EuroFighter versus the F22 Raptor

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: z0mb13

OMG, I'd hit it!

With an AMRAAM

I thought you were more of an ASRAAM type of guy.
😉

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
A better comparison would be 5 eurofighters vs 1 f22, since they would be about the same price. Though my knowledge on the subject is limited, i would say the 5 eurofighters would own the f22.

But then the US spends 10x as much money as all of the Eurofighter customers combined, so let's add some more F-22's to the mix.

 

[91TTZ]

The F-22 won't go Mach 2.5+. I've read that while the engines have plenty of power to push it faster, its flight control system limits the top speed to around Mach 1.8. This is because they used a lot of composites in the F-22's construction, and the plastic wouldn't be able to take the heat like aluminum can. Therefore they limit the top speed.

 

[Babbles]

I don't think the F22 would have anything on THIS!

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
The F-22 won't go Mach 2.5+. I've read that while the engines have plenty of power to push it faster, its flight control system limits the top speed to around Mach 1.8. This is because they used a lot of composites in the F-22's construction, and the plastic wouldn't be able to take the heat like aluminum can. Therefore they limit the top speed.

Hard to tell, though, with the way the USAF usually classifies the top speeds on their birds. I don't think that anyone to this day really knows how fast the SR-71 could go.

Is top speed really all that important in a fight, anyway? Seems like with the better stealth and RADAR, the F-22 could pick off the Eurofighters at will from long range, and in a close range dog fight the thrust vectoring on the F-22 would allow for tighter turns.

I wonder if anyone is going to ever make a fighter with a limited amount of AI that would allow pilots to turn so tight they black out briefly and let the plane get into the optimum firing position by itself. It'd be a risky desperation move, but it'd be nice to have in your bag of tricks, just in case.

On a related note, how long until China develops stealthy, highly manuverable UAVs that can pull Gs that no human could ever survive. They'd own F-22s at a fraction of the cost, especially if you built a lot of them and set them loose to wreck havok while the normal manned fighters followed behind to take advantage of the confusion.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Most of you aren't qualified to answer this question. I actually fly jets for the US Airforce so here are my two cents.

-The Raptor handles high G turns far better than any variant of the EuroFighter.
-The Raptor has much better targeting system for it's air to surface missles.
-The Raptor has a better weight to range ratio. Meaning it's better as a dog fighter on missions that extend out over 500+ miles from the airfield.
-The Raptor is much better at evading radar detection.
-The Raptor's cockpit and heads up display are excellent. Here is a picture from inside my bird. Pic 1

On the most recent mission I flew, my wingman and I took out several key Iraqi targets along the Iraq/Iran border helping to restore balance in the middle east. Later tonight I'm going to be attacking radar installations in Soviet Russia so if you have any questions ask them now.

whoa are u serious?

LOL you caught a lifer Amp!

seriousy..that is some grade 'a' bullsH!t..even had me goign there for a moment...😛

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: batmanuel

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
The F-22 won't go Mach 2.5+. I've read that while the engines have plenty of power to push it faster, its flight control system limits the top speed to around Mach 1.8. This is because they used a lot of composites in the F-22's construction, and the plastic wouldn't be able to take the heat like aluminum can. Therefore they limit the top speed.

Hard to tell, though, with the way the USAF usually classifies the top speeds on their birds. I don't think that anyone to this day really knows how fast the SR-71 could go.

Is top speed really all that important in a fight, anyway? Seems like with the better stealth and RADAR, the F-22 could pick off the Eurofighters at will from long range, and in a close range dog fight the thrust vectoring on the F-22 would allow for tighter turns.

I wonder if anyone is going to ever make a fighter with a limited amount of AI that would allow pilots to turn so tight they black out briefly and let the plane get into the optimum firing position by itself. It'd be a risky desperation move, but it'd be nice to have in your bag of tricks, just in case.

On a related note, how long until China develops stealthy, highly manuverable UAVs that can pull Gs that no human could ever survive. They'd own F-22s at a fraction of the cost, especially if you built a lot of them and set them loose to wreck havok while the normal manned fighters followed behind to take advantage of the confusion.

and then the wing breaks off because of cheap chinese labor ftl

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: batmanuel

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
The F-22 won't go Mach 2.5+. I've read that while the engines have plenty of power to push it faster, its flight control system limits the top speed to around Mach 1.8. This is because they used a lot of composites in the F-22's construction, and the plastic wouldn't be able to take the heat like aluminum can. Therefore they limit the top speed.

Hard to tell, though, with the way the USAF usually classifies the top speeds on their birds. I don't think that anyone to this day really knows how fast the SR-71 could go.

Is top speed really all that important in a fight, anyway? Seems like with the better stealth and RADAR, the F-22 could pick off the Eurofighters at will from long range, and in a close range dog fight the thrust vectoring on the F-22 would allow for tighter turns.

I wonder if anyone is going to ever make a fighter with a limited amount of AI that would allow pilots to turn so tight they black out briefly and let the plane get into the optimum firing position by itself. It'd be a risky desperation move, but it'd be nice to have in your bag of tricks, just in case.

On a related note, how long until China develops stealthy, highly manuverable UAVs that can pull Gs that no human could ever survive. They'd own F-22s at a fraction of the cost, especially if you built a lot of them and set them loose to wreck havok while the normal manned fighters followed behind to take advantage of the confusion.

China's military needs to go beyond 1981 before they can actually overtake the US in military technology.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
A better comparison would be 5 eurofighters vs 1 f22, since they would be about the same price. Though my knowledge on the subject is limited, i would say the 5 eurofighters would own the f22.

If two F-22s could take out 18 F-15's before they even knew what the *&^# was going on, I think that one F-22 could take out 5 Eurofighters.

/arm chair critiquing

How many missiles can the F-22 carry?

Eight. Six long range AMRAAM's, and 2 short range sidewinders. My money is STILL on the F-22 🙂

Air to Air missles can be avioded with flares/chaffs and manuvers, especially if the missles are launched from long range. Unless all the euro's are flown by rookie pilots, the f22 won't have enough missles to take them all down, since they most likely won't all hit.

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: Babbles

China's military needs to go beyond 1981 before they can actually overtake the US in military technology.

There's no point. Neither the U.S. or China can afford a war with each other, it's simply not going to happen. The more we become globalized the less and less people will tolerate war. They only need enough to maintain regional stability.

"People would rather stand in line for burgers than fight a war" -- cookie to you if you can name the book 😀

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: batmanuel


Hard to tell, though, with the way the USAF usually classifies the top speeds on their birds. I don't think that anyone to this day really knows how fast the SR-71 could go..

I'd like to address the point about the SR-71. The SR-71's speed is well known and the reasons for the limitations are well known also. It's freely published for anyone who is curious. The only thing which is classified is the mission info, since the government doesn't want to openly admit that they illegally overflew other countries. Hell, they denied that U2's were overflying the Soviet Union until the Russians shot one down and produced the wreckage.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: everman

Originally posted by: Babbles

China's military needs to go beyond 1981 before they can actually overtake the US in military technology.

There's no point. Neither the U.S. or China can afford a war with each other, it's simply not going to happen. The more we become globalized the less and less people will tolerate war. They only need enough to maintain regional stability.

"People would rather stand in line for burgers than fight a war" -- cookie to you if you can name the book 😀

Okay . . . well that not-so-deep analysis is totally irrelevant because the capacity and/or desire to go to war with another country (e.g. China vs US) has nothing to do with the fact that China's military technology is outdated. All I am saying is that China is nowhere close to going around and producing cheap yet superior airframes anytime soon.

That's it. Don't' try to make something out of nothing.

 

[Slickone]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: batmanuel


Hard to tell, though, with the way the USAF usually classifies the top speeds on their birds. I don't think that anyone to this day really knows how fast the SR-71 could go..

I'd like to address the point about the SR-71. The SR-71's speed is well known and the reasons for the limitations are well known also. It's freely published for anyone who is curious. The only thing which is classified is the mission info, since the government doesn't want to openly admit that they illegally overflew other countries. Hell, they denied that U2's were overflying the Soviet Union until the Russians shot one down and produced the wreckage.
[/q
The pilot's operating manual says Mach 3.3 is the max.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: everman

Originally posted by: Babbles

China's military needs to go beyond 1981 before they can actually overtake the US in military technology.

There's no point. Neither the U.S. or China can afford a war with each other, it's simply not going to happen. The more we become globalized the less and less people will tolerate war. They only need enough to maintain regional stability.

"People would rather stand in line for burgers than fight a war" -- cookie to you if you can name the book 😀

Kinda Like the US and the UK in the mid to late 1800's?

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: Babbles
China's military needs to go beyond 1981 before they can actually overtake the US in military technology.

The most advanced technology doesn't always win out in the battlefield. Sometimes you just need something cheap and semi-reliable that you can deploy in much greater numbers. The Panzer was the M1A1 Abrams of its day, and was unparalleled in its sophistication, but it didn't help the Germans from getting overrun by the Russians who had a greater number of less spohisticated T-34s. One German soldier told the Russians "You need five of your tanks to destroy a single German one, but you always have six." I'm worried we might find ourselves in a si milar situation one day, where we face an enemy that is able to neutralize our technological advantage with sheer numerical superiority.

 

[RollWave]

Originally posted by: swtethan

Originally posted by: KillyKillall

Originally posted by: ElFenix
sticking 'euro' in front of it makes me think it's a cheap marketing ploy to dupe gullible americans into thinking that it's a better product than it really is.

Testing that theory: EuroElFenix... ?

ill take two please

You rock, that made me laugh so hard.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: batmanuel

Originally posted by: Babbles
China's military needs to go beyond 1981 before they can actually overtake the US in military technology.

The most advanced technology doesn't always win out in the battlefield. Sometimes you just need something cheap and semi-reliable that you can deploy in much greater numbers. The Panzer was the M1A1 Abrams of its day, and was unparalleled in its sophistication, but it didn't help the Germans from getting overrun by the Russians who had a greater number of less spohisticated T-34s. One German soldier told the Russians "You need five of your tanks to destroy a single German one, but you always have six." I'm worried we might find ourselves in a si milar situation one day, where we face an enemy that is able to neutralize our technological advantage with sheer numerical superiority.

Russian T-34's where superior to most panzers, i believe you are talking about the American Pershing tanks?

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: everman

Originally posted by: Babbles

China's military needs to go beyond 1981 before they can actually overtake the US in military technology.

There's no point. Neither the U.S. or China can afford a war with each other, it's simply not going to happen. The more we become globalized the less and less people will tolerate war. They only need enough to maintain regional stability.

"People would rather stand in line for burgers than fight a war" -- cookie to you if you can name the book 😀

Right now, I'd say that our interdependent economies make even a cold war highly unlikely, but I could really see the US becoming less important to China's economy at if we suffer a major economic shock (and there is a good handful of ticking time bombs that could set off such a shock). If Al Queda ever manages to successfully bomb the major Saudi facilities, there could be a scramble to secure the remaining world oil supplies in the resulting chaos. The world is a very volatile place right now, and the status quo may not last much longer.

 

[batmanuel]

Originally posted by: KMFJD

Russian T-34's where superior to most panzers, i believe you are talking about the American Pershing tanks?

You're right, I was thinking of the Panther tanks actually, which were much better on paper than the T-34s, but broke down and were produced in too small of a number. That's what I get for trying to Wiki up the details on a historical anecdote that I read a few years ago.

 

[Aquaman]

Didn't ypu watch that Magnum PI episode where the guy flying the P-51 Mustang kept on playing chicken with the jet and stalling the jets engines?

Mustang FTW 🙂

CHeers,
Aquaman

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Vich

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Most of you aren't qualified to answer this question. I actually fly jets for the US Airforce so here are my two cents.

-The Raptor handles high G turns far better than any variant of the EuroFighter.
-The Raptor has much better targeting system for it's air to surface missles.
-The Raptor has a better weight to range ratio. Meaning it's better as a dog fighter on missions that extend out over 500+ miles from the airfield.
-The Raptor is much better at evading radar detection.
-The Raptor's cockpit and heads up display are excellent. Here is a picture from inside my bird. Pic 1

On the most recent mission I flew, my wingman and I took out several key Iraqi targets along the Iraq/Iran border helping to restore balance in the middle east. Later tonight I'm going to be attacking radar installations in Soviet Russia so if you have any questions ask them now.

whoa are u serious?

lol 😕

 

[flyboy84]

I'd say it depends on who's flying

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Most of you aren't qualified to answer this question. I actually fly jets for the US Airforce so here are my two cents.

-The Raptor handles high G turns far better than any variant of the EuroFighter.
-The Raptor has much better targeting system for it's air to surface missles.
-The Raptor has a better weight to range ratio. Meaning it's better as a dog fighter on missions that extend out over 500+ miles from the airfield.
-The Raptor is much better at evading radar detection.
-The Raptor's cockpit and heads up display are excellent. Here is a picture from inside my bird. Pic 1

On the most recent mission I flew, my wingman and I took out several key Iraqi targets along the Iraq/Iran border helping to restore balance in the middle east. Later tonight I'm going to be attacking radar installations in Soviet Russia so if you have any questions ask them now.

I don't believe it! Everyone knows in Soviet Russia radar installations attack you!

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
The F-22 won't go Mach 2.5+. I've read that while the engines have plenty of power to push it faster, its flight control system limits the top speed to around Mach 1.8. This is because they used a lot of composites in the F-22's construction, and the plastic wouldn't be able to take the heat like aluminum can. Therefore they limit the top speed.

the f-22 has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio than the f-15, and is rumored to be able to cruise (without afterburners) at greater than mach 1.5. From what I last read, most of the composition on the f-22 is actually a mix of titanium and aluminum. The 22 is also more aerodynamic than the teen fighters because of its internal weapons storage.

 

[CheesePoofs]

ugh, voted for eurofighter when I meant to vote for f-22.