Is The S-37 Fighter Up There With The F-22 ?!?!

Originally posted by waynos
also you later stated that every fighter with AAM's has always hung them on pylons.

Schoolboy error! the Typhoon carries its AMRAAM's and will carry its Meteors conformally under the body, this is something that a huge number of fighters have done in the past and it imposes no limits during combat as you seem to believe.

Well, since you didn't read the whole conversation, I will sum it up for you. We were discussing the max number of weapons that the 2 fighters could carry (because of Sminkeys claim it could carry more), and thus I pointed out that the max for a Typhoon was 13, while the Raptor could carry 10 internally and 18 in ferry mode.

So if we are just talking about weapons only under the fuselage then the Typhoon can carry 5 - exactly HALF the number of a Raptor. Either way the RAPTOR has the advantage.

You say that the Harrier can not carry the AMRAAM. Wrong again, it is the standard armament of the Royal Navy's Shar 2 for BVR air defence ops.

If that is the case then it's my bad. I was basing that information on a website I was looking at with Typhoon specs/weapons. It said that the AMRAAM could only be carried by the Typhoon and tornado.

Also you asked someone if they thought the Harrier could stand a chance against the US teen series fighters. I remind you that the same was said about the far less capable Shar 1 when it was going to go up against mach 2 Mirages twenty years ago, so you never know, do you? A pair of 801 Sqn Shars 'splashed' a pair of USN F-14's on excercise several years ago, this should not have happened and yet it did.

In real war it wuld not happen. I'll bet money on it - would you?

Also of course the Typhoon is more agile than the Raptor, this isn't even in doubt, thae Typhoons canard layout was created specifically for extreme agility whilst the Raptor is considerably heavier which counts against it in this respect. I concede that the Typhoons problem might lie in getting close enough for agility to count but there are ways and means being discovered all the time.

Wrong wrong wrong! The Raptor is more manueverable (again, in real world situations). The Raptor can sustain indefinatly a 60 degree AoA. No other fighter in the world can do that. Plus, as you ponted out, agillity will probably never come into play (at least for the forseable future) when fighting a Raptor.

It also smacks of desperation when the notion of the F-35 being armed with a laser is propelled into the argument. Seeing as how the AL-1 Laser armed aircraft is in fact a Boeing 747 and is STILL not reliable enough for service just how do you expect a working weapon to fit in the F-35 within a decade or so? Of course it wont.

Check out Intelgurls thread on the JSF. I will trust her word over yours as she works in the industry and you don't.

You also state that the Harrier is considered dangerous in the US, which I percieved as a snidey dig at the fact that you had to buy a British aircraft in order to get this capability at all

I said was because when we got it it was underpowered by it's RR engines. And no, it wasn't a dig at all. It was a revolutionary aircraft - it's nice that one of our allies could provide something to the US instead of us allways doing the work and spending. BTW, don't get the impression that I do not apreciate the UK and their millitary - I certainly do. They have fine soldiers and some great equipment. It's just that I find this whole argument of putting the EF on the same level as the Raptor rediculous.

nevertheless it is the case that the loss rate in the US Harrier force is far greater than it is in Britain, or any other operator of the type. Why should this be? Surely not the quality of the pilots or their training? I merely ask.

When we got it it was underpowered. Since then the problem has been fixed. And by the way the loss rate was not FAR greater - it was simply greater.



And for further note, the max wieghts of both aircraft...

The Typhoons:
23,500kg (51,809lb)

The Raptors:
60,000 lb (27,216 kg)

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by waynos

Also of course the Typhoon is more agile than the Raptor, this isn't even in doubt, thae Typhoons canard layout was created specifically for extreme agility whilst the Raptor is considerably heavier which counts against it in this respect. I concede that the Typhoons problem might lie in getting close enough for agility to count but there are ways and means being discovered all the time.

What are you talking about? F-22 has maximum SUSTAINED AoA of 60 degrees whil EF has maximum 30. THIRTY!!! That means for example that F-22 can turn twice faster than EF! I have seen a movie posted on this site with F-22 flying in forward direction with it's nose 60 degrees up. Can EF do it?Weight doesn't mean much, with such powerfull engines and good airframe, look at the Sukhoi-27 - it is much much heavier than F-16 and what's better close combat? Maybe EF with thrust vectoring would be better but NOW IT HAS NO TWC.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by longbow]

A sustained AOA is not a turn. being able to sustain an AoA of 60 degrees means that the FBW system allows trhe aircraft to fly along in a straight line with its nose pointing up in the air. This, in itself, is not agility. The key to the Typhoons agility is in its relaxed static stability, this is not a feature of the Raptors design which is very stable. Also weight is very much an issue even with very powerful engines. The question is not whether it can make the turn but rather how quickly it responds, the relative lightness and inherent instability of the Typhoon makes it agile, the big powerful Raptor can match angle of the turn but loses out in reaction time. Basic physics.

I agree with the people who say this is an academic argument but I didn't start it with wild claims did I

Well, since you didn't read the whole conversation, I will sum it up for you. We were discussing the max number of weapons that the 2 fighters could carry (because of Sminkeys claim it could carry more), and thus I pointed out that the max for a Typhoon was 13, while the Raptor could carry 10 internally and 18 in ferry mode.

So if we are just talking about weapons only under the fuselage then the Typhoon can carry 5 - exactly HALF the number of a Raptor. Either way the RAPTOR has the advantage.

I never said I didn't read the whole thing, merely that I wasn't going to deconstruct it. I don't doubt that the Raptor carries more A2A weapons than the Typhoon, indeed I would expect it to. I was, as I said, answering a specific point you made about the Typhoons weapons all being carried on pylons.

If that is the case then it's my bad. I was basing that information on a website I was looking at with Typhoon specs/weapons. It said that the AMRAAM could only be carried by the Typhoon and tornado.

Fair do's. I don't know which site you mean but maybe it was referring to the RAF rather than UK defence as a whole?

In real war it wuld not happen. I'll bet money on it - would you?

If you mean that no Sea Harrier would 'splash' any teen series fighter then yes I would bet on it. If you mean that I should bet that the Royal Navy would beat the USN overall, then don't be silly

Wrong wrong wrong! The Raptor is more manueverable (again, in real world situations). The Raptor can sustain indefinatly a 60 degree AoA. No other fighter in the world can do that. Plus, as you ponted out, agillity will probably never come into play (at least for the forseable future) when fighting a Raptor.

see my post above about the difference between 'sustained AoA' and 'agility'.

In any case, even if BVR failed both aircraft, off boresight capability and HMCS systems, used by both of them, would decide the fight.

Check out Intelgurls thread on the JSF. I will trust her word over yours as she works in the industry and you don't.

I don't blame you, I would too. But the way I read it the JSF is designed to incorporate that technology when it eventually becomes available rather than have it when it first enters service, which is what you said.

No arguments with the rest of your post, incidentally I have no doubt whatsoever that the Raptor is more capable overall than the Typhoon, just in case you were wondering, I'm sure the RAF would love to ghave it. But more capable overall means 'on balance' not 'in every single aspect'.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Sorry - US millitary tech is in house. Look at the Raptor website - it's all made in the US. As far as B class armour - are you speaking of tanks or body armour?

so that trusty harrier is american too huh?
"the pride of our airforce, the british made harrier"
homer simpson
tanks im talking about.

Hey buddy - use the search function - I was the Author of the Y/F-23 vs F/A-22 thread

yeah i do rem I WAS IN IT !

And yeah, it doesn't really matter because the 23 will not be built. But in case you didnt notice, that was an American plane too, so I guess the US has the top TWO planes in the world

so your saying the su47 will not be in the top 2 huh pretty bold statement.

OK, so the B-2 has better stealth. Hmmm - whos that made by? Oh - the US! Big suprise there

ohh so you built a stealth plane wooopty do , we invented the radio and before you say you upgraded it so did we.

In fact, it's been 20 years and no other country has made a single stealth airraft. The US is working on it's 4th!

yeah and who has cared about going to war for the last 20 years?....

In regards to the Raptors stealth, it was built to be as stealthy as it could be while also supercruising and having superior agility.

superior agilitly against what though a bunch of fighters that were designed years ago and there is no real need for that kind of fighter anymore since no one wants a war.

Any job it will be asked of.

so it will attack submarines?

Does any other fighter have the EW ability of the Raptor? NO! I notice you didn't argue that it will be great in strike missions.

no because that has never been thought of, and about the strike missions dont you think that was what they were thinking about when they were designing it? its obvios they would.

As far as cruise missle intercept, they are working on a dedicated anti missle missle. The Raptor will utilize it's stealth in times of hostility to penetrate enemy lines and intercept cruise missles that are fired.

reallly? gona be hard to hit something less than 3 metres long.

Keep believing that. I guess you are one of these politicians getting these top secret reports? Or are they mainstream. If so please, by all means give me a link.

i am a politician? of course i am .............wtf???
so when they finshed up doing the final two prototype designs there was no report. i have no link because there must have been a report unless the politician came down and looked at it, as you should know one of the main reasons the YF23 was canceled was because of a politician

Yeah - I know of the KA50. I'll stick with the tried and true Apache. And as far as the Comanche goes, we could build them anytime we wanted - we just don't need it at the moment for the price it costs. You should know something about cost cutting in the military living in the UK

yeah you do that.
yeah you could build them but for what use? the only enemy you fight is ones with out jets, and if they do they are not top of the line or anywhere near that.

No - I'm just logical. You criticize the US for not having cannons in vietnam, and now you try to dfend your own nations shortcomings in the same area. WHICH IS IT? IT CAN"T BE BOTH WAYS!

i critised you not haveing cannons in veitnam? PLEASE SHOW ME! i have not even mentioned vietnam.

The fact is if you had to go to war on short notice, your pilots wouldn't have amo for their guns. I would say they would need it then.

you need them to take down pilots with very few hours of exsperience and no awacs support?
sure for strafeing but by the time thier needed most the MOD would have aquired some.

Hey - I'm not saying it's right, just that it happens in war OK. To think otherwise is ignorant.

i'm just pointing out one of the MANY badly aimed shots of the great USAF!

If you could read, you would notice one of the missles I mentioned was in fact the sidewinder. And the harrier can't use the AMRAAM which will be the mainstay US A2A missle.

yes that was my point.
it can hold AMRAAM's fool.

Well, since all of you brits seem to think your electronics and radar technology is so much better, maybe you should be designing them ehhh? Besides, you pay for the missles just like everyone else.

we dont need to , we get them from you at half the price usual folk pay.

I'll say it again, THE RAPTOR WOULD RIP IT A NEW A-HOLE.

Do you really want to say otherwise?

i said everything lower than the raptor, because IF YOU LOOK THE TWO ARE IN DIFFRENT CLASSES. ONE IS A LIGHT FIGHTER NOW COME ON!

The point is that the US makes the best fighters in the world.

so the fact the griphon had tech on it before you had it on paper is because we stole it from your creators head ??

Maybe you missed that little revolutionary war thing where we kicked you off our land. Get a grip buddy - nothing in the US is British - ESPECIALLY when you are speaking in technical terms.

yeah with help from , the french, yeah you kicked us out but we burnt down your buildings except the USMC building cause those guys deserve respect.

You should really read the thread I made on the subject - it is very revealing. First of all, BOTH fighters were air dominance fighters. Second, the reasons for picking the Raptor were it had greater agility and lower costs. Lock-Mart was also considered the more reliable company to give the contract to.

heh i did, and i did find it revealing.
yes both were BUT the raptor at heart is a dogfighter.
the "more reliable" so the USAF didnt want to spend more money on name tags and security passes?

excuses excuses. The FACT is that US planes are BETTER then everyone elses, regardless of how you spin it.

huh so its ok to borrow thousands with out giveing it back huh might be an idea for the UK to take a leaf outa the US book. besides when did you see YOU come up with something that you didnt use off a russian??

BTW, the Harrier was considered an unsafe aircraft in the US. Yes you made the first STOVL plane. Congrats.

really? probably just as unsafe as the pilots
congrats


[edit on 26-10-2004 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by longbow


No AWACS has better radar, but it has also HUGE RCS, while Raptor is stealth. So raptor will "see" it sooner.

yeah BUT the AWACS will see it sooner since it will notice a large plane flying at mach 1 towards them.

I don't have time to reply to all of these silly coments, but I will pick out the worst ones...

Originally posted by devilwasp
so that trusty harrier is american too huh?
"the pride of our airforce, the british made harrier"
homer simpson

Have you no sense of humor?

so your saying the su47 will not be in the top 2 huh pretty bold statement.

If you include the Y/F-23 as a fighter, then YES. I would say both the 22 and 23 are better.

ohh so you built a stealth plane wooopty do , we invented the radio and before you say you upgraded it so did we.

The difference is every half decent nation makes their own radio. NONE make aircraft designed around stealth.

yeah and who has cared about going to war for the last 20 years?....

YOu mean besides the UK, US, Russia, China, France, Germany - hell, I'll just say the whole world. Maybe you missed that whole old war thing. I assure you, going to war was on the mind of EVERY nation.

superior agilitly against what though a bunch of fighters that were designed years ago and there is no real need for that kind of fighter anymore since no one wants a war.

Just because no one WANTS war doesn't mean there won't BE war. Everyone said the same thing before WWII.

no because that has never been thought of, and about the strike missions dont you think that was what they were thinking about when they were designing it? its obvios they would.

I can't believe that you just said no one had thought of EW before. I'll let your fellow Brits tell you otherwise.

As far as the Raptor beeing designed for strike missions - NOPE, sorry - try again. The Raptor was changed from the F-22 to the F/A-22 for a reason. "F" designates a fighter, where as "F/A" designates Fighter/Attack. The Raptor was designed PURELY as an A2A fighter, but was later changed to a multi role because it had the inherent abillities one looks for in such an aircraft.

i said everything lower than the raptor, because IF YOU LOOK THE TWO ARE IN DIFFRENT CLASSES. ONE IS A LIGHT FIGHTER NOW COME ON!

Different classes?

The collective military requirements of the four Partner Nations are the foundation of the Eurofighter Typhoon Weapon System. Eurofigter Typhoon is a highly agile Air Superiority and Air-to-Surface, multi-role/swing-role weapon system

Typhoon home page







Andas for the Raptor:

Wing Area:
840 sq ft

Engine Thrust Class:
35,000 lb

Level Speed: 921 mph
Total Length:
62.08 ft

Wing Span:
44.5 ft

Horizontal Tail Span:
29ft

Tail Span: 18'10"
Total Height:
16.67ft

Track Width:
10.6ft

Engines:
Pratt & Whitney F-119

Max. Takeoff Weight: 60,000 lb (27,216 kg)
Max. External Stores: 5,000 lb (2,270 kg)
Weight Empty: 31,670 lb (14,365 kg)
Ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,240 m)
Crew: 1
G Limit: +9 G
First Flight: September 7th 1997

Link

So let's see - they have the same role in the AF, air superiority. They have roughly the same max take off wieght. The Raptor has roughly 10 ft larger wingspan. They have the same G limit. Same number of crew. The Typhoos tail is taller....

Get a grip dude - they are EXACTLY the same class. The Typhoon is just not as good. Stop trying to defend it - it's not. It doesn't need to be, and makes up for this in cost.

Guys, don't you get along in other threads?

There is no doubt the Typhoon is a world class fighter aircraft, but it is not in the same class as a Raptor. It does not incorporate passive stealth, it does not have supersonic cruise, and the list goes on.

If you must seek a comparison, try this:

Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency conducted an operational evaluation comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they faired against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35.

The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft were put in simulated combat against the Su-35. The results were:

Aircraft Odds vs.Su-35

Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Dassault-Breguet Rafale C 1.0:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 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.

The "F/A-18+" in the study was apparently not the current F/A-18E/F, but an improved version. All the western aircraft in the simulation were using the AMRAAM missile, except the Rafale which was using the MICA missile.

You can read more about this test here.

Originally posted by bios
There is no doubt the Typhoon is a world class fighter aircraft, but it is not in the same class as a Raptor. It does not incorporate passive stealth, it does not have supersonic cruise, and the list goes on.

Actually the Eurofighter does have the ability to supercruise. Read the first paragraph in the artile i have linked.

www.airforce-technology.com...

I don't know about the manueverability of the s-37 but I have seen what the su-37 can do. The mig-29 used to do a thing called the king cobra where the aoa goes beyond vertical and the plane is 'kinda' flying backwards. The F-16 can also do this. BUT the su-37 can actually do a back flip.

www.webmutants.com...

Beyond that the only thing I have witnessed crazier than that is Sean D. Tucker in his mystery biplane the Oracle Challenger. He can actually go vertical and make that thing fly like a hellicopter.

Who decided dogfighting was the past and missiles the future? Who learned that Mig 23s were really manouverable? The hard way?

Aparently you are not aware of the fact that the Typhoons guns will be useless because they did not order any ammo for them to save money

We learned the hard way. You didn't learn at all.

Who's we sucker? WE sent a squadron of Canberras to VN. Before that WE sent a squadron of Meteors to SK. Before that WE sent a squadron of Mustangs to SK. While WE were doing that one of OUR Sea Furys shot down a MiG 15 (That's prop vs Jet).

Who went to the South Atlantic with the most radical, most manouverable jet on earth? Who was flying American jets? Who won?

Oh good grief! Do you really think the Harrier would stand a chance in hell against a US F-14, F-15, F-16, or F/A-18? Get a grip dude. You aren't living in reality here.

Skyhawks vs Shar 1s. Heinemann's hot rod found out the hard way about manouverability from vectored thrust. Breguet received the same sharp lesson.

My room-mate's father was a wing commander, flew Mirage's and Hornets, loved the Harrier.

Against the F16, yes I do think so. The F18, I'd pay to watch it. The F14, they've already done it.

Americans have proven very good at building fast cars that can't handle either.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. I guess you never heard of the Ford GT40 (past), Saleen S7 (present), or, if you want to compare lower priced cars, the Z06 Corvet - by far the best deal in the world in terms of bang for the buck.

Please, allow me to roll on the floor.
Look at anything from Lotus, anything from BMW, anything from Maserati, anything from Renault, anything from Jaguar. Handling is what they do. And those are showroom floor efforts, mate. Not Le Mans specials. Prior to the Viper? You had what? (and my dad could beat up yours! I thinks that's what I used to say)

I'll take a Gryphon any day.

A Gryphon over what? A F/A-22?

A F-15 Eagle?

A F/A-18 Super Hornet?

You do that

Over an Eagle, any day, over a Super Hornet, you betcha. Ever wonder why Burt Rutan loves those nifty little canard wings. Ever wonder why Saab have stuck with the delta wing since the Dragon, canards since the Viking? Typhoon's designers knew a smart thing when they saw it.

Have you seen a Typhoon on take-off? It can practically loop straight off the runway.

Perhaps you don't remember the F16XL and its cranked-edge wing. A neat little tech-demonstrator that could out-turn a standard F 16.

That seems to have thrashed that one around for a wee while now.

Are we done?

I'd say it's time to move on.

(we'll come back and do it all again, don't worry.)



(A380/350/7E7 anyone?)

Originally posted by Sabre262
Actually the Eurofighter does have the ability to supercruise. Read the first paragraph in the artile i have linked.

I stand corrected on the supercruise issue, that was my input and not my sources input.
However the claim of the F-22's superiority is still substantiated by the UK organization that posted this comparison:

Aircraft Odds vs.Su-35

Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Dassault-Breguet Rafale C 1.0:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 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

"Maybe you missed that little revolutionary war thing where we kicked you off our land. Get a grip buddy - nothing in the US is British - ESPECIALLY when you are speaking in technical terms. "


Just a few links to the british technology apparently NOT in the US planes

Bae Systems
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...

www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...
www.baesystems.com...

Martin Baker
www.martin-baker.com...

Qinetiq
www.qinetiq.com...
www.qinetiq.com...
www.qinetiq.com...
www.qinetiq.com...
www.qinetiq.com...
etc.

enough said!!!

BTW you might wana check the history on your fancy A2A,A2G,cruise and A2S missiles, germany ring a bell?

Very well said, I salute you. Now can our American friends please remove their heads from whence they have inserted them?

hey I read 'homer simpson' somewhere up there!! Don't bring him into this!! He's my favorite american! Smartest too maybe?!
Homer for US prez!!

Originally posted by waynos
A sustained AOA is not a turn. being able to sustain an AoA of 60 degrees means that the FBW system allows trhe aircraft to fly along in a straight line with its nose pointing up in the air. This, in itself, is not agility. The key to the Typhoons agility is in its relaxed static stability, this is not a feature of the Raptors design which is very stable. Also weight is very much an issue even with very powerful engines. The question is not whether it can make the turn but rather how quickly it responds, the relative lightness and inherent instability of the Typhoon makes it agile, the big powerful Raptor can match angle of the turn but loses out in reaction time. Basic physics.

So AoA has no impact on ability to make sharp and fast turns? That's news for me
Just look at this website, remember it is EF fansite :

"At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22. Only the Rafale comes close to the matching the Eurofighter's capabilities in these comparisons.".

That means F-22 is better in sustained turn rate when supercruising (TWC is not so effective during high speeds) and BETTER IN BOTH when flying subsonic (yes also in instantaneous). BUT THE SPEED DURING CLOSE COMBAT IS ALWAYS SUBSONIC. And turn rate means how fast is it turnig (how many degrees it makes per second) So please tell me now, is F-22 MORE MANEUVRABLE IN CLOSE COMBAT or not?


www.eurofighter.starstreak.net...

i would agree with that post, the f22 id=s better in these areas, at the moment. the F-22 allready incorporates 2d thrust vectoring nozzles. ITP of spain or currently developing the new ef200 engine that will incorporate 3D thrust vectoring, this addition is mooted to be included in the third tranche of eurofighters. with this onboard the ef will be UNMATCHED in close quarters combat. allthough the rafale is also having tv nozzles developed for it. the f22 is the most agile in close combat at the moment, but it wont stay that way for long.

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by waynos
A sustained AOA is not a turn. being able to sustain an AoA of 60 degrees means that the FBW system allows trhe aircraft to fly along in a straight line with its nose pointing up in the air. This, in itself, is not agility. The key to the Typhoons agility is in its relaxed static stability, this is not a feature of the Raptors design which is very stable. Also weight is very much an issue even with very powerful engines. The question is not whether it can make the turn but rather how quickly it responds, the relative lightness and inherent instability of the Typhoon makes it agile, the big powerful Raptor can match angle of the turn but loses out in reaction time. Basic physics.

So AoA has no impact on ability to make sharp and fast turns? That's news for me

Just look at this website, remember it is EF fansite :

"At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22. Only the Rafale comes close to the matching the Eurofighter's capabilities in these comparisons.".

That means F-22 is better in sustained turn rate when supercruising (TWC is not so effective during high speeds) and BETTER IN BOTH when flying subsonic (yes also in instantaneous). BUT THE SPEED DURING CLOSE COMBAT IS ALWAYS SUBSONIC. And turn rate means how fast is it turnig (how many degrees it makes per second) So please tell me now, is F-22 MORE MANEUVRABLE IN CLOSE COMBAT or not?

www.eurofighter.starstreak.net...

You have posted nothing that disproves my first three sentences, you have obviously mistaken sustained AoA for sustained turn rate, they are not the same thing so you have nothing to laugh at there.

You seem to have covered the bases with the rest of it though so I back down there, except of course you have partly proven the original basic point I was trying to make that the Typhoon is more manouverable than the raptor, albeit only in one specific case, so I'll have a little grin too

Just to push it a little more I still think the Typhoon could win the fight as I picture the Typhoon and Raptor pilots turning their heads to get a firing lock with the HMCS and as the Raptor pilot flexes his thumb towards the firing button the Typhoon pilot just says the word 'launch' . End of fight

That would be sick, homer simpson for president. Imagine a cartoon doing speeches?
haha



But be honest, the Eurofighter will not be able to defeat the F-22. Raptor has the best radar, and the most stealthest, that does that make it?

There is no use in comparing them, the USA and British are allies, the two planes will be teaming up doing strike missions vs other aircraft.

Right now, we are lucky to have the British as allies, the 2 most advanced planes on this earth, are in teamed with the 2 strongest allies. Who is going to challenage that?