Why isn't Eurofighter getting stealth?

cool y are we a generation behind in aircraft?
id like to see a exsplanation cause frankly i dont c how we are cause frankly WE invented VTOL so we cant be a generation behind also we invented the fastest helicopter in the world and the best asw helicopter

"I also hear even the f/a-18e/f has a better rcs than the ef2000"

No, F/A-18e/f has an RCS the same as Rafale, threee times that of Eurofighter

"the euro fighter has a bvr combat rating of 82%
where as the f18 has a rating of 21%
the nearest was the rafale with 50%
the raptor had 92% though cant blame it is the second best fighter out there"

I know, I have the chart! This is based upon fighting an SU-37, not a stealth aircraft as we are discussing here. In a real world engagement Raptor could never get 9 kills out of 10, because it can only carry 4 AMRAAM internally, and 4 externally on hardpoints, Eurofighter can hold 4 under the fuselage, and 6 on hardpoints.

"I think that those numbers are just a little biased.
I would not take that at face value, they do not give the criteria that was based on."

And you know better....lol

"may i say this why cant u guys let us have one good aircraft I MEAN COME ON JUST ADMIT IT FOR ONCE WE INVENTED A DECENT AIR CRAFT"

Eurofighter is an excellent air craft, but without stealth it is so much less than what it could be! With the help of a little RAM paint, the RCS could be reduced to something close to the JSF, as the other main factor effecting stealth (the shape of the plane) has already been taken into the design considerations.
As for britain (alone) inventing a decent aircraft, Tornado F3 has a BVR performance which outperforms F15 A/B/C/D/E/I/J in BVR and Sea Harrier F/A-2 which equals F-18 in BVR, and Tornado GR4 which is the best low level strike aircraft in the world!

"The point in posting them was to try to make the Eurofighter seem better than it is. It is a good aircraft, but it is at least one generation behind the US."

I'll thank you to not explain my reasons for posting! You have no idea of my reasons for posting, I never told you, or anyone else. The point of posting this thread was to find why the Eurofighter isnt equiped with RAM paint, which would dramatically reduce the RCS of the aircraft, at a very small cost. From the Author of this thread.
As for Eurofighter being one generation behind F/A-22, it is important to remember that these 'generations' are American generations, not globally defined generations. Eurofighter is by the true definition a 5th generation aircraft! By 'American' definitions it is 4.9. With the addition of RAM paint it would be a 5th generation. It is possible to argue that Eurofighter is 5th generation in the American definition also, because it does incorporate stealth in the design.

"oh and i suppose the f 18 has super cruise AS STANDARD? no oh then we must be less than a generation behind
also i supppose the f18 can make mach 1.5 with out burners?"

Eurofighter can supercuise at M 1.3.

"However, the Raptor IS a generation ahead - it has VERY advanced stealth, supercruise, thrust vectoring 2 supercomputers with room for a third, revolutionary radar, ECT ECT ECT."

F22's "thrust vectoring" is NO benefit in combat, it just lets it take off from a shorter runway as it si a very large aircraft. Do not confuse F22's 2D thrus vecctoring with the much more advanced Russian 3D thrust vectoring, which is useful in combat.
In the true definition of "stealth", F/A-22, is far less stealthly than Eurofighter. Eurofighter is smaller and pained grey so is more stealth to the eye and has less powerful engines so produces less heat and therfore has a lower heat signature. F/A-22 has more advanced RCS steaslth, but the RCS of Eurofighter could be reduced toa level similar to JSF with the addition of RAM paint.
Eurofighter also has supercruise, a revolutionary radar and supercomputers. Does F/A-22 have voice control?

"while costing about a fith the price"

$250 / $90 = 2.7

"No aircraft besides the F/A-22 can do 1.5 without burners."

Supercruise is above mach 1, not mach 1.5.

"Today's fighters like the F-16, F-22, F-35, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-27, and MiG-29 are all designed to be most effective in that transonic regime."

But which are most effective???

Check out who does the "radar signature work"!

Flight control
Fire control
Airframe
Fatigue tests
Radar signature

F22 can carry 6 AMRAAM's internally, not 4. And the EF would cost more than 90 mil. $, RAF planned to purchase 232 EF for 19 bilions pounds. POUNDS NOT DOLLARS. And the actual number of purchased aircraft will be probably significantly lower.

F22 can carry 6 AMRAAM's internally, not 4.

Depends which AMRAAM were talking about...It can hol for AMRAAM A's or 6 AMRAAM C's

"And the EF would cost more than 90 mil. $, RAF planned to purchase 232 EF for 19 bilions pounds. POUNDS NOT DOLLARS. And the actual number of purchased aircraft will be probably significantly lower."

Firstly, please use the � sign when talking the British currency. The RAF will be purchasing exactly 232 Eurofighter.

The only country reducing orders is the USA, who has reduced its requrement from 600 F/A-22 to 298 and this looks likely to drop as far as to 250 as congress has refused to pay for increased unit costs, rather to reduce units ordered. This will teach Lockheed to keep costs in check when F-35 starts production.

Originally posted by devilwasp
cool y are we a generation behind in aircraft?
id like to see a exsplanation cause frankly i dont c how we are cause frankly WE invented VTOL so we cant be a generation behind also we invented the fastest helicopter in the world and the best asw helicopter

You are a generation behind because you do not have a domestic stealth program.

BTW the best ASW helicopter in the world is the SH-60 series.

Originally posted by ppp
I know, I have the chart! This is based upon fighting an SU-37, not a stealth aircraft as we are discussing here. In a real world engagement Raptor could never get 9 kills out of 10, because it can only carry 4 AMRAAM internally, and 4 externally on hardpoints, Eurofighter can hold 4 under the fuselage, and 6 on hardpoints.

Actually, the F-22 carries 6 AIM-120C AMRAAMs plus two AIM-9M Sidewinders internally. The aircraft can also carry up to eight AAMs externally, two on each underwing pylon.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

Originally posted by ppp
F22's "thrust vectoring" is NO benefit in combat, it just lets it take off from a shorter runway as it si a very large aircraft. Do not confuse F22's 2D thrus vecctoring with the much more advanced Russian 3D thrust vectoring, which is useful in combat.

Thrust vectoring allows the F-22 to operate at very high angles of attack and remain maneuverable over a much wider range of speeds than traditional aircraft. These characteristics allow the aircraft to keep its nose pointed at the target almost indefinitely, which is the key to winning close-in fighter engagements.

Originally posted by ppp
In the true definition of "stealth", F/A-22, is far less stealthly than Eurofighter. Eurofighter is smaller and pained grey so is more stealth to the eye and has less powerful engines so produces less heat and therfore has a lower heat signature. F/A-22 has more advanced RCS steaslth, but the RCS of Eurofighter could be reduced toa level similar to JSF with the addition of RAM paint.

Engine thrust has nothing to do with engine heat. Bypass ratio is the only really effective way to reduce the temperature of engine exhaust, and the F-22 does use fairly high bypass ratio engines for a fighter. In any case, both aircraft are probably easily detectable by IR sensors because of engine exhaust and aerothermal heating on the leading edges. Regardless, radar remains the dominant method for detecting an aircraft at a distance, and reducing RCS is the most effective way of reducing the adversary's ability to detect you.

Originally posted by ppp
"Today's fighters like the F-16, F-22, F-35, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, Su-27, and MiG-29 are all designed to be most effective in that transonic regime."

But which are most effective???

The data on this site seems to come from the same study that was previously cited, but the results are presented in a different way. Against the Su-35 (which seems to be the most common adversary in simulated air combat comparisons), the following table indicates the number of adversaries that would be shot down for every one friendly plane lost:

F/A-22 Raptor 10.1 : 1
Typhoon 4.5 : 1
Rafale 1.0 : 1
Su-35 1.0 : 1
F-15C 0.8 : 1
F/A-18+ 0.4 : 1
F/A-18C 0.3 : 1
F-16C 0.3 : 1

www.encyclopedia4u.com...

Compared in this format, the F-22 is more than twice as effective as the Typhoon. I'm not here to argue what plane is best since I think such arguments are rather pointless given all the random variables that come into play, but this is just food for thought.

IMHO, The reasons for the EF being a generation behind are these:

While taking into acount a "stealthy" shape, it does not have a "pure" stealth shape. It does not use internal bays, nor does it use RAM (as this post accounts for)

The radar on the Raptor is revolutionary. It is much more advanced then normal fighters.

Thrust vectoring - it uses thrust vectoring to improve it's manueverability. I could be wrong, but the EF does not use this system.

Super Cruise - the ability to fly at greater then Mach 1 speeds without afterburners

All of these things, while only slightly improving performance to the aircraft alone, add up to give it a superior aircraft together.

"iron ball" ppiant applied to a ef2000 would only reduce rcs marginally. Sheet rcs or the sprayed on stuff is much more effective and requires that a plane be designed around it to fully use it. The a-12 oxcart and newer f-16 use iron ball piant, and look at the change in their rcs, so i wouldnt push the ef2000 as a stealth plane, just a defensive plane.

"You are a generation behind because you do not have a domestic stealth program."

Heres our domestic stealth program!

Stealth

Measurement of Materials Properties � Performance Prediction and Modelling � Radar Cross Section Reduction � Radar Absorbing Materials � Radar Transparent Materials � Noise and Vibration Reduction
Stealth is an enabling technology in today�s defence and aerospace industries. A major consideration in controlling an object�s observability is the adaptation of the materials, structures and systems used to minimise transmitted and reflected radiation. We specialise in the measurement of materials at radar frequencies and produce custom materials with either radar absorbing or radar transparent qualities. The latter are developed for use in radomes and have stable characteristics throughout the harsh operating conditions of high performance aircraft. Our range of radar absorbing materials is tailored both in physical characteristics and frequency selectivity. Our engineers have also developed world-leading techniques for reducing noise and vibration transmission from maritime propulsion systems.
BAE SYSTEMS

And USA is a generation behind because I have seen articulated lorries that turn better than an F/A-22.

"Thrust vectoring allows the F-22 to operate at very high angles of attack and remain maneuverable over a much wider range of speeds than traditional aircraft. These characteristics allow the aircraft to keep its nose pointed at the target almost indefinitely, which is the key to winning close-in fighter engagements."

It can just point the nose up or down, not turn the aircraft as 3D vectoring does. Thrust vectorisng is no use in a dogfight with a fighter equiped with canards!

"In any case, both aircraft are probably easily detectable by IR sensors"

But Raptor will appear on the PIRATE IRST before Eurofighter will on F22's IRST.

"The data on this site seems to come from the same study that was previously cited, but the results are presented in a different way. Against the Su-35 (which seems to be the most common adversary in simulated air combat comparisons), the following table indicates the number of adversaries that would be shot down for every one friendly plane lost:

F/A-22 Raptor 10.1 : 1
Typhoon 4.5 : 1
Rafale 1.0 : 1
Su-35 1.0 : 1
F-15C 0.8 : 1
F/A-18+ 0.4 : 1
F/A-18C 0.3 : 1
F-16C 0.3 : 1"

Wow...those are the BVR results, the comment was on dogfighting. This proves nothing in respect to dogfighting, unless radar range somehow relates to turning an aircraft?

"but this is just food for thought"

Eat some before you post in future

"While taking into acount a "stealthy" shape, it does not have a "pure" stealth shape"

No, your saying it doesnt look like its American so therefore its not as strealthy as American aircraft!

"The radar on the Raptor is revolutionary. It is much more advanced then normal fighters."

Raptors radar is AESA, but so are F16 radars...lol what is a normal fighter? By definition this should be F16 as it is most numerous! So you are saying the F22 is in effect a normal fighter.

"Thrust vectoring - it uses thrust vectoring to improve it's manueverability. I could be wrong, but the EF does not use this system."

It will be added in the future, but there is no need for it. Many poepl on this forum like to say the worst thing you can lose in a dogfight is speed! Im sure you are aware of the effect thrust vectoring has on a fighters speed in dogfights! By contrast canards dont cause a large loss of speed. TVC is a neat trick, but its more useful for taking off with a heavy load (which F/A-22 will never do) or for taking off on short runways.

"Super Cruise - the ability to fly at greater then Mach 1 speeds without afterburners"

Eurofighter can supercruise at Mach 1.3!
""iron ball" ppiant applied to a ef2000 would only reduce rcs marginally. Sheet rcs or the sprayed on stuff is much more effective and requires that a plane be designed around it to fully use it. The a-12 oxcart and newer f-16 use iron ball piant, and look at the change in their rcs, so i wouldnt push the ef2000 as a stealth plane, just a defensive plane."

Then apply the spray on stuff to it. Even if it isnt "designed around" some paint, the airframe is still designed around being a stealth airframe, which means the RCS will still drop dramatically. Before anyone says "the US wont export its latest spray on stealth paint to Britian", remember that it is made in Japan, not the US of A!

Originally posted by ppp
"You are a generation behind because you do not have a domestic stealth program."

Heres our domestic stealth program!

Hate to tell you but the US provided you with that information long before you came up with it on your own.

You do not have the infrastructure to have a domestic stealth program.

oh really but we do have the infrastructure to have a nhs hmm that doesnt make sense
also we dont have 1 cause we dont need 1 u guys do the work for us !
we're busy spending money on training and tactics (something ur guys should do ) and strengthining our defenses

Originally posted by devilwasp
oh really but we do have the infrastructure to have a nhs hmm that doesnt make sense
also we dont have 1 cause we dont need 1 u guys do the work for us !
we're busy spending money on training and tactics (something ur guys should do ) and strengthining our defenses

What do you need to strengthen your defenses against?

We did the work for you, because we can get them at a bulk rate.

You'd think you guys would at least be greatful. We let you have a say in the design of the aircraft and everything.

Originally posted by ppp
"While taking into acount a "stealthy" shape, it does not have a "pure" stealth shape"

No, your saying it doesnt look like its American so therefore its not as strealthy as American aircraft!

No, simply look at the plane - it has external mounts, which = larger RCS. It does not employ the shape (to the degree of US stealth aircraft) to deflect radar away from the user.

"The radar on the Raptor is revolutionary. It is much more advanced then normal fighters."

Raptors radar is AESA, but so are F16 radars...lol what is a normal fighter? By definition this should be F16 as it is most numerous! So you are saying the F22 is in effect a normal fighter.

Quite simply, you are wrong.

Amazingly, the F-22 will come equipped with two Hughes CIP's, with additional space for a third if necessary. Accommodating the CIP's will be an increased data bus bandwidth. The DBB will be able to transfer 50MB per second, in comparison to the meager 1MB max transfer rate on the F-15 Strike Eagle. Unlike previous generations of fighter aircraft radar, the F-22's APG-77 radar is not a stand alone system. The radar antenna will be one of many sensor arrays, including the threat warning system and the electronic warfare equipment. The information from these sensors will be processed by the CIP's, and relayed to the pilot via fused, flat, color LCD Multi Function displays. The F-22 will contain no less than six of the color LCD's, with only 3 backup analog displays for emergencies. The color MFD's will give the pilot a "God's eye" view of the battle situation unlike any modern fighter jet.

Mentioned in the above paragraph, the APG-77 radar is unlike any other fighter radar in the skies. It cannot be rivaled. The radar antenna is a elliptical, fixed active array which contains 1,500 transmit & receive (TR) modules. A individual TR module is essentially a mini radar in its own right. In comparison to an object, each TR module is about the size of an adult finger. A remarkable feature of the APG-77 radar is that it contains no mechanical linkages. Anotherwards, the actual antenna does not move. This does not have any effect on the performance be warned! It is able to sweep 120 degrees of airspace maximum, at 6 bar levels (change in altitude) instantaneously! In comparison to the F-15 Strike Eagle's APG-70 radar, it takes 14 seconds to scan that amount of airspace. The APG-77 is capable of performing this feat by forming multiple radar beams to rapidly search the airspace.

The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability is without a doubt the most impressive feature of the APG-77 radar. With conventional RWR/ESM systems, it is extremely difficult to detect LPI pulses. This translates into a advantage for the F-22. The F-22 will be capable of performing an active radar search on equipped RWR/ESM equipped fighter aircraft without the target knowing he is being illuminated. The APG-77 does not emit high energy pulses in a narrow frequency band like conventional radars. Instead, it emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band. This is called spread spectrum transmission. The way it works is, when multiple echoes are sent back to the radar, the radar's signal processor converts the signals together instead of individual pulses. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is about the same as a HPI radar, but because each LPI pulse has considerably less amount of energy and does not necessarily fit the normal frequency pattern, the target will have a difficult time detecting the F-22. This becomes more evident in a BVR engagement. In fact, the F-22 can launch an AMRAAM missile without even establishing a lock-on. The unfortunate target won't even receive a missile inbound warning until the missile has activated its own radar and is on final intercept. By this period, it is almost impossible to evade the missile. The pilot will have no other choice but to eject.

The F-22 and its APG-77 radar will also be able to employ better Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR). This is accomplished by forming incredibly fine beams and by generating a high resolution image of the target by using Inverse Synthetic Aperture radar (ISAR) processing. ISAR uses Doppler shifts caused by rotational changes in the targets position to create a 3D map of the target. The target provides the Doppler shift and not the aircraft illuminating the target. SAR is when the aircraft provides the Doppler shift. Thus, the pilot can compare the target with an actual picture radar image stored in the F-22's data base. This ingenuitive process is possible courtesy of the F22's CIP's.

And just when you thought it couldn't get any better, listen up. The F-22 will have the first integrated avionics suite ever flown on a combat aircraft. The Northrop/Grumman-Texas Instruments APG-77 radar, Lockheed Martin electronic warfare suite and the TRW communications/navigation/IFF subsystems are all included. Over one million lines of computer code will comprise the system. The electronics will be liquid cooled, an much lighter than the old electronics found in fighter a/c such as the F-14, F-15 & F-16. The F-22's CIP's will process 700 million operations per second, which is roughly equivalent to four Cray supercomputers. An integrated countermeasures set will be controlled by the CIP's. Rapid systems programming and upgradeability are available in the time of a crisis. The onboard jammer, communication, navigation, & IFF antennas, in addition to the RWR is contained on smart skins on the wings.

Learn what you are talking about before you speak
F-22 Avionics


"Thrust vectoring - it uses thrust vectoring to improve it's manueverability. I could be wrong, but the EF does not use this system."

It will be added in the future, but there is no need for it. Many poepl on this forum like to say the worst thing you can lose in a dogfight is speed! Im sure you are aware of the effect thrust vectoring has on a fighters speed in dogfights! By contrast canards dont cause a large loss of speed. TVC is a neat trick, but its more useful for taking off with a heavy load (which F/A-22 will never do) or for taking off on short runways.

It is my understanding that the F-22 won't be dogfighting because the enemy will already be dead

"Super Cruise - the ability to fly at greater then Mach 1 speeds without afterburners"

Eurofighter can supercruise at Mach 1.3!

I never said it couldn't - I said that is PART of what makes a gen 5 fighter

""iron ball" ppiant applied to a ef2000 would only reduce rcs marginally. Sheet rcs or the sprayed on stuff is much more effective and requires that a plane be designed around it to fully use it. The a-12 oxcart and newer f-16 use iron ball piant, and look at the change in their rcs, so i wouldnt push the ef2000 as a stealth plane, just a defensive plane."

Then apply the spray on stuff to it. Even if it isnt "designed around" some paint, the airframe is still designed around being a stealth airframe, which means the RCS will still drop dramatically. Before anyone says "the US wont export its latest spray on stealth paint to Britian", remember that it is made in Japan, not the US of A!

"Hate to tell you but the US provided you with that information long before you came up with it on your own.

You do not have the infrastructure to have a domestic stealth program."

Care to prove that?

Do you know that the USA got stealth technology from Britain, Britain didnt get it from the USA! If you dont believe this then go read a history book on what the RAF stole from the luftwaffe and developed during WW2 to counter the nazi's anti stealth bombers!

Stealth is not dominated by the USA , channel 4 even had a program where a guy made a stealth boat and evaded radar with cardboard and some foam!

"You do not have the infrastructure to have a domestic stealth program"

BAE is the largest defence firm, interms of military equipment, excluding civilian equioment. Including civilian equipment it is 4th. so britain is top of the stack, the very top of the stack!

Originally posted by ppp
BAE is the largest defence firm, interms of military equipment, excluding civilian equioment. Including civilian equipment it is 4th. so britain is top of the stack, the very top of the stack!

Boeing is the single largest military producer in the free world right now.

Anyone can make a gen 1 stealth aircraft. It is the gen 2+ stuff where you need to have the specialized infrastructure to build/maintain specialized aircraft.

well mad man we are grate ful that u came through for us BUT u arnt our defense force i think our military could handle its self quite nicely if we went on the defensive
what with our reserves being so well trained

"Boeing is the single largest military producer in the free world right now."

But that is including civilian and military, when counting pure military BAE is the largest!

"u arnt our defense force i think our military could handle its self quite nicely if we went on the defensive
what with our reserves being so well trained"

Yes, Britain is better than the USA at fighting wars, thats a fact! Britain has never lost a war (remember the American revolution wasnt a war against Britain ). Britain has this record despite having to fight the whole European continent for 3 years without military help, and also having to support Russia and give the USA carriers when they finally entered the war som thyey could fight Japan.

Britain also fought the Falklands without assistance, and has invaded the USA and burned down washington.


I think we cant safely say that Britain can doa little more than defend itself. By contrast, the USA seems to lose every war unless Britain is helping them.

If Britain pulls out of Iraq, the USA will have 100,000 stiff's

Originally posted by ppp
Yes, Britain is better than the USA at fighting wars, thats a fact! Britain has never lost a war (remember the American revolution wasnt a war against Britain ). Britain has this record despite having to fight the whole European continent for 3 years without military help, and also having to support Russia and give the USA carriers when they finally entered the war som thyey could fight Japan.

When did you give us carriers? I must have missed that one.

If the American Revolution wasn't a war against England, then who was it against?