes the F-22 an inferior fighter how? 

One on one in neutral territory, F-22 wins, but ten to one it doesn't? How many aircraft win at 10 to one?!?!? 

Tactics are one thing, the aircraft and it's capabilities are another. Let me ask you this, how well have buyers of that Russian hardware been doing with it? It appears to me that when a country buys Russian gear, they get minimal training that is barely adequate. I can't say the same for buyers of US gear. A majority of the buyers of US gear at least know how to use the Nav systems to get home once out of visual range of the airbase. 

I could name countless cold war countries that had very poorly trained piltos in their Russian made gear, who got lost regularly or just punched out when things got the slightest bit wrong.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Mar 17, 2008)

hey, Su-34 is a bomber, its kinda unfair to throw a bomber against the F-22,isnt it?  
In a pure dogfight, Su-30MK has slightly better chance because of better aerodynamics and overall agility, but only if it can track with its IRST the reduced IT signature of Raptor, which is pretty hard to do within acceptable range. But anyway, as I always say, you cant compare peaches with oranges - the Su-30 comes from the Su-27 family, it's basically the same airframe ,just fitted with better engines and avionics. 



Zarathos said:


> VVS planes are made to operate above their own territory (or fight areas) with heavy support of SAMs and ground based radars. USAF is "stay there, shoot, take fuel in the air and shot a little more". VVS is "land, intercept, shot, land".
> Different planes, different tactics. One on one in neutral ground - probably USAF fighters will win 7 fights out of ten. One on ten (as russians made their fighters to fight) - SAF fighters will loos most fights. Wanna comapare fighters - compare them with all factors in mind.[/


Your statement is correct regarding the russian tactics before 4th gen fighters were introduced - for example, Su-27 has the same role as F-15 as a air superiorty fighter regardless where the action takes place. 
One on ten - even in 60ies the Vietnamese were almost always outnumbered by USAF but they still could achieve victories. The numerical superiority was never a point of the VVS because they never hadn't any.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 17, 2008)

So Russia values its pilots less, thus is willing to sacrifice their loss as grist for the war mill. Brilliant tactic, I guess.

So knowing that, that must instill pride and high morale in the pilot cadre. As well as greatly influencing the aircraft's requirements to not "over engineer" them and violate the expected 10:1 loss "doctrine". Certainly helps with sales.

With the recent birth rate of indigenous Russian males, perhaps you might wish to rethink that doctrine. Now with respect to the Chinese, they have the economy and enough males trainable for pilot fodder. So perhaps for them the doctrine works.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 17, 2008)

Pilot fodder!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 17, 2008)

Zarathos said:


> VVS is *not* like USAF. They have different doctrine and their planes are built around that doctrine. Problem is, that Russia (and probably China) is only country that can use them as they were planned and build to be used.
> 
> For example USAF planes are made so, that they can be used with each others and work with help of AWACS above enemy territory. VVS planes are made to operate above their own territory (or fight areas) with heavy support of SAMs and ground based radars. USAF is "stay there, shoot, take fuel in the air and shot a little more". VVS is "land, intercept, shot, land".
> 
> Different planes, different tactics. One on one in neutral ground - probably USAF fighters will win 7 fights out of ten. One on ten (as russians made their fighters to fight) - SAF fighters will loos most fights. Wanna comapare fighters - compare them with all factors in mind.


\

Okay now please explain to me how that makes the F-22 inferior?

Oh and while you are at it, please go back to the Alpha sub thread and post that list of NATO ships sunk by Polish Subs.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 17, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Pilot fodder!




Sorry kloby, that was a little too close to home, wasn't it.


----------



## The Nerd (Mar 19, 2008)

In close combat the MiG 29 would be more than likely the better of the two.
"


> The MiG-29 has a few advantages over its more electronically advanced American counterparts. At about 40 miles apart, the American planes have the advantage because of avionics. At 10 miles the advantage is turning to the MiG. At five miles out, because of the MiG weapons sight and better maneuverability, the advantage is to the MiG. The weapons sight is a helmet-mounted system that allows the missile to follow the line of sight of the pilot's helmet. Where the pilot looks is where it goes."


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 19, 2008)

And you think that off-boresight sighting infrared weapon ability is a Russian capability only?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LxhLMiRklQ_

Please...


----------



## The Nerd (Mar 21, 2008)

nah, but when you can point the nose of your aircraft away from the direction of flight (off axis) and therefore being able to point your weapons without necessarily having to manouvre into a position where your flying towards your target, it kinda helps a bit. But it is handicapped in range and endurance, I read a quote by one of Mikoyans designers that the MiG 29 was a fighter to defend its own airfield boundries. and its BVR has short comings which could be taken atvantage of by the F-22.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 21, 2008)

What do you mean Nerdster, piss poor performance like this?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW2Hvu_mUdU_

or perhaps crappy maneuverability like this (check out 2:33)...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyKYw_p1Hrc_

Yeah... she sucks alright.

Maybe this shoddy performance at 7:00 and 8:50 is not worthy of modern generation.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAp5EVjucEs_

I suggest you do some more homework.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 21, 2008)

Indeed. Having seen several demos of the F-22s performance over the last couple of years, I can tell you that it is a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 22, 2008)

Who do I want providing air cover while I'm providing assault support - you can sure as heck bet that I am not taking some Russian MiG or Sukhoi over 22s and soon to hit the fleet 35s.


----------



## Soren (Mar 22, 2008)

The only a/c I see as a match for the F-22 is the Eurofighter Typhoon.

In terms of maneuverability they both have things going for them, as do they in speed climb rate, avionics, weapons etc etc. The Eurofighter has the advantage of a better pilots interface while the F-22 has its stealth capability.

Top notch fighters..


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 23, 2008)

The Nerd said:


> In close combat the MiG 29 would be more than likely the better of the two.
> "





You do realize that quote you used was nearly 20 years old right?


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> The only a/c I see as a match for the F-22 is the Eurofighter Typhoon.
> 
> In terms of maneuverability they both have things going for them, as do they in speed climb rate, avionics, weapons etc etc. The Eurofighter has the advantage of a better pilots interface while the F-22 has its stealth capability.
> 
> Top notch fighters..



The Typhoon II is not a generation 5 fighter. Its a Generation 4.5 fighter, much like the Super Hornet.

The F-22 is faster, far more manuverable, stealthy, can carry a heavier/larger weapons load, makes less demands on the pilot to fly, is more fuel efficient, has a longer range. I don't know where you got the idea that the Typhoon as a better pilots interface considering the EAP first flew in 1986 (the first actual Typhoon in 1994). The F-22 has had the advantage of nearly 10 extra years of technological development.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 23, 2008)

I think this whole thread is plain silly.... Its retarded to argue that ANYTHING can match the F-22 in ANY combat environment...


----------



## mkloby (Mar 23, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> I think this whole thread is plain silly.... Its retarded to argue that ANYTHING can match the F-22 in ANY combat environment...



Damn right - cutting through all the BS. I wonder how the final production F-35s will stack up.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 23, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Damn right - cutting through all the BS. I wonder how the final production F-35s will stack up.



Apparently well enough to question the need to purchase more F-22s. Different mission emphasis, but again cost enters into the equation.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 23, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Damn right - cutting through all the BS. I wonder how the final production F-35s will stack up.



All depends on who gets into office during the next election. If Obama or Clinton get in, count on the defense budget getting slashed per the Democrat modus operandi.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 23, 2008)

The Typhoon will not be able to match up alongside the F-22 until, at least, 2010 when Europe introduces their own AESA into the Typhoon.


----------



## joy17782 (Mar 23, 2008)

well with all the cash there spending on these planes , they should be able too cook dinner for you and give you he%d when your flying , but in all things i wonder if any of the goverments think about prolong wars and the time it takes too make these planes and train the flyguys !!!!! too fly them ?


----------



## plan_D (Mar 23, 2008)

I assume you're asking if any government wonders what they will do if there's a long war, and they need replacements? Well, aircraft can be built extremely quickly in times of war. Once all the machines and jigs are in place you can rattle a lot of aircraft off. The training of pilots is a completely different matter, and I don't think any modern country could throw out as many pilots capable of flying todays machines as they did in ...say, World War II when aircraft were basic and flying was relatively easy.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 23, 2008)

Well from when I first began flying to pinning on my wings it was 26 months. This does include 3 PCS moves, and about 5 months of pool time waiting to do something. I didn't even get qualified in the MV-22 yet since I have a little hiatus now.


----------



## Soren (Mar 24, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> The Typhoon II is not a generation 5 fighter. Its a Generation 4.5 fighter, much like the Super Hornet.
> 
> The F-22 is faster, far more manuverable, stealthy, can carry a heavier/larger weapons load, makes less demands on the pilot to fly, is more fuel efficient, has a longer range. I don't know where you got the idea that the Typhoon as a better pilots interface considering the EAP first flew in 1986 (the first actual Typhoon in 1994). The F-22 has had the advantage of nearly 10 extra years of technological development.



I didn't get any ideas buddy, the EF Typhoon has the best most sophisticated pilots interface in the world, and its pilots wear the best G-suit in the world as-well, the Libelle suit. 

And the F-22 is not any more maneuverable than the EF, the EF can sustain 9 G's for as long as there is fuel, the F-22 cannot. Furthermore the Libelle suit means that the EF pilot can stand higher forces than the F-22 pilot, again an advantage to the EF. 

And since they're both equally fast and have the same service ceiling they're very close.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 24, 2008)

Soren - what is your source for saying one cockpit interface is better than the other?


----------



## Soren (Mar 24, 2008)

?? Do you want me to name a book for you or something mkloby ? These a re some very new a/c so I doubt any book covers this subject.

As to where I know this from, well I've talked to EF pilots for one and I've read allot about both a/c, and one thing which is always mentioned is the Eurofighter's state of the art pilots interface and cockpit ergonomics being the best in the world.

You should read this:
Eurofighter Technology and Performance : Cockpit
Eurofighter Technology and Performance : Flight Systems

And about stealth:
Eurofighter Technology and Performance : Structure


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> And the F-22 is not any more maneuverable than the EF, the EF can sustain 9 G's for as long as there is fuel, the F-22 cannot.


Can you be 100% sure of that?


----------



## evangilder (Mar 24, 2008)

I really don't see that the Eurofighter is better...

Cockpit

External stores for weapons will not only take away any stealth ability, but also effect drag and overall performance. 

_"I've talked to EF pilots for one and I've read allot about both a/c, and one thing which is always mentioned is the Eurofighter's state of the art pilots interface and cockpit ergonomics being the best in the world."_
And how may of those have also flown the F-22?

I have no doubt that the Typhoon is a very capable fighter in this age. But without the stealth ability and other technological advances, it's not a Raptor. 

I would like to see a pilot sustain 9 Gs for as long as there is fuel...


----------



## plan_D (Mar 24, 2008)

I don't think the F-22 stealth capability is as worthwhile as Lockheed like to make out. What is without doubt (in my mind) is the worth of the avionics system, most importantly the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) system. The F-22 is equipped with the AN/APG-77 AESA which gives the Raptor the ability to track more targets at a longer distance than the Typhoon as well as provide ECM for itself while being a lot harder to jam by the opponents ECMs. The Typhoon will not be equipped with AMSAR (Europes AESA) until 2010, at least. 

The simple fact that the F-22 is equipped with AESA while the Typhoon still operates a mechanical radar system makes the F-22 a superior fighting machine.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> I didn't get any ideas buddy, the EF Typhoon has the best most sophisticated pilots interface in the world, and its pilots wear the best G-suit in the world as-well, the Libelle suit.
> 
> And the F-22 is not any more maneuverable than the EF, the EF can sustain 9 G's for as long as there is fuel, the F-22 cannot. Furthermore the Libelle suit means that the EF pilot can stand higher forces than the F-22 pilot, again an advantage to the EF.
> 
> And since they're both equally fast and have the same service ceiling they're very close.




Soren, simply put you are wrong. Very wrong.

I have NO clue where you are getting your data from. You claim in other posts to want politic free discussions yet you bring up this information which is clearly flawed.

The F-22 as it is is capable of manuvers the Typhoon II could only dream of, and its electronics suite isn't nearly as capable or powerful. Every single thing mentioned in the Cockpit and Flight systems of the Typhoon II is also available "Out of the Box" on the F-22. You throw out random information that only says what the Typhoon II has in it, but absolutely no information on the capabilities.

If the Typhoon II was indeed even near the level of the F-22, why is the Typhoon II considered a 4.5 generation fighter and not the 5th generation the F-22 is currently sitting in?


1.) The F-22's Pratt Whitney F119-PW-100 Pitch Thrust vectoring turbofans produce 35,000+ lb each, the Typhoon II's Eurojet EJ200 afterburning turbofan produce 20,250+ lbs each. THe F-22 loaded weight is 55,352lbs, the Typhoon II's is 34,280lbs. 1.26 lbs of thrust per lb of airplane for the F-22 vs. 1.18 for the Typhoon II. Advantage: F-22

2.) F-22 max speed: Mach 2+ (true number is still top secret, but Metz, the Lockheed test pilot once claimed Mach 2.42) Typhoon II: Mach 2. F-22 supercruise speed Mach 1.7, Typhoon II supercruise speed Mach 1.2. The F-22's rate of climb is known to be significantly better than the F-15C (254 m/s) (but it is top secret still), the Typhoon II's rate of climb is about 315 m/s. Advantage: F-22

3.) F-22 wing loading: 66 lb/ft², Typhoon II wing loading: 63.7 lb/ft². Advantage: Typhoon II.

4.) F-22 has thrust vectoring, independent moving elevons, advanced digital fly-by-wire, In fact the Typhoon II sales information contains data on its manuverablity over most of the current generation 4.5 and 4.0 fighters, but no information at all mentioned about the F-22. If you were trying to sell the Typhoon II wouldn't you make that a point? I know I would especially when trying to sell my aircraft. PS: only the German Air Force and Austrian Air Force wear the Libelle. Everyone else wears the faggots (FCAGTs). The F-22 can do Herbst maneuver (or J-turn), Pugachev's Cobra and the Kulbit, none of which the Typhoon II is capable of. The F-22 is also known to be able to pull a minimum radius turn in less space than the Su-35 which was known to have one of the best minium turns in the books.

5.) Stealth. The F-22 has stealth capabilities above and beyond anything the Typhoon II has. The Typhoon II has a RCS under one square meter (best guesses say .8 ). The F-22 is known to have a better RCS than the F-117 which is about .025. The F-22 can carry a rather complete weapons suite internally. The Typhoon II cannot. As soon as you hang weapons on the Typhoon II the RCS only gets worse. Advantage: F-22

6.) Radar system. The F-22 is fitted with the AN/APG-77 AESA radar tied to the AN/ALR-94 passive system, which radar has an estimated range of 125-150 miles, though planned upgrades will allow a range of 250 miles, the system is so advanced that the F-22 can loiter outside the combat radius and serve as a type of AWACS system. Even the new CAESAR of the Typhoon II cant compete. It has about half the processing power and approximately 75% of the range. Advantage: F-22



I think that about covers it. If you wish to blather on, feel free to do so. My posting on this topic is done, as I've covered all the primary topics of the two jets in detail.

I've talked to (and had dinner with, in full mess dress) F-22 pilots from the 27th, and the 192d.


----------



## Soren (Mar 24, 2008)

EM,

The F-22 isn't on the comparison list for the simple reason that no information on the F-22 has been made available for comparison. Now if the F-22 Raptor could easily beat the EF why then has the US been unwilling to stack it up against the EF Typhoon ?

And as for maneuverability, again the F-22 isn't any better, the EF can sustain a higher amount of G forces in a turn for a longer amount of time than any other fighter in the world, and one can in great part thank the wing design for that. Now the F-22 does have better low speed maneuverability by virtue of its thrust vectoring, infact I've heard it's the best in the world (Better than the Sukhoi series in service), but lets face it, the dogfights of today don't occur at low speed but at very high speeds. (And you're not going to pull a cobra maneuver at high speed)

And so regarding the cobra maneuver, well what good is it ? The now very old SAAB Draken J-35 can do this maneuver as-well, and so can the old MIG-29, so are they better dogfighters than the rest ? Not even close.

The only real advantage the F-22 seems to have is its stealth capability, cause the EF is just as fast and maneuverable.


----------



## Soren (Mar 24, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Can you be 100% sure of that?



Can we be 100% sure about anything regarding both of these fighters FLYBOYJ ?

Now IF the F-22 was capable of this, then I'm sure it would've been advertized quite allot, just like the cobra maneuver capability. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> The only real advantage the F-22 seems to have is its stealth capability, cause the EF is just as fast and maneuverable.



Soren, I don't want to pig-pile, but you don't really believe that statement, do you? The only advantage? EM gave a rather succinct list of advantages (not necessarily in the priority I would have chosen), but advantages nonetheless. And you think all the eggs are in the stealth basket? And you are arguing a high speed distance encounter with an F-22? How many AMRAAMs can you absorb before you suffer the luxury of detecting your adversary? The EF is a most capable airplane. No doubt about it. But the inherent ability of the F-22 to disseminate battlefield situation awareness to local assets is bar-none in BVR. Anyway, why no direct comparisons by USAF between F-22 and EF? Exactly, why? You are selling the EF on the world market. The US/Raptor is not. Why would the USAF engage in such silliness for no advantage gained? Its not a fear issue. Please. It's common sense for God's sake as to why those capabilities are kept close to the chest.

And from what little I have heard, even at close range, getting guns on a Raptor is not assured. Perhaps straight boresight with a Mk I eyeball, but that is a last resort in a radar directed cannon in a 3-D/high g fight. And now you are quickly making equivocations about a 5th generation AESA equipped fighter having suffered multiple failures in battlespace management to end up in a one-on-one Lufbery with an opponent seeking to more even the odds. Not smart battle doctrine.


----------



## Soren (Mar 25, 2008)

Matt, tell me, how much do we actually know about these 5th generation systems, truthfully ?

It's no wonder that the US would want to keep tight about the F-22's software, but its maneuverability is obviously not such a big secret as for them to avoid public airshows and publicity mock up dogfights between it and the F-15 Eagle. So why is it that they haven't accepted pitting it up against the EF Typhoon ? The fighter of one of its Allies. If the F-22 is clearly superior then doing it and demonstrating a clear win would only mean gaining its reputation.

My opinion is that *perhaps* these two a/c are so close in terms of fighter vs fighter capabilities that the US can see no reason for risking having any of the a/c's weaknesses revealed?

The only thing we know the F-22 has a real advantage in is stealth, as besides being covered by RAM has its primary load out hidden away, minimizing both drag and radar signature.

Now overall I would agree that the F-22 is a slightly better fighter than the EF, but one also has to remember the price tag as the F-22 is one VERY expensive a/c.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> ?? Do you want me to name a book for you or something mkloby ? These a re some very new a/c so I doubt any book covers this subject.


Thanks for the links I'll definitely check them out. Soren, please don't be obnoxious because you have little fact to back up your opinions. I asked what source you had for claiming advantages like the EF's cockpit interface being superior to the F-22, not what book. One point is that much surrounding the F-22 is classified, and unless you hold a US Top Secret clearance - you don't truly know what the a/c is capable of. You can compare equipment and known items about the aircraft like EM did - and if I was relying upon air superiority to conduct assualt support, I'd want none other than the F-22.

As to where I know this from, well I've talked to EF pilots for one and I've read allot about both a/c, and one thing which is always mentioned is the Eurofighter's state of the art pilots interface and cockpit ergonomics being the best in the world.

You seem to have a hard time admitting superiority of anything American, and when you do you always make it conditional.

[/QUOTE]


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> Can we be 100% sure about anything regarding both of these fighters FLYBOYJ ?
> 
> Now IF the F-22 was capable of this, then I'm sure it would've been advertized quite allot, just like the cobra maneuver capability. But that's just my opinion.


Well you're entitled to your opinion - I worked on the YF-22 before I left Lockheed - let's just say that Lockheed (and the USAF) have always sprung "surprises" on the public with regards to aircraft and capability. I need not say more... 

Both aircraft are very capable but I'm in agreement with Plan D about the radar - I've seen both mechanical and AESA radars and that alone is a big difference.

It's funny - I remember similar arguments when the F-15 and Tornado first came out...


----------



## plan_D (Mar 25, 2008)

The Tornado was never comparable to the F-15 as a fighter, nor as a ground-attack platform until the introduction of the GR.4. In fact, the Tornado was an over-priced piece of sh*t !


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 25, 2008)

plan_D said:


> The Tornado was never comparable to the F-15 as a fighter, nor as a ground-attack platform until the introduction of the GR.4. In fact, the Tornado was an over-priced piece of sh*t !


My point....


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> EM,
> 
> 
> And as for maneuverability, again the F-22 isn't any better, the EF can sustain a higher amount of G forces in a turn for a longer amount of time than any other fighter in the world, and one can in great part thank the wing design for that. Now the F-22 does have better low speed maneuverability by virtue of its thrust vectoring, infact I've heard it's the best in the world (Better than the Sukhoi series in service), but lets face it, the dogfights of today don't occur at low speed but at very high speeds. (And you're not going to pull a cobra maneuver at high speed)



Wrong. The F-22 can do Herbst maneuver (or J-turn), Pugachev's Cobra and the Kulbit, none of which the Typhoon II is capable of. The F-22 has a better minimum radius turn at all speeds over the Typhoon II. Blather on all you want about sustaining a higher G turn, but you have no proof that the F-22 isn't capable of doing the same thing. The F-22 can out manuver the Typhoon II at all speeds. 



> And so regarding the cobra maneuver, well what good is it ? The now very old SAAB Draken J-35 can do this maneuver as-well, and so can the old MIG-29, so are they better dogfighters than the rest ? Not even close.



The MiG-29 CANNOT do the Pugachev's Cobra unless it starts at a 30 degree entry angle. It still does not change the fact that the Typhoon II cannot do the manuver. Period.




> The only real advantage the F-22 seems to have is its stealth capability, cause the EF is just as fast and maneuverable.



No, the F-22 is faster by .42 mach at top speed, faster by .5 mach in supercruise. That is a considerable number and far from you claim that the Typhoon II is just as fast. If you really think .42 mach and .5 mach are "just as fast" you really need to do some more work on exactly what "fast" is. I've already touched on all your so called claims about manuverability.

As for costs, the Typhoon II flyaway cost per plane is currently 122.5 mil in 2007 dollars. The F-22 is $137.5 million per plane in 2008 dollars. Considering the capabilities the F-22 has over the Typhoon II in just about every category its money well spent.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 25, 2008)

Better manueverability makes a better airplane. Tell that to Richard Bong. It's a specious argument anyway. The superiority of an airplane is the sum of its capabilities (technical, training, maintenence). With 3 times the detection range of adversaries with AESA, ability to counter air-to-air missiles in flight (yeah I wrote that right), orders of magnitude more likely to be undetected, ability to share airspace order of battle with nearby assets, unmatched supercruise and a fly away cost that is no longer as 'outrageous' due to the declining dollar, amounts to a platform that is leaps and bounds ahead of anything in the air (unclassified).


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 25, 2008)

And I still say that Japan will eventually get some. And Australia has stated a real interest now that they have given the classified AESA capabilities of the F/A-18F to those who hold the purse strings.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 25, 2008)

I say Japan, Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel all end up getting the F-22 eventually. I know that England and Australia are rather hot for the F-35 currently, but that remains to be seen once they reach operational status.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 25, 2008)

I have to agree EM, mkloby and Matt here. I do not see any evidence that proves that the Typhoon is superior to the F-22.

Soren please post facts that will prove your point. You have not posted a single one yet. You post facts about the EF but you have not posted anything saying that the F-22 is inferior to the Typhoon. It is all your opinion and based off the fact that you dont like anything that is American.

Basically I am saying put up the facts or give up.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 25, 2008)

Just a thought. The Raptor is of course a brilliant plane, with vector thrust, stealth, advanced weapons and everything and I doubt any a/c in the world can be totally superior. But what use will it have in the wars of today? Today's wars seem to be more like anti guerilla wars than the wars of the past. Is having a technical brilliant, sophisticated and expensive a/c not something of the past? It looks like overkill to me. It'll probably never has to fight it's (almost) equals. 
Wouldn't it have been much better to use these billions of dollars to build less sophisticated, but very useful ground attack a/c in much higher numbers, which by the numbers and costs makes you much more flexible in these kind of wars with probably the same punch as the Raptor.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 25, 2008)

One word...

China


----------



## mkloby (Mar 25, 2008)

Marcel - you have a good point. Matt puts it succinctly as to the need for an air superiority fighter. There is a need for it, as to have nothing for that role would leave you vulnerable. However, many think that the F-35 would have been a much better return on investment due to the joint nature of the program. Interestingly, there was a push in the Air Force to look into an attack variant of the T-6, but that ended up dead I believe.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 25, 2008)

Is the US the only nation that openly is concerned about the Chinese? And they are our leading trade partner, so a direct confrontation is unlikely, but another Vietnam where ideals are contested with technology is highly likely based upon historical precedent. Europe has no interest there, huh?


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 25, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Is the US the only nation that openly is concerned about the Chinese? And they are our leading trade partner, so a direct confrontation is unlikely, but another Vietnam where ideals are contested with technology is highly likely based upon historical precedent. Europe has no interest there, huh?




The chinese shure as hell are willing to do whatever it takes to make China the greatest country on the planet. They have already proved they don't much care what the US thinks. Take a look at all the cyber attacks against the US they are already doing.

China should scare the hell outta the US military and govenment.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 25, 2008)

Oh another addendum, the Air Force is saying at airshows the engines can each produce 37,000+ lbs of thrust...


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

LoL Adler! And in what way is what EM is doing any different ?? EM hasn’t posted sh*t in the way of sources, and yet I’m the one who you pound!

You claim you’re not after me Adler, but then how come EM avoided your searchlight here ? 

And as if that isn’t enough you *again* put words into my mouth saying that I claimed that the EF was *superior* to the F-22, I NEVER claimed anything like that! nothing even close! All I ever said was that the EF is the closest to the F-22 out there, and that the F-22 isn’t as overwhelmingly superior an a/c as EM wants us to believe.

Fact is that when talking about these new generation fighters there’s very little in the way of facts sources available to ANYONE, and therefore all ANYONE can do is speculate. So like I’ve already explained all I have said on this subject is based solely on the scarce amount of data available and then opinion.

EM,

Provide sources for all your claims or they are just speculations on your part, pure and simple.
I’d esp. like to see the sources for your claim that the F-22 is more maneuverable than the EF Typhoon and that it’s fast by Mach .42.
All the data I have on both fighters is that they both have a top speed of Mach 2+ at full power, and a similar service ceiling. The EF has the advantage of a lower wing-loading, and considering that both a/c feature LE flaps, this advantage will be noticeable in the capability to sustain G’s.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 26, 2008)

Actually Soren ALL the information I posted is right off of Lockheed's or the USAF's information releases on the F-22. All information was taken from public Air Force web sites and interviews with F-22 pilots.


Care to try again?


In otherwords Soren, as people have been saying, put up, or shut up.


Merz himself has plenty to say on the topic. If you don't know who Merz is I suggest you figure it out. It was Merz who claimed the F-22 could easily do Mach 2.42

Carlo Kopp interviews F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz

Cruise speed in supercruise is Mach 1.72, 1,140 mph (1,830 km/h) at high altitude was confirmed by EX-USAF Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper who said it himself.

Maximum sustaineous g-load was pegged at 9.5 g and it was has been confirmed by two Raptor's pilot in late 2007 who flew the F-22 for public demo's.

As for being more manuverable, I've said it TWICE, apparently you cannot get your biased head around it. The F-22 is capable of the Herbst maneuver, Pugachev's Cobra and the Kulbit as well as having control of roll at 60 degree AOA's. You want to explain why, if the Typhoon II was more manuverable, it cannot do the same? After all, according to the information you pull out of the air, its more manuverable than the F-22 but isn't even capable of these four manuvers.

1.) The F-22 is considerably faster than the Typhoon II
2.) The F-22 is considerably more manuverable than the TYphoon II
3.) The F-22 is far more stealthy than the Typhoon II
4.) THe avionics package carried by the F-22 is far superior than that carried by the Typhoon II.

That puts the F-22 into the quite a bit more superior than the Typhoon II in my book.

SO once again, put up or shut up.


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

LoL!

Lets see the sources EM, please, I'm getting so excited now! Esp. about the sustained 9.5 Gs and Mach 2.4 top speed!

Oh this should be good!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2008)

_"Capt. Brian Budde, 94th FS pilot, explained the F-22 is able to sustain more than nine Gs for much longer than the F-15, without running out of airspeed. From the pilot's perspective, the F-22 "is more power than you know what to do with," said Captain Budde. So much power, in fact, the F-22 enjoys capabilities alien to legacy fighters." _

Feature - Raptors wield 'unfair' advantage at Red Flag


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 26, 2008)

OK Soren, keep being the ass, I'll keep posting facts like this:

Code One Magazine: F-22 Pilot Perspective — October 2000

"But I can say that this airplane will perform outside the realm of current and projected fighters. Since speedrelates to distance, such things as mutual support and strike escort take on new meanings in terms of positioning and reacting to a threat."

"Nothing can sustain supersonic conditions with the persistence of a Raptor."


"it's top speed is classified but it'll do 1600 mph. It's fast. I mean it's REALLY fast."

OK so Soren, where are your facts about the Typhoon II being more manuverable, comparible in speed and a lot less expensive?

The F-22 is capable of the Herbst maneuver, Pugachev's Cobra and the Kulbit as well as having control of roll at 60 degree AOA's. You want to explain why, if the Typhoon II was more manuverable, it cannot do the same? After all, according to the information you pull out of the air, its more manuverable than the F-22 but isn't even capable of these four manuvers. I'm still waiting for you to explain that the Typhoon II is more manuverable...


Do us all a favour, and get yourself a bit more educated. Provide FACTS Soren. Plenty of us have provided them here shooting 20mm wide holes in your attempts at Typhoon II/F-22 parity.


PS: did you even BOTHER to read the link I provided above? Doesn't sound like it.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 26, 2008)

I'm still confused by this discussion; the ability of the F-22 and Typhoon to do aerobatics has no place in modern warfare. Agility is an advantage but if the Typhoon could turn 360 degrees two seconds quicker, it would make no difference. Throw the machine around like a prepaid whore, the Raptor is 100 miles away and tracking your ass from space to the ground 'n there's nothing you can do about it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2008)

Well said D - the bottom line is who ever sees the enemy first and gets the shot off wins, and right now the F-22 has that advantage - PERIOD.


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> _"Capt. Brian Budde, 94th FS pilot, explained the F-22 is able to sustain more than nine Gs for much longer than the F-15, without running out of airspeed. From the pilot's perspective, the F-22 "is more power than you know what to do with," said Captain Budde. So much power, in fact, the F-22 enjoys capabilities alien to legacy fighters." _
> 
> Feature - Raptors wield 'unfair' advantage at Red Flag



Err you do realize that nothing is mentioned of the F-22 being capable of retaining 9 G's indefinately. That the F-22 can hold 9 G's for much longer than its predecessors is no surprise, I knew that already. The question is, can it hold 9 G's indefinately as the Typhoon can ??


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

Oooh I see your confident enough to throw out insults now as-well EM, good, now we just need those reliable sources..

I'm still waiting for the sources for your claim that the F-22 will do 9.5 G sustained.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 26, 2008)

Are you blind? Are you honestly telling me that quotes, interviews and information FROM THE PILOTS THAT FLY THE F-22 isn't a reliable source?

Where the hell are yours? I've provided at least 5.



Keep sticking your fingers in your ears. You just keep looking the part of the fool.


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

No I'm not blind EM, but I still don't see where it is mentioned that the F-22 will hold over 9 G's indefinately. But feel free to point me there, and then I'll promise to keep my mouth shut on this subject. Deal ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> You claim you’re not after me Adler, but then how come EM avoided your searchlight here ?



No Soren I am just sick and tired of your biased dribble in every single forum. Sometimes I enjoy your posts because you are a very knowledgable person, and then in others... 

In fact everyone is tired of it!



Soren said:


> And as if that isn’t enough you *again* put words into my mouth saying that I claimed that the EF was *superior* to the F-22, I NEVER claimed anything like that! nothing even close! All I ever said was that the EF is the closest to the F-22 out there, and that the F-22 isn’t as overwhelmingly superior an a/c as EM wants us to believe.



No Soren go back and read your damn posts! It is quite evident what you mean or else everyone would not be jumping on you. 

[qutoe="Soren"]Fact is that when talking about these new generation fighters there’s very little in the way of facts sources available to ANYONE, and therefore all ANYONE can do is speculate. So like I’ve already explained all I have said on this subject is based solely on the scarce amount of data available and then opinion.[/quote]

Your right its only racts when it supports your biased opinion.



Soren said:


> Provide sources for all your claims or they are just speculations on your part, pure and simple.



As are all of your claims. Nothing more than speculations Soren, nothing more...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 26, 2008)

For anybody who's interested, here's another good on-line article from Smithsonian Air Space Magazine; it's a few years old now, but there is still a lot of pertinent information in it:

Air Space Magazine | Military Aviation | The Raptor Arrives


----------



## Marcel (Mar 26, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Is the US the only nation that openly is concerned about the Chinese? And they are our leading trade partner, so a direct confrontation is unlikely, but another Vietnam where ideals are contested with technology is highly likely based upon historical precedent. Europe has no interest there, huh?



I think you're right that European countries are taking China less serious than the US does. If that is a good or a bad thing, I don't know, only time will tell, I'm afraid. 



plan_D said:


> I'm still confused by this discussion; the ability of the F-22 and Typhoon to do aerobatics has no place in modern warfare. Agility is an advantage but if the Typhoon could turn 360 degrees two seconds quicker, it would make no difference. Throw the machine around like a prepaid whore, the Raptor is 100 miles away and tracking your ass from space to the ground 'n there's nothing you can do about it.


Good post Plan and exactly what I wanted to post. Being able to do a nice Cobra manoeuvre will impress the crowd at a flight show, but hardly has any military value. Sadly the days of the Baron are over


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> The question is, can it hold 9 G's indefinately as the Typhoon can ??


There's nothing indicating that it won't and everything indicating that it can!

SoD - good article. Here's a few quotes...

*"The Raptor is simple: You pull on the stick and you get 9 Gs almost instantly. Little inputs on stick and the throttle give you large outputs. Its responsiveness and maneuverability over anything else airborne is instantly apparent.”*

_"Air Force planners expect that the Raptor will spend little time dogfighting; “supercruise and stealth are so much more important,” Cabral says. In a Raptor, a visual encounter should take place only “because you choose it,” he says, “and you arrive in the merge with complete surprise.”_

_"The Raptor’s radar range is classified, but Stapleton says he has “seen targets beyond 320 miles.”_

_“The F-15 has been around for 30 years and its tactics have evolved,” he says. “But we don’t have a lot of Raptor data points yet—we’re still building them. It’s a big gray area. Honestly, we don’t know what we don’t know.”_

Soren, we seen two referances about 9g turns - I'm sure we're going to see a real life comparison between the two in a mock arena providing they even get close enough (before the F-22 shoots down the Typhoon) to prove this sustained 9g turn you're so hung up on.


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

FLYBOYJ,

I never doubted that the F-22 can pull 9 G's, nearly every fighter can do that, its holding those G's which is the problem. Also seeing that the F-22 doesn't have the luxury of the Libelle suit I don't even see how any pilot could claim that F-22 can hold 9 G's, and none have so far.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> I never doubted that the F-22 can pull 9 G's, nearly every fighter can do that, its holding those G's which is the problem. Also seeing that the F-22 doesn't have the luxury of the Libelle suit I don't even see how any pilot could claim that F-22 can hold 9 G's, and none have so far.



Keep moving them goal posts Soren. Keep ignoring the links we have been posting too.


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

Adler,

I've re-read all my posts and no'where did I ever claim that the EF was superior to the F-22, ever! All I've said is that they're the close.

Also if you cared to read my posts before judging me you'd see that I said that the F-22 overall is a better fighter, and that the EF is the closest to it out there.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 26, 2008)

Oh Soren by the way, here is another quote from a F-22 pilot 

"Look, BFM in the Raptor is boring.’ And it was true. *The plane is so powerful and responsive, it can turn so tight and sustain such high Gs and angles of attack, that I can fly to the center of his turn circle and keep my nose and weapon on him all day. Whatever he tries to do, I can just point my airplane*.

“When I was flying defensive BFM, he simply couldn’t enter into my turn circle. Even if he flies his weapon to the best of its capabilities and I make errors, he cannot win. It’s almost too easy.”


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> I never doubted that the F-22 can pull 9 G's, nearly every fighter can do that, its holding those G's which is the problem. Also seeing that the F-22 doesn't have the luxury of the Libelle suit I don't even see how any pilot could claim that F-22 can hold 9 G's, and none have so far.




No what you said was, and I quote

"The only a/c I see as a match for the F-22 is the Eurofighter Typhoon."


you were claiming the F-22 and Typhoon II are equal. As that is exactly what match means. The Typhoon II is NOT a match for the F-22. The F-22 exceeds the capabilities of the Typhoon II in nearly every category and many of them by very large margins.


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> Keep moving them goal posts Soren. Keep ignoring the links we have been posting too.



Not moving any posts or ignoring any links, I've read them all and NONE state that the F-22 can sustain 9 G's indefinately, none.

Furthermore, and as already stated, the EF pilots benefit from the Libelle suit which means its pilots can pull more G's for a longer period of time without blacking out.

Autoflug Libelle GmbH


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 26, 2008)

The Typhoon II still cannot out manuver the F-22.

Lemme know when the Typhoon II can do a Herbst maneuver, Pugachev's Cobra or the Kulbit as well as having control of roll at 60 degree AOA's.


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

In good ol' English to say something is a match for something else just means it's a tough deal to be up against or it's no piece of cake. (Remember I didn't say "A match to" I said "A match *for*" 

Also I later said that overall the F-22 is better, so that should've ruled out any confusion!


----------



## Soren (Mar 26, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> The Typhoon II still cannot out manuver the F-22.



There's a big possibility it can..



> Lemme know when the Typhoon II can do a Herbst maneuver, Pugachev's Cobra or the Kulbit as well as having control of roll at 60 degree AOA's.



Those maneuvers are low speed maneuvers for crying out loud! The dogfight (If there's ever going to be one) isn't going to be at low speed!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> I never doubted that the F-22 can pull 9 G's, nearly every fighter can do that, its holding those G's which is the problem. Also seeing that the F-22 doesn't have the luxury of the Libelle suit I don't even see how any pilot could claim that F-22 can hold 9 G's, and none have so far.


Oh now we're going to move to the suit? The USAF evaluated the Libelle in 2000 at Edwards and may eventually use it as well. Here's some other info...

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070413-039.wmv

Code One Magazine Fourth Quarter 2004: The Well-Dressed Raptor Pilot

For the most part the USAF is not advertising information about the suit to be used on the F-22

_ATAGS 
Next Merrell dons the CSU-23/P Advanced Technology Anti-G Suit, or ATAGS. Like the Combat Edge vest, ATAGS (currently only worn by F/A-22 pilots) provides increased protection from the effects of prolonged high-g environments. As a stand-alone garment, ATAGS provides a sixty percent increase in aircrew endurance. Combined with Combat Edge, it increases aircrew endurance by 350 percent over the current g-suit. _


From what I understand the Libelle (or something similar) has been used by several European countries for a few years now and although they seem state of the art I see no real advantage over what is being used in the F-22 if we're now going from comparing the aircraft to support equipment. If the USAF decided to adoubt the Libelle there goes the "sustained 9g argument," but then again what good is the g suit going to be when you're shot down by something you can't see?


----------



## Marcel (Mar 26, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> The Typhoon II still cannot out manuver the F-22.
> 
> Lemme know when the Typhoon II can do a Herbst maneuver, Pugachev's Cobra or the Kulbit as well as having control of roll at 60 degree AOA's.



Sorry, have to agree with Soren here. If you want to show the Raptor is better then the EF, you'll have to compare weapon systems, avionics etc. Stealth is IMO the main advantage for the Raptor over the EF. Those manoeuvres can be useful in very distinct occasions, but isn't an overall advantage in today's areal warfare.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 26, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Sorry, have to agree with Soren here. If you want to show the Raptor is better then the EF, you'll have to compare weapon systems, avionics etc. Stealth is IMO the main advantage for the Raptor over the EF. Those manoeuvres can be useful in very distinct occasions, but isn't an overall advantage in today's areal warfare.




I already did that pages ago.


Soren claimed the Typhoon II was more manuverable than the F-22. It isn't. I never said they were useful in combat but they DO show the manuverability of the aircraft.

Stealth, high speed supercruise, high manuverablility, superior radar and avionics all favour the F-22 by huge margins over the Typhoon II.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Those maneuvers are low speed maneuvers for crying out loud! The dogfight (If there's ever going to be one) isn't going to be at low speed!



Then the game is over even before it started for the Typhoon II. The F-22's far superior radar and detection system would have picked up the Typhoon II before they even knew the F-22 was out there.


You keep changing the goal posts Soren, and you still keep looking like the fool.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 26, 2008)

This is getting old.... And repetitive....

When the TiffyII and the Raptor go head to head at Red Flag, the truth shall set us all free....

My money is on the Raptor, in every catagory...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> I never doubted that the F-22 can pull 9 G's, nearly every fighter can do that, its holding those G's which is the problem. Also seeing that the F-22 doesn't have the luxury of the Libelle suit I don't even see how any pilot could claim that F-22 can hold 9 G's, and none have so far.



Where is your proof that the F-22 can not pull the same G's for as long? Quit speculating.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 26, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> This is getting old.... And repetitive....
> 
> When the TiffyII and the Raptor go head to head at Red Flag, the truth shall set us all free....
> 
> My money is on the Raptor, in every catagory...



Were it so, Les. Like the Indians with Su-27s, the intent of the exercises is not to humiliate nor aire shortcomings in technology or training. Any US sponsored exercises with allies will be PC. And rightly so. Keep the enemy thinking I say.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Mar 27, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> The MiG-29 CANNOT do the Pugachev's Cobra unless it starts at a 30 degree entry angle.


Actually the later versions equipped with the FBW are able to perform the cobra



Soren said:


> I didn't get any ideas buddy, the EF Typhoon has the best most sophisticated pilots interface in the world



I had once an opportunity to sit in EF driver seat with avionics turned on - I could barely read the gauges on the both MFCDs)) Just my 5 cents)


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 27, 2008)

Matt said:


> Were it so, Les. Like the Indians with Su-27s, the intent of the exercises is not to humiliate nor aire shortcomings in technology or training. Any US sponsored exercises with allies will be PC. And rightly so. Keep the enemy thinking I say.


While the Service may be quiet about some of the results, the pilots always blurt out tasty quotes.... There will be some coming that will solidify the Raptor as the premier fighter in the skies, unquestioned...


----------



## Soren (Mar 27, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Oh now we're going to move to the suit? The USAF evaluated the Libelle in 2000 at Edwards and may eventually use it as well. Here's some other info...
> 
> http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070413-039.wmv
> 
> ...



Only problem is that those tests are very suspect as they didn't achieve the same results as other European users.

You can read it here on Autoflug's own site: Autoflug Libelle GmbH

I highly suggest reading it all.

In short: The Libelle is a very big advantage for the EF pilot over the F-22 pilot.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Only problem is that those tests are very suspect as they didn't achieve the same results as other European users.
> 
> You can read it here on Autoflug's own site: Autoflug Libelle GmbH
> 
> I highly suggest reading it all.




Why would they even say that? The tests conducted at Edwards gave a very positive assessment of the Libelle (from what I read on the link posted by the USAF) and it would not surprise me if the USAF either buys the Libelle or has a subcontractor make them here - at the same time little is said about the suit currently used on the F-22 and how long a pilot could sustain a 9.5G turn.

BTW the site is referencin 1998 tests - the site I posted addressed tests conducted in 2000

It's spring break here at USAFA - there's at least one instructor here who has been around the F-22. When everyone returns next week I'm going to corner him and ask him about the F-22 suit and the current suits used by F-15 and F-16 pilots.


Soren said:


> In short: The Libelle is a very big advantage for the EF pilot over the F-22 pilot.


Providing the EF pilot could get close enough to even attept to dogfight an F-22....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 27, 2008)

Here the link for the 2000 tests...

Liquid anti-G suit developed | Signal | Find Articles at BNET.com


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 27, 2008)

Its suspect because it was done by Americans. I've not been around here long, but I've been around long enough to know Soren is very anti-American biased.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> In short: The Libelle is a very big advantage for the EF pilot over the F-22 pilot.





What a bunch of flawed logic. Thrust vectoring is a very big advantage for the F-22 pilot over the Typhoon II pilot.


----------



## Soren (Mar 27, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> Its suspect because it was done by Americans. I've not been around here long, but I've been around long enough to know Soren is very anti-American biased.



Sure and that's also why I said that the F4U-4 is amongst the top 3 fighters of WW2, right ?? 

Anti-American


----------



## Soren (Mar 27, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> What a bunch of flawed logic. Thrust vectoring is a very big advantage for the F-22 pilot over the Typhoon II pilot.



Oh yeah its flawed logic that a pilot which can stand the most G's can pull the tightest turns ??


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Oh yeah its flawed logic that a pilot which can stand the most G's can pull the tightest turns ??



Once again, do you have ANY proof the F-22's pilots cannot pull the highest turns?

I didn't think so.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> Oh yeah its flawed logic that a pilot which can stand the most G's can pull the tightest turns ??




Well please show proof that the EF Pilot can definatly 100% pull tighter turns and higher G's than the F-22 Pilot.

Come facts please, not speculations. It needs to be proof that compares the F-22 to the EF.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 27, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> Its suspect because it was done by Americans. I've not been around here long, but I've been around long enough to know Soren is very anti-American biased.



EM, I'm on your side. Just keep the fangs in. National pride is flaw we all suffer from. Including me. Even PlanD has to remind me of that everynow and then.


----------



## Dale01 (Mar 28, 2008)

Well I was impressed with the F22 when I shot these.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 29, 2008)

Uh, when did I do that, Matt?

And very nice shots of the Raptor, Dale. What a beautiful aircraft. No one has to worry about national bias from me in this debate - the Raptor is the supreme fighter today whether it sustain a 9G turn indefinately or not.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 29, 2008)

plan_D said:


> Uh, when did I do that, Matt?
> .




A330-B767 discussion. I listen as well as preach, Pd. You had some good points and sometime my national pride gets in the way of my arguments. Its all good dude. I was throwing you a compliment.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 29, 2008)

Dale01 said:


> Well I was impressed with the F22 when I shot these.


You must have one helluva lens or you were out on the lake if you took those at Ex .


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2008)

You have some creds Dale? Those are beauty pics.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 30, 2008)

Indeed. Those are steallar images of the F-22. I very much like the first one with the condensation streamers just forming at the wing roots.

Nice photography.


----------



## Dale01 (Mar 30, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> You must have one helluva lens or you were out on the lake if you took those at Ex .



Thanks for comments guys, Neil I took those shots at YYZ Toronto Pearson Intl Airport, Some of the aircraft were park there for the CIAS show. They did some flyovers for us in the infield and it was quite a sight to see them. My lens I used was a Canon 70-200 L IS, wish I had a 400mm could of got inside the cockpit.The Snow Birds were there also. Here is a couple more from the show.

Dale


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 30, 2008)

I don't like the CIAS it has no tire kicking haven't been in about 15yrs , A few of us thought about crossing the lake 38 miles or 50 km and seeing it from the backside but it would cost a fortune in fuel for the boat, haven't had the boat out since fuel was .50 a litre


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 30, 2008)

Dale - The first two shots are CF-18's; is that an F-18E in the third shot? Sure looks lile it . . .


----------



## mkloby (Mar 30, 2008)

Very nice pics


----------



## Dale01 (Mar 30, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Dale - The first two shots are CF-18's; is that an F-18E in the third shot? Sure looks lile it . . .



It is actually a US Navy F/A 18F Super Hornet.

Dale


----------



## Dale01 (Mar 30, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> You have some creds Dale? Those are beauty pics.



Hey Matt,

Not sure what your asking on? Thanks for the comments.

Dale


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 30, 2008)

Love the camo of the CF-18 with the opposing cockpits. Beauty.

And Dale, nothing implied. Wondering if you are a professional with a particular company.

You and Evangilder should get along just fine.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 30, 2008)

Yep, great stuff, Dale.  Are you also on Fencecheck?


----------



## Dale01 (Mar 31, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Love the camo of the CF-18 with the opposing cockpits. Beauty.
> 
> And Dale, nothing implied. Wondering if you are a professional with a particular company.
> 
> You and Evangilder should get along just fine.



Hey Matt,
I don't do photography as a full time job, but I do some shooting for a drag racing magazine(March issue cover shot below is one I took at the Grand Bend track) and I've had a few aviation photos published and a WWI triplane photo used for a PC game cover. But I do keep busy with my websites, Thanks for asking.





evangilder said:


> Yep, great stuff, Dale.  Are you also on Fencecheck?



Thanks Eric, as for Fencecheck, No I'm not a member,I'll have to check it out.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 31, 2008)

Congrats on the cover!  I will be in the April issue of Ultraflight Magazine and I made the cover for the CAF SoCal Wing newsletter for April. That's my hat-trick for covers on the museum newsletter. While I enjoy taking photos of a lot of things, I _really _enjoy aviation photography.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2008)

Dale01 said:


> Hey Matt,
> I don't do photography as a full time job, but I do some shooting for a drag racing magazine(March issue cover shot below is one I took at the Grand Bend track) and I've had a few aviation photos published and a WWI triplane photo used for a PC game cover. But I do keep busy with my websites, Thanks for asking.



There ya go. Didn't look like the work of a weekend "professional". Well done.


----------



## Dale01 (Mar 31, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Congrats on the cover!  I will be in the April issue of Ultraflight Magazine and I made the cover for the CAF SoCal Wing newsletter for April. That's my hat-trick for covers on the museum newsletter. While I enjoy taking photos of a lot of things, I _really _enjoy aviation photography.




Same back to ya Eric, Got any links to the shots? As for aviation I do too, Shot thousands of commercial airliners for the enjoyment of it, but I like the challenge of getting a great shot of a 300mph Nitro Funny Car flying down the track or launching off the line with the header flames .I guess we kinda hijacked this thread  sorry mods.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 31, 2008)

Man! Look at the funny car tire buckle in the first pic!


----------



## Matt308 (May 3, 2008)

These are great pics that I thought I would share.


----------



## Screaming Eagle (May 4, 2008)

nice pics matt, I have the last pic as my desktop background.


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2008)

Guys - I just got back from the 355th FG reunion hosted by the 355th FW at Davis Monthan. At Roll Call on Friday night at the O-Club the newly deployed Euro Fighter rotation of Brits were in full array and feisty - until the discussion of 'Say, how are you guys doing against the F-22?"

"Well, if you can see the bloody thing you have a chance... not a great chance but about the same as an F-15 or F-16 has against us. The problem is the AAMRAM is up your ass long before you can possibly see it. Quite discouraging 'do' at Nellis, really."

However the Brits destroyed one of the A-10 Drivers who said "Speak English!" during the Roll Call and the Brit Wing Commander never missed a beat and replied "Actually old chap, we invented the language!"

As soon as I collect all the photos I will post whatever shots we have of the Euro at DM as well as the A-10 shots. For those (unlke Dan) who have never been within 100 yards of an A-10 on a Gunnery pass - it is simply awesome! Louder at 100 yards, than a .308 next to you at the range.

I'm looking at a 'party favor' round of 30mm HEI and it is about 11" in length. Bigger IS Better!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2008)

Nice Bill!!!!


----------

