EuroFighter versus the F22 Raptor

[zanieladie]

Heck...I dunno! :Q

 

[Jeff7]

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.

No, that would be the iFighter.

 

[aswedc]

Aircraft Odds vs.
Su-35
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1
Dassault Rafale C 1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1

These results mean, for example, that in simulated combat, 4.5 Su-35s were shot down for every Typhoon lost.

From Wikipedia. Based on that data, you can assume that it would take two Eurofighters to take down each F22.

 

[moks78]

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.

Can you tell me what "Flight Sim" are you playing? lol! :laugh:

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: aswedc

Aircraft Odds vs.
Su-35
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1
Dassault Rafale C 1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1

These results mean, for example, that in simulated combat, 4.5 Su-35s were shot down for every Typhoon lost.

From Wikipedia. Based on that data, you can assume that it would take two Eurofighters to take down each F22.

And you could purchase over 4 Eurofighters for the same prices as an F22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_21st_century_fighter_aircraft

Eurofighter Typhoon Austrian version: '03 ?62m ($76m from XE.com)
F-22 RaptorA model '06 US$ 338m, based on production run of 183 aircraft

So one F22 vs one Eurofighter, the F22 SHOULD win hands down.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
If you put a JSF up there instead of the Raptor, I still think that the EuroFighter would lose. Overrated and outdated Euro-trash, I say.

Now, if you had one of THESE, you would have an interesting match.

Only if Clint Eastwood was at the controls.

 

[Specop 007]

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.

The Russians have(had) a saying...

Quantity has a quality all its own.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I'll just take it from a man who actually knows, not a bunch of Armchair Generals:

In March 2005, USAF Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Typhoon and the Raptor, talked about these two aircraft. He said that "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F-22 Raptor". "They are different kinds of airplanes to start with," the general said. "It's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance."

 

[loic2003]

I heard that the latest MIGs would actually be serious competition to the F22. The chap I spoke to went on to describe the MIG squatting over and indeed taking a poop on top of the F22 in order to further stress his point. Since I can't be bothered to read up on anything right now, would someone care to shed more light on this? A further point of interest is the "Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1" ratio above; what's that about?

As per above discussion, the F22 would likely take down the Typhoon.


I guess my question is: What aircraft is the closest match to El Raptor?

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: loic2003
A further point of interest is the "Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1" ratio above; what's that about?

It means an Su-35 vs. an Su-35 will have 1.0:1 odds.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: batmanuel

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: z0mb13

OMG, I'd hit it!

With an AMRAAM

I thought you were more of an ASSRAAM type of guy.

fixed

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
I'll just take it from a man who actually knows, not a bunch of Armchair Generals:

*double-clicks C&C Generals shortcut*

 

[ForumMaster]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
The Eurofighter is an incredible aircraft, but it just can't match the F-22.

You would hope not.

While making a complete assessment is impossible based on publicly available information, there is a study by the UK's DERA comparing the Eurofighter Typhoon to other contemporary fighters; in it, the F-22 significantly superceded all other types (including the Typhoon) in combat performance, although it should be noted that the unit cost of the F-22 is several times that of any other modern fighter aircraft.

damn it! you beat me! according to the sources you give Schadenfroh, the F-22 is better.
no quation about it. anyway, what can the europeans make anyway?

 

[Trikat]

You guys are all wrong this will own the Eurofighter and F22:
link

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: batmanuel
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.

I think the US would come out with such a piece of equipment first. The US public seems to handle personal losses far worse.

 

[KillerCharlie]

Of COURSE the F-22 is more expensive:

-Price include development costs. F-22 has more new, integrated technology than any aircraft by far. The F-22 really is a much bigger leap in technology than the Typhoon. People fail to realize this - the cost of the development of the expanse of technologies that went into this aircraft is tremendous. Furthermore, European a/c manufacturers typically don't like to include development costs in their aircraft price.

-Price is based off the number built. They were originally going to produce 750 a/c and now they're just going to make less than 180... that's 1/4 as many. That is a HUGE difference in cost per airplane.

-Aircraft is too advanced to export, reducing the opportunity to lower the aircraft price even more.


If the F-22 is even 1/2 as good as the practice engagements suggest, it's worth every penny. Air superiority is the #1 priority in today's battlefield.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Trikat
You guys are all wrong this will own the Eurofighter and F22:
link

Yeah, but they take too damn long to build and those pesky X-Wing fighters are always flying into your service corridors. You would think that they would put a gate on those things or something.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

-Price is based off the number built. They were originally going to produce 750 a/c and now they're just going to make less than 180... that's 1/4 as many. That is a HUGE difference in cost per airplane.

-Aircraft is too advanced to export, reducing the opportunity to lower the aircraft price even more.


If the F-22 is even 1/2 as good as the practice engagements suggest, it's worth every penny. Air superiority is the #1 priority in today's battlefield.

They will export the F-22 within the next 10-15 years. It's just a matter of time, once the dev costs are amortized over the entire run (including exports 10 years in the future), the per cost will be much lower.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

-Price is based off the number built. They were originally going to produce 750 a/c and now they're just going to make less than 180... that's 1/4 as many. That is a HUGE difference in cost per airplane.

-Aircraft is too advanced to export, reducing the opportunity to lower the aircraft price even more.


If the F-22 is even 1/2 as good as the practice engagements suggest, it's worth every penny. Air superiority is the #1 priority in today's battlefield.

They will export the F-22 within the next 10-15 years. It's just a matter of time, once the dev costs are amortized over the entire run (including exports 10 years in the future), the per cost will be much lower.

well, yeah, in 10-15 years the F-22 will be close to becoming obsolete

 

[KillerCharlie]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

-Price is based off the number built. They were originally going to produce 750 a/c and now they're just going to make less than 180... that's 1/4 as many. That is a HUGE difference in cost per airplane.

-Aircraft is too advanced to export, reducing the opportunity to lower the aircraft price even more.


If the F-22 is even 1/2 as good as the practice engagements suggest, it's worth every penny. Air superiority is the #1 priority in today's battlefield.

They will export the F-22 within the next 10-15 years. It's just a matter of time, once the dev costs are amortized over the entire run (including exports 10 years in the future), the per cost will be much lower.

well, yeah, in 10-15 years the F-22 will be close to becoming obsolete

No.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie

-Price is based off the number built. They were originally going to produce 750 a/c and now they're just going to make less than 180... that's 1/4 as many. That is a HUGE difference in cost per airplane.

-Aircraft is too advanced to export, reducing the opportunity to lower the aircraft price even more.


If the F-22 is even 1/2 as good as the practice engagements suggest, it's worth every penny. Air superiority is the #1 priority in today's battlefield.

They will export the F-22 within the next 10-15 years. It's just a matter of time, once the dev costs are amortized over the entire run (including exports 10 years in the future), the per cost will be much lower.

well, yeah, in 10-15 years the F-22 will be close to becoming obsolete

I think the service life for a fighter model is closer to 30 years. Of course in the 40's through 60's it was closer to 5 years.

You'd hardly call the F-15 obsolete when they started selling it to other countries.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: loic2003
I heard that the latest MIGs would actually be serious competition to the F22. The chap I spoke to went on to describe the MIG squatting over and indeed taking a poop on top of the F22 in order to further stress his point. Since I can't be bothered to read up on anything right now, would someone care to shed more light on this?

The bigger question is, could Russia even afford to purchase ANY MiGs?

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: loic2003
I heard that the latest MIGs would actually be serious competition to the F22. The chap I spoke to went on to describe the MIG squatting over and indeed taking a poop on top of the F22 in order to further stress his point. Since I can't be bothered to read up on anything right now, would someone care to shed more light on this?

The bigger question is, could Russia even afford to purchase ANY MiGs?

I'm sure China and a lot of oil-rich Arab countries would be interested.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Kenazo

Originally posted by: IAteYourMother

Originally posted by: loic2003
I heard that the latest MIGs would actually be serious competition to the F22. The chap I spoke to went on to describe the MIG squatting over and indeed taking a poop on top of the F22 in order to further stress his point. Since I can't be bothered to read up on anything right now, would someone care to shed more light on this?

The bigger question is, could Russia even afford to purchase ANY MiGs?

I'm sure China and a lot of oil-rich Arab countries would be interested.

Where is the information on the MiG-35,can't find any

 

[mercanucaribe]