F-22 vs Typhoon (Eurofighter)

Mmm, battle royal on the cards here potentially. I'm interested in both these aircraft and would love to hear what you all think of them.

The likelihood of a US vs UK air war is pretty slim I appreciate, but how do these three match up!? Also, they would seem like a pretty formidable fighting force if they were ever to fight together...

F-22: www.f-22raptor.com...

Typhoon (Eurofighter): www.eurofighter.com...

HTMB

Umm...I mean no disrespect to you but first we all know who is the better fighter and threads like this are not allowed anymore. But if you want to know about the F/A-22 or EF-2000 www.Globalsecurity.org/ is a much better site.

I just read about the secret thing the will make the Typhoon the best fighter at all.

CANON WITHOUT THE ROUNDS!!!

www.telegraph.co.uk... ws/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/13/nplane13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/13/ixnewstop.html

Even at the website of the Eurofighter they rate the F-22 more effective than the Eurofighter. Though this graph has some problems that I wont get into here, it is understandable since this site is basically a site to sell Eurofighters.

eurofighter.com...#

click on Affordable Air Dominance to see the graph

[edit on 13-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Heythatsmybike,

I understand that you are new here so I won't blast you for this thread, but next time use the search function.....

You will find that every concievable "vs" thread has already been made, especially concerning everyones fav bird, the Raptor.

BTW, Raptor - hads down.

The F-22 is an easy answer. Remeber too that whole the contractors are tauting the whole FB-22 concept its primary goal is air sup. and cruise missile defence. The Eurofighter is much more of a multirole bird in that respect. Its also not quite a 4th gen ighter, but not quite prime time 5th either. Call it a 4.5 gen. It is a very very capable bird, but not in the league of the Raptor. Now if you wanted to compare say the Su-47 VS the F-22 you might be able to get closer.

FredT the only problem with the Su-47 is that it was an experimental jet not a production one. The Russians did not like it so the project is finished. Russia might be able to create something that can be compared with the raptor if they get the money.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
FredT the only problem with the Su-47 is that it was an experimental jet not a production one. The Russians did not like it so the project is finished. Russia might be able to create something that can be compared with the raptor if they get the money.

Agreed. That kind points to the problems with this type of debate. Not much in production that will take a Raptor and his wingman

The Europeans will never build an aircraft that can match ours unless we just suddenly give up and then it would take them twenty yearsto match what we presently have. No disrespect or bashing intended, just the plain facts of who we are. I consider England not a part of Europe.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The Europeans will never build an aircraft that can match ours unless we just suddenly give up and then it would take them twenty yearsto match what we presently have. No disrespect or bashing intended, just the plain facts of who we are. I consider England not a part of Europe.

Two points: you overestimate the US aerospace industry (Airbus is bigger than Boeing remember ) and you assume we care.

Our ethos is to build an extremely versitaile plane (i once saw a list of weapons types cleared for the EF, it's stupidly long) that many air forces can use in a range of roles, then build hundreds and hundreds of them, rather than the US idea of building a plane for one specific purpose, build a few hundred then alter it to do other subsidiary roles.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The Europeans will never build an aircraft that can match ours unless we just suddenly give up and then it would take them twenty yearsto match what we presently have. No disrespect or bashing intended, just the plain facts of who we are. I consider England not a part of Europe.

so your saying that the gryfen is a bad plane?considering it had a radar system in standard issue that hadnt even been put on the drawing paper yet.
and your saying that scotland,wales,ni,repulic of ireland,france,germany,norway,denmark,austria,italy,spain,belguim,ukraine,russia,finland,portugal,bulgaria,hungary,belarus,lithuiania,latvia,estonia,t he czech rep,serbia,romania,greece ,switzerland ,albania,moldova, the netherlands and slovakia and iceland oh and not to forget russia. cant make a good plane? uhhh i think your being a BIT optimistic.
also dont call the UK england cause its racist.

Originally posted by Cjwinnit

Our ethos is to build an extremely versitaile plane (i once saw a list of weapons types cleared for the EF, it's stupidly long) that many air forces can use in a range of roles, then build hundreds and hundreds of them, rather than the US idea of building a plane for one specific purpose, build a few hundred then alter it to do other subsidiary roles.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

Ah, a Jack of all trades and a master of none. A plane that tries to do many roles can never match a plane designed for just one role. There are advantages to doing a bunch of roles but it comes at a price

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Ah, a Jack of all trades and a master of none. A plane that tries to do many roles can never match a plane designed for just one role. There are advantages to doing a bunch of roles but it comes at a price

True, but what price? The only plane that can beat the Eurofighter in the air is owned exclusively by our closest ally, why should we care that the Raptor is a slightly better at counter-air?

Britain has a relatively small air force, it suits us that our major new plane can do as many different missions as possible.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

Originally posted by devilwasp
also dont call the UK england cause its racist.

He referred only to England, he never said anything about the UK. And please tell me how saying "I don't consider England part of Europe" is racist...

Originally posted by Cjwinnit

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Ah, a Jack of all trades and a master of none. A plane that tries to do many roles can never match a plane designed for just one role. There are advantages to doing a bunch of roles but it comes at a price

True, but what price? The only plane that can beat the Eurofighter in the air is owned exclusively by our closest ally, why should we care that the Raptor is a slightly better at counter-air?

Britain has a relatively small air force, it suits us that our major new plane can do as many different missions as possible.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

A good point, Britain is taken advantage of one of the best aspects of having a plane that does many roles the cost factor. I dont think Britain should care at all if the Raptor is a better Air to Air plane because we are close allies and Im sure if Britian need the support of the Raptor it would be there if they wanted it. Plus the Euro fighter is a great plane and will more then likely be more than a match for any enemy they have to fight.

I think the price is just that a multi role plane will never be quite as good in all its roles as a plane designed for just that one role.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I think the price is just that a multi role plane will never be quite as good in all its roles as a plane designed for just that one role.

Exactly. It's nice to have a tool that's perfect for the job.

yeah but why have one tool to do a specific job when you can have one that does multiple jobs?
i mean its like carying a large tool kit when you can use a leatherman.

Originally posted by devilwasp
yeah but why have one tool to do a specific job when you can have one that does multiple jobs?
i mean its like carying a large tool kit when you can use a leatherman.

Well that's one way of looking at it but it's not so clear-cut. It's more like "either we get 5 different small sets of tools, each type can do a few things but can do one thing really well" or "we get one big set of tools which are fairly good at almost everything".

The first approach works for the US.

I should also point out that another reason to have a huge fleet of Eurofighters is that it saves on maintenance costs when you have fewer aircraft types. The RAF will still have a few different types though, it's not replacing the Tornado fighter-bombers.

So really our solution is "let's get a fairly large number of tools that are fairly good at everything and keep a bunch of the specialist tools that can compliment the multitools".

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

heh the amusing thing is the majority of the UK don't consider themselves part of Europe even though after centuries of combined history and trade. If you don't consider yourself part of Europe why are you still in the European Union and benefitting from it's trade? why do you partake in many joint EU programs?? why did you build the Chunnel with France?

its odd. :S

thanks,

drfunk

Originally posted by drfunk
heh the amusing thing is the majority of the UK don't consider themselves part of Europe even though after centuries of combined history and trade. If you don't consider yourself part of Europe why are you still in the European Union and benefitting from it's trade? why do you partake in many joint EU programs?? why did you build the Chunnel with France?

We are a trading nation, we can't just stop talking to people and selling stuff, that would be unsporting