Eurofighter Typhoon: Nothing Comes Close.

[TucksonSonny]

Um, you must've missed the part where I said a 100 F-22s AND supporting fighters vs. 1000 Su-27s. GG only agreed because he thought that the 100 F-22s had to take the 1000 Su-27s *straight* on (i.e. once all AMRAAMs have been shot, the F-22 goes WVR).

 

Tell me, provided that the Su-27s cannot attack the F-22 airbase (i.e. supporting fighters defend it), how can the Flankers *possibly* force the stealthy, Mach 1.7 supercruise F-22s to commit to a dogfight?

 

Answer: it can't. Ergo, so long as the Raptors can land and rearm safely, there is nothing stopping the F-22s from winning even if they are outnumbered 20 to 1.

 

BTW, it doesn't have to be Flankers. They could be F-15s, F-16s, Mirages, anything for all I care. The F-22 is NOT a weapon you can beat by sheer numbers, mainly because supercruise and stealth allows it to dictate the start of an engagement as well as the end of it, according to its pilot's will.

 

No other plane has that ability. If a BVR-only fight is desired, the F-22 can *make* that happen.

 

Moral of the story: read other people's posts next time. That would be great.

 

Back on the Eurofighter please.

 

And the 1000 Su-27's would have of course NO support of Mig-29 and other supporting fighters/support aircrafts (even not mention the home advantage).

 

Now we have already 20 to 1 kill ratio? (2000 Su-27 kills?)

 

Whatever :D

[Kenan]

Answer: it can't. Ergo, so long as the Raptors can land and rearm safely, there is nothing stopping the F-22s from winning even if they are outnumbered 20 to 1.

 

1 Raptor killing 20 Flankers?

Yeah. If those Flankers are being flown by monkies, yeah, sure.:joystick:

[TucksonSonny]

1 Raptor killing 20 Flankers?

Yeah. If those Flankers are being flown by monkies, yeah, sure.:joystick:

 

Even then it would be a hard job :D

[D-Scythe]

And the 1000 Su-27's would have of course NO support of Mig-29 and other supporting fighters/support aircrafts (even not mention the home advantage).

 

Now we have already 20 to 1 kill ratio? (2000 Su-27 kills?)

 

Whatever :D

 

Again, you missed the part where I said "it doesn't have to be Flankers - they can be F-15s, Falcons, MiGs, whatever." Unless the fighters supporting the Flankers are F-22s, the Raptors are gonna win.

 

1000 Su-27s + 500 MiG-29s is the same as 1500 Su-27s (or 1500 F-15Cs, or 1000 F-15s + 500 F-16Cs, etc.) as far as I'm concerned.

 

The point of having supporting fighters on the Raptor side is to keep them safe while they re-arm, not to achieve air superiority (in this scenario).

 

1 Raptor killing 20 Flankers?

Yeah. If those Flankers are being flown by monkies, yeah, sure.

 

Again, provided that the one F-22 can land and rearm safely, why not? The Flankers have no ability to take out the F-22 BVR, and the F-22 pilot can choose to KEEP the fight BVR.

 

Take out the first 5 or 6 with AMRAAMs, land, come back, take out another 6, land, come back, take out *another* 6....get the idea now? It's not that complicated.

 

For crying out loud, you even QUOTED the part where I said "land and rearm safely." Do all of you have trouble reading or are you simply choosing not to?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Let's just call it 10 to 1 and leave it at that. I'm not sure what GG meant in his disagreement, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with 100 vs. 1000. You can't have that many aircraft in the air over the battlefield, they'd end up killing themselves on both sides due to their own density!

 

The possibility is always going to be there for a numerically superior force to overwhelm and possibly outflank the Raptors. A flight of Raptors goes winchester and heads for home, and a couple of them end up being nailed by the fighters that outflanked them. Its not Super Man. It needs to be employed properly to be effective.

[TucksonSonny]

Again, you missed the part where I said "it doesn't have to be Flankers - they can be F-15s, Falcons, MiGs, whatever." Unless the fighters supporting the Flankers are F-22s, the Raptors are gonna win.

 

1000 Su-27s + 500 MiG-29s is the same as 1500 Su-27s (or 1500 F-15Cs, or 1000 F-15s + 500 F-16Cs, etc.) as far as I'm concerned.

 

The point of having supporting fighters on the Raptor side is to keep them safe while they re-arm, not to achieve air superiority (in this scenario).

 

 

 

Again, provided that the one F-22 can land and rearm safely, why not? The Flankers have no ability to take out the F-22 BVR, and the F-22 pilot can choose to KEEP the fight BVR.

 

Take out the first 5 or 6 with AMRAAMs, land, come back, take out another 6, land, come back, take out *another* 6....get the idea now? It's not that complicated.

 

For crying out loud, you even QUOTED the part where I said "land and rearm safely." Do all of you have trouble reading or are you simply choosing not to?

 

I get the point: Let scratch and recycle every bird on the planet which is not labeled USAF F-22 (useless crap as it is)

Respect man :D

[D-Scythe]

Let's just call it 10 to 1 and leave it at that. I'm not sure what GG meant in his disagreement, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with 100 vs. 1000. You can't have that many aircraft in the air over the battlefield, they'd end up killing themselves on both sides due to their own density!

 

He probably thought the fight would progress into WVR after the BVR slaughter.

 

The possibility is always going to be there for a numerically superior force to overwhelm and possibly outflank the Raptors. A flight of Raptors goes winchester and heads for home, and a couple of them end up being nailed by the fighters that outflanked them. Its not Super Man. It needs to be employed properly to be effective.

 

Provided that enemy AWACs/GEWR is completely intact (unlikely), and that all enemy radars (fighter, GCI, AWACs, ship) are all datalinked seamlessly (unlikely even in NATO), and the enemy somehow picks up the F-22s to provide all combat elements with real-time data on the Raptor's position (unlikely), and that the F-22 pilots are dumb enough to use the same ingress/egress routes repeatedly (unlikely repeat of Allied Force), and the F-22s were not supercruising (unlikely over enemy territory), and finally that somehow all friendly AWACs and the F-22 themselves either didn't pick up on the flanking enemy or their datalinks all failed simultaneously (highly unlikely), then yes, there is a possibility that the enemy can outflank and ambush a few Raptors.

[TucksonSonny]

He probably thought the fight would progress into WVR after the BVR slaughter.

 

 

 

Provided that enemy AWACs/GEWR is completely intact (unlikely), and that all enemy radars (fighter, GCI, AWACs, ship) are all datalinked seamlessly (unlikely even in NATO), and the enemy somehow picks up the F-22s to provide all combat elements with real-time data on the Raptor's position (unlikely), and that the F-22 pilots are dumb enough to use the same ingress/egress routes repeatedly (unlikely repeat of Allied Force), and the F-22s were not supercruising (unlikely over enemy territory), and finally that somehow all friendly AWACs and the F-22 themselves either didn't pick up on the flanking enemy or their datalinks all failed simultaneously (highly unlikely), then yes, there is a possibility that the enemy can outflank and ambush a few Raptors.

 

 

In English, even a monkey can win this war in the F-22.

I think I get your point now.

Thanks mate, :lol:

[D-Scythe]

I get the point: Let scratch and recycle every bird on the planet which is not labeled USAF F-22 (useless crap as it is)

Respect man :D

 

Um, what's the F-15 kill ratio against fighters of an older generation? So, scratch the 9 MiG-29 kills and you get about 100 to 0? Think about it, between each kill the F-15s had to land and rearm didn't they?

 

Nobody scrapped the MiG-21/23/25 when the F-15 showed up. The F-15 wasn't even revolutionary when it appeared- it cannot avoid dogfights, it wasn't significantly faster than the previous generation of fighters, it wasn't all that more maneuverable. Yet, we *expect* the F-15C with AMRAAMs to fight vastly outnumbered against SARH-armed MiG-21/23s and win.

 

Same scenario here with the Raptor, just a generation newer. Except the Raptor *is* revolutionary.

 

In English, even a monkey can win this war in the F-22.

I think I get your point now.

Thanks mate, :lol:

 

What? Did you miss the point where I said that the F-22 pilots must not be dumb enough to stick to the same ingress/egress routes/tactics? Again.

[Guest IguanaKing]

That's all I was saying, and it tends to be a "Look! I told you I'm Superman. Can't you see this red S on my chest?" attitude that leads to such a collossal f'up...and it CAN happen. Major Robert Lodge was killed over Hanoi by an aircraft nobody saw until it was too late, including AWACS. The enemy just says "Yeah right...and I'm gonna give you a red S...and a black eye if you don't come out of that phone booth." Otherwise there wouldn't be any need for training, right? THAT's where the Raptor pilots will have the greatest edge, in addition to their obvious electronic advantages of course. :smilewink:

[D-Scythe]

Besides the fact that I'm agreeing with you Iguana, why are we factoring pilot complacency here? First of all, only the best can fly the F-22, and second of all, usually don't we all just assume that pilots are equal in these types of discussion?

[Guest IguanaKing]

It doesn't necessarily have to be pilot complacency. Its also all of those other guys that act as his eyes and ears, and the guys who send him into battle. They all have to be fully aware of limitations as well. :smilewink:

[Guest IguanaKing]

Oh...just to clarify what I said about Major Robert Lodge. The AF has him officially listed as MIA, but nobody saw a second 'chute from his Phantom...so I'm presuming he is dead.

[tflash]

What? Did you miss the point where I said that the F-22 pilots must not be dumb enough to stick to the same ingress/egress routes/tactics? Again.

 

 

Nato planners where not "dumb". They had to adjust their planning to enemy tactics, that's all. You always have to, since no one is interested in losing and most will put up a fight. They might have made an error of judgement, can happen to anyone.

 

It will not be a question of X F-22's against X Su-27, but a mix of situations depending on the mission. Will the F-22 be defending the homeland in DCA, than it will presumably face strike packages loaded with long-range cruise missiles; the enemy will quickly learn that providing escort flights doesn't have much added value.

Maybe some low-flying dudes manage to slip through and have a hit somewhere.

 

Maybe the F-22 will sweep airspace in OCA missions; chances are the enemy prefers to stay on the ground. Will it escort B-2's? Seems strange: 1 plane is stealthier than 2.

 

Will it try to engage heavily defended SAM sites? Well, in that scenario, we have not enough info to know if this really will be without risk, or, even if it runs well, if it is sufficiently effective.

[D-Scythe]

Nato planners where not "dumb". They had to adjust their planning to enemy tactics, that's all. You always have to, since no one is interested in losing and most will put up a fight. They might have made an error of judgement, can happen to anyone.

 

Obviously, someone in NATO screwed up, because they didn't adjust their planning to enemy tactics in the Allied Force F-117 shootdown. Obviously, there must be a continual adjustment/variation in tactics to ensure that ambush opportunities are few and far between.

 

It will not be a question of X F-22's against X Su-27, but a mix of situations depending on the mission. Will the F-22 be defending the homeland in DCA, than it will presumably face strike packages loaded with long-range cruise missiles; the enemy will quickly learn that providing escort flights doesn't have much added value.

Maybe some low-flying dudes manage to slip through and have a hit somewhere.

 

I don't think the F-22A is gonna be deployed in any type of DCA. According to *public* speculation, the U.S. will utilize the F-22 to "kick the front door down" for other aircraft types - i.e. offensive air operations, not defensive. Many are gonna be committed to OCA fighter sweeps and the others are gonna be committed to eliminating key nodes in the enemy radar network (either AWACs or ground-based EWR) and SEAD.

 

DCA and strike package escorts are gonna be left to F-15Cs and Eurofighters. The Raptor was designed to work alone in enemy airspace in the first place - it'd be a waste to task them with DCA CAPs or tie them to strike aircraft.

 

Once the door is kicked down, the enemy air force broken, then the Raptor would take on more conventional air-to-air taskings like DCA and escort operations.

 

Maybe the F-22 will sweep airspace in OCA missions; chances are the enemy prefers to stay on the ground. Will it escort B-2's? Seems strange: 1 plane is stealthier than 2.

 

For obvious reasons, it's not gonna escort B-2s - not in the first days of conflict at least. It might sweep the target area before the bombers arrive, but again, tasking the Raptor with escort duties are a waste of its abilities.

 

Will it try to engage heavily defended SAM sites? Well, in that scenario, we have not enough info to know if this really will be without risk, or, even if it runs well, if it is sufficiently effective.

 

Why won't it take on S300s? SDBs have a range of 40-50 nm when tossed at Mach 1.7 from 50 000ft, and the F-22 can carry a bunch of them. Couple this with the RHAW/datalink/AESA radar (not to mention E/A-18Gs and F-35s a couple miles back flinging HARMs), and you get a pretty lethal SEAD jet right there.

 

In fact, the "kicking down the door" part of the F-22's mission includes the destruction of SAMs as well as enemy fighters.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Why won't it take on S300s? SDBs have a range of 40-50 nm when tossed at Mach 1.7 from 50 000ft, and the F-22 can carry a bunch of them. Couple this with the RHAW/datalink/AESA radar (not to mention E/A-18Gs and F-35s a couple miles back flinging HARMs), and you get a pretty lethal SEAD jet right there.

Well, there is a lots of assumptions here.

 

First, RHAW/datalink/AESA/HARM’s,AESA … My boss use to say “these are the talks for a beer”.

 

In recent unlawful military intervention over Yugoslavia, “Wild Weasel” missions were so ineffective that in one case, not only that the HARM did not hit the target, it actually missed the ENTIRE country. The missile ended up near Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria. Not to mention very easy methods to full HARM missiles.

 

And here, we are talking about the army which was under “international” sanctions for ten years! So the military was starved for even basics, let alone high tech gadgets.

 

Next, no sane person will turn his radar on and wait for F-22 to toss the bomb on top of his had from 40-50 miles away. Just look at what was happening over Yugoslavia. During entire military operations even A-10’s were not allowed to go below 15 000 feet! And that is because very few SAM sites were destroyed. And very few missiles фром тхосе САМ ситес were actually fired. Because they were fired ONLY when there was the best chance to hit. And we know that few of them hit. F-16, F-117, numerous UAV’s, cruise missiles and etc.

 

Again, there is no question in my mind that F-22 is the best airplane in the world. But, one must be careful when making statements about its capabilities.

[Anytime]

Only one jet out there hotter than an F-22 and thats the black widow. Shame it cost more than th 22.

 

"It is universally held that the YF-23 was by far the better looking aircraft, and supporters offer a number of other reasons why the YF-23 should have won the ATF competition.

 

 

The YF-23 was a very agile aircraft. The YF-23 is a very unstable aircraft; however, when this instability is coupled with a fly-by-wire control system, this results in a very agile aircraft. Another attribute that lends itself to high mobility is the uniqueness of the tail. On the YF-23, instead of using two rudders and two elevators, it uses a ruddervator, a combined rudder/elevator. This ruddervator is angled at a roughly 45° angle to horizontal.

The YF-23 was stealthier than the F-22 Raptor. The two ruddervators reduce the Radar Cross Signature of the YF-23 significantly. This is beacuse instead of having four extremly large control surfaces on the tail, there are only two. The F-22 Raptor design utilizes the traditional configuration of two rudders, which are canted outward, and two elevators. This make the RCS larger. Another RCS reducing feature is the engines. These are mounted in nacelles in the wing that blend gracefully into the wing on the top, and form an extension of the fueslage on the bottom. The larger bottom fuselage lets it pack more missiles and other expendable weapons. The intake duct is angled up and inward to reflect radar beams and keep them from hitting the fast moving compressor face. The intake duct starts on the lower edge of the wing and moves through it onto the top of the wing. This feature can also reduce the RCS signature from a look down-shoot down radar from an aircraft flying overhead. Also reducing the RCS, is the way the leading and trailing edge of all surfaces are angled. All of the leading and trailing edges are angled the same. Therefore, the front of the right wing is parallel to the left wing's trailing edge, and the left section of the nose. For example, the leding edge of the wing is parallel to the trailing edge of the wing on the other side.'

 

Obviously, someone in NATO screwed up, because they didn't adjust their planning to enemy tactics in the Allied Force F-117 shootdown. Obviously, there must be a continual adjustment/variation in tactics to ensure that ambush opportunities are few and far between.

 

 

 

I don't think the F-22A is gonna be deployed in any type of DCA. According to *public* speculation, the U.S. will utilize the F-22 to "kick the front door down" for other aircraft types - i.e. offensive air operations, not defensive. Many are gonna be committed to OCA fighter sweeps and the others are gonna be committed to eliminating key nodes in the enemy radar network (either AWACs or ground-based EWR) and SEAD.

 

DCA and strike package escorts are gonna be left to F-15Cs and Eurofighters. The Raptor was designed to work alone in enemy airspace in the first place - it'd be a waste to task them with DCA CAPs or tie them to strike aircraft.

 

Once the door is kicked down, the enemy air force broken, then the Raptor would take on more conventional air-to-air taskings like DCA and escort operations.

 

 

 

For obvious reasons, it's not gonna escort B-2s - not in the first days of conflict at least. It might sweep the target area before the bombers arrive, but again, tasking the Raptor with escort duties are a waste of its abilities.

 

 

 

Why won't it take on S300s? SDBs have a range of 40-50 nm when tossed at Mach 1.7 from 50 000ft, and the F-22 can carry a bunch of them. Couple this with the RHAW/datalink/AESA radar (not to mention E/A-18Gs and F-35s a couple miles back flinging HARMs), and you get a pretty lethal SEAD jet right there.

 

In fact, the "kicking down the door" part of the F-22's mission includes the destruction of SAMs as well as enemy fighters.

[D-Scythe]

Well, there is a lots of assumptions here.

 

First, RHAW/datalink/AESA/HARM’s,AESA … My boss use to say “these are the talks for a beer”.

 

In recent unlawful military intervention over Yugoslavia, “Wild Weasel” missions were so ineffective that in one case, not only that the HARM did not hit the target, it actually missed the ENTIRE country. The missile ended up near Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria. Not to mention very easy methods to full HARM missiles.

 

And here, we are talking about the army which was under “international” sanctions for ten years! So the military was starved for even basics, let alone high tech gadgets.

 

Next, no sane person will turn his radar on and wait for F-22 to toss the bomb on top of his had from 40-50 miles away. Just look at what was happening over Yugoslavia. During entire military operations even A-10’s were not allowed to go below 15 000 feet! And that is because very few SAM sites were destroyed. And very few missiles фром тхосе САМ ситес were actually fired. Because they were fired ONLY when there was the best chance to hit. And we know that few of them hit. F-16, F-117, numerous UAV’s, cruise missiles and etc.

 

Again, there is no question in my mind that F-22 is the best airplane in the world. But, one must be careful when making statements about its capabilities.

 

You're right that SEAD operations during Allied Force expended a lot of HARM missiles for little gain. However, the SDBs the F-22 would be carrying (small, 250lb glide bombs) are GPS guided - they're not like HARMs. You can't just turn off the SAM radar and assume the SDB will miss.

 

Again, the F-22 is not likely going to be the definitive SEAD/DEAD jet. But it can, using its RHAW/datalink and determine the position of an enemy SAM site if it turns on its radar for even a few seconds (RHAW will pick it up, determine its location either on its own or/and by triangulation via datalink with other F-22s). Then it can make a HSAR map of the area with its AESA radar, target individual radars, launchers and support vehicles, pass the GPS co-ordinates to its SDBs, and initiate the attack.

 

Thus, you see how on its own the F-22 can (theoretically) hold its own against SAMs. Furthermore, when used in tandem with HARM/ALARM-carrying aircraft, strikers with JSOW/JASSMs and stand-off jamming E/F-18s (especially if they are all datalinked to each other), the entire picture has just got a lot more dangerous for enemy SAM operators.

[MGonzales]

"It is universally held that the YF-23 was by far the better looking aircraft, and supporters offer a number of other reasons why the YF-23 should have won the ATF competition."'

 

I think that's debatable. Some angles of the YF-23 just aren't that flattering, IMO...

 

http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/b/yf233.jpg

 

More pics...

 

http://www.voodoo.cz/yf23/

--

 

 

Mark

[MGonzales]

Sharp...

 

http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Raptor/051015-F-0986R-062.jpeg

http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Raptor/051015-F-2295B-043.jpeg

http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Raptor/051017-F-2295B-208.jpeg

http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Raptor/f-22-19990601-f-0000l-001.jpeg

http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Raptor/f-22.jpeg

http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Raptor/f-22_2.jpeg

http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Raptor/f-22-lkbed2a.jpeg

http://www.lt-solutions.com/images/Raptor/Raptor_04.jpeg

--

 

 

Mark

[TucksonSonny]

Back on topic: Eurofighter-Typhoon

 

Want to buy the currently unmatched missile ?

And you own a Eurofighter-Typhoon, Rafale or a Gripen aircraft?

Click here:

http://www.bayernchemie-protac.com/meteor.htm

 

The company is holding also a world-record

with firing of a hypersonic missile surpassing Mach 7.0

Click here:

http://www.bayernchemie-protac.com/news_missile_above_mach_7.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Do you own a raptor?

 

Nothing to see here, to big to fit in anyway…:book:

[Dudikoff]

I think that's debatable. Some angles of the YF-23 just aren't that flattering, IMO...

 

I think "better looking" was meant as an impression it leaves as a whole system in this competition, not it's visual appearance. I tend to agree but it would have probably been a more riskier choice and since the project already had an axe over its head, it's no wonder the USAF decided to play it safe.

[SVK_Fox]

Back on topic: Eurofighter-Typhoon

 

Want to buy the currently unmatched missile ?

And you own a Eurofighter-Typhoon, Rafale or a Gripen aircraft?

Click here:

http://www.bayernchemie-protac.com/meteor.htm

 

The company is holding also a world-record

with firing of a hypersonic missile surpassing Mach 7.0

Click here:

http://www.bayernchemie-protac.com/news_missile_above_mach_7.htm

 

 

 

 

Do you own a raptor?

 

Nothing to see here, to big to fit in anyway…:book:

 

 

That missile looks so pretty, we will see what is possible to doo with it. My opinion is, that Typhoon is sick child but I hope it is not true :)