History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedThe best fighter aircraft

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2733
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 19:37
As far as we know, it is. It's not one technology either that makes it stealth, it's multiple technologies, which I said above. The paint is a important factor though. And having internal weapons isn't going to make the US worry, just looking at the Su-47 you can see it's not exactly stealth looking even if it does have this feature.
It might have reduced radar signiture, but I have my doubts it's fully stealth as there is no reason to believe it is.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2007 at 21:28
It's mostly the shaping of the aircraft that makes it stealthy, you need to avoid flat surfaces that reflect radar energy back to the reciever. Paint was more important on the first generation stealth aircraft but the modern ones like the F-22 rely on shaping for most of their stealth.
 
Aircraft rarely work alone and the combination of the F-22 with AWACS will be very effective for air superiority. With datalink the F-22 can recieve target information without using its' own radar. The first indication an opponent will often have it's being engaged is inbound missiles.
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 00:42

Although there is no reliable information about the PAK-FA's specifications yet, it is known from interviews with people in the Russian Air Force that it will be stealthy, have the ability to supercruise, be outfitted with the next generation of air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, and incorporate an AESA radar. It will be powered by the AL-41F engine or an advanced derivative of it. Reports indicate that it will be slightly larger than the MiG-29 but not as large as the Su-27.

There is no certainty for now what United States aircraft will be the competitor for the PAK-FA. While some believe it will be the F-35, the information so far seems to indicate it will be the F-22. Without further official information, it is not viable to reach a final conclusion in this matter. Therefore, analysts will be waiting until the specifications of the aircraft come out; these will most likely be defined in 2007. Analysts are predicting a maximum speed close to Mach 2.83 (3,255 km/h); they will see how this will come up.

 
-
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 00:43

Although there is no reliable information about the PAK-FA's specifications yet, it is known from interviews with people in the Russian Air Force that it will be stealthy, have the ability to supercruise, be outfitted with the next generation of air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, and incorporate an AESA radar. It will be powered by the AL-41F engine or an advanced derivative of it. Reports indicate that it will be slightly larger than the MiG-29 but not as large as the Su-27.

There is no certainty for now what United States aircraft will be the competitor for the PAK-FA. While some believe it will be the F-35, the information so far seems to indicate it will be the F-22. Without further official information, it is not viable to reach a final conclusion in this matter. Therefore, analysts will be waiting until the specifications of the aircraft come out; these will most likely be defined in 2007. Analysts are predicting a maximum speed close to Mach 2.83 (3,255 km/h); they will see how this will come up.

-from wikipedia.
 
Again, This is not gunna be the same stealth type - They are using some magnit system that makes it plazma - stealth.
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2733
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 01:13
Quote It's mostly the shaping of the aircraft that makes it stealthy, you need to avoid flat surfaces that reflect radar energy back to the reciever. Paint was more important on the first generation stealth aircraft but the modern ones like the F-22 rely on shaping for most of their stealth.
 
Aircraft rarely work alone and the combination of the F-22 with AWACS will be very effective for air superiority. With datalink the F-22 can recieve target information without using its' own radar. The first indication an opponent will often have it's being engaged is inbound missiles.
I still believe the paint has a big part in it all. Ofcourse shape also has a huge part in it, but so do the materials, and paint is one of them. Though I do have a feeling the new aircraft have this paint, atleast the ingredients integrated into the exterior material. Reason I say this is because the F-22 doesn't need to be placed in a special hanger and doesn't need to be constantly recoated.
 
Quote
Again, This is not gunna be the same stealth type - They are using some magnit system that makes it plazma - stealth.
Your wikipedia entry says stealthy, not stealth. And plasma system? From what I undertsnad about plasma, it takes alot of energy to create and for any kind of use like this. And I'm not even sure if it makes things stealth. On top of that we know next to nothing about what the end result of the Su-47 will be.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Kerimoglu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Oct-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kerimoglu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 01:45
sure, I am not sure that It is stealth and I do not care, just was interesting becouse of the internal weapons bay
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 15:14
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

Quote It's mostly the shaping of the aircraft that makes it stealthy, you need to avoid flat surfaces that reflect radar energy back to the reciever. Paint was more important on the first generation stealth aircraft but the modern ones like the F-22 rely on shaping for most of their stealth.
 
Aircraft rarely work alone and the combination of the F-22 with AWACS will be very effective for air superiority. With datalink the F-22 can recieve target information without using its' own radar. The first indication an opponent will often have it's being engaged is inbound missiles.
I still believe the paint has a big part in it all. Ofcourse shape also has a huge part in it, but so do the materials, and paint is one of them. Though I do have a feeling the new aircraft have this paint, atleast the ingredients integrated into the exterior material. Reason I say this is because the F-22 doesn't need to be placed in a special hanger and doesn't need to be constantly recoated.
 
Quote
Again, This is not gunna be the same stealth type - They are using some magnit system that makes it plazma - stealth.
Your wikipedia entry says stealthy, not stealth. And plasma system? From what I undertsnad about plasma, it takes alot of energy to create and for any kind of use like this. And I'm not even sure if it makes things stealth. On top of that we know next to nothing about what the end result of the Su-47 will be.
 
It is the shaping that gives most of the stealth. Lockheed was able to prove the ability of shaping with early mock-ups made from wood placed on radar testing ranges. The radar absorbing paint and putty become important with actual flying models because of things like engines and landing gear and access panels which needed to be shielded.
 
With modern design and construction it's possible to do away with the radar absorbing putty and most of the paint. RAM materials are still used in important areas.
 
 


Edited by DukeC - 01-Apr-2007 at 15:14
Back to Top
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 02:08
Theres no telling if the PAK FA will be forward swept yet. SU-47 was always just a test bed and the PAK FA has yet to be seen. The aircraft cant be considered at the top "yet" until they actually design the aircraft. http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/19-03-2007/88404-sukhoi-0

How far they've gotten on plasma screens may effect its design as they wont have to sacrifice performance to give the aircraft the stealth look.




Edited by Gundamor - 02-Apr-2007 at 02:11
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
Back to Top
Giordano View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jun-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 63
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Giordano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 04:52
I wonder that F-22 has a special paint for reducing radar signature but has not f-117 this paint?You know one f-117 hit down over Serbia.I meant that
may not russians learn the secrets of the paint?May russians have this technology?
War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it.
Desiderius Erasmus
Back to Top
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 05:46
Originally posted by Giordano Giordano wrote:

I wonder that F-22 has a special paint for reducing radar signature but has not f-117 this paint?You know one f-117 hit down over Serbia.I meant that
may not russians learn the secrets of the paint?May russians have this technology?


Russians already use radar absorbant paint on their aircraft. I've read in some places they were the ones who created or pioneered the formula and the U.S. "borrowed" it from them. Shocked

The F-117 shoot down is questionable luck and could of been poor flight planning by the air force. It was one incident amongst many sorties flown. No aircraft is totally invisible to radar anyways. At least not yet though the plasma era may change that.


Edited by Gundamor - 02-Apr-2007 at 05:52
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2733
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 11:38
I heard plasma is kind of a far off technology. It was said that it take alot of energy to create plasma and they are still working on it being able to cover large surfaces. But from what I heard of it, it wasn't be created for stealth, but as a forcefield. Atleast thats what the US military was looking into it for.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Giordano View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jun-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 63
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Giordano Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 14:10
i know the F-117 shoot down story,i wrote it about paint tech,thank you for replying.what do you think about Rafale?Can you compare Rafale and Typhoon?

War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it.
Desiderius Erasmus
Back to Top
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 15:34
Originally posted by Giordano Giordano wrote:

i know the F-117 shoot down story,i wrote it about paint tech,thank you for replying.what do you think about Rafale?Can you compare Rafale and Typhoon?



I've always liked the Rafale since I first saw it fly in the mid 90's in a Korean arms show. Unfortunately its fallen a bit behind other aircraft because the French have been muscled out of the export industry by other countries. I'm not totally sure but I think it has yet to be sold outside of France. This has meant that the French government has had to fully fund its upgrades and newer versions(not sure if the F3 is out yet) and France doesn't really have the money to spend. It's mid range to high cost hasn't helped it's sales against Russian aircraft or the F-16's that have been sold. Dont know much about the Eurofighter. Its had a bit of a roller coaster ride out of the gates and the test fleet is still being used to fix and better the aircraft.
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 19:12
Originally posted by Giordano Giordano wrote:

I wonder that F-22 has a special paint for reducing radar signature but has not f-117 this paint?You know one f-117 hit down over Serbia.I meant that
may not russians learn the secrets of the paint?May russians have this technology?
 
There's nothing secret about the paint, it contains many spherical ferrous(iron) particles that absorb radar energy and convert it to heat.
 
Stealth comes from the shaping of the aircraft itself. The original discovery of the effect of shaping was made by a Russian named Pyotr Ufimtsev which he published in a paper called "Method of edge waves in the physical theory of diffraction". No one in the Soviet Union was aware of it's significance and it wasn't unitl it had been translated into english, that a radar specialist from Lockheeds Skunk Works realized it could be used to create incredible low radar cross sections.
 
He took the equations from the paper and created a computer program that was used in designing the first stealth fighter, which had an RCS of about three orders of magnitude better than other aircraft of similar size. That's 1000 times lower, the F-117 has the RCS of a golfball.
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 10:02
Originally posted by Giordano Giordano wrote:

i know the F-117 shoot down story,i wrote it about paint tech,thank you for replying.

I've also heard the Russians knew that the F-117's were taking off from Aviano air base in Italy and had spies monitoring their take-off's.  And thru keen guestimates, and no doubt dumb luck, they (Serbs, Russians, both?) managed to shoot it down.

Originally posted by Giordano Giordano wrote:


what do you think about Rafale?Can you compare Rafale and Typhoon?

The Typhoon can shoot down 4.5 Rafale's before being taken down by one, according to a DERA study, or rather a wikipedia author claiming to cite DERA.

Quote
DERA study

Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an evaluation (simulation based on the available data) comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35. Due to the lack of information gathered on the 5th generation combat aircraft and the Su-35 during the time of this study it is not meant to be considered official. The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft supposed data 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
      Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker'                           1.0:1
      Dassault Rafale C                                  1.0:1
      McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle            0.8:1
      Boeing F/A-18E/F0.4:1
      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. Missiles such as the KS-172 may be intended for large targets and not fighters, but their impact on a long range BVR engagement needs to be factored in.

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. This does not reflect the likely long-term air-to-air armament of Eurofighters (as well as Rafales), which will ultimately be equipped with the longer-range MBDA Meteor (while carrying the AMRAAM as an interim measure).

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_generation_jet_fighter


Below is the cost of most of the fighters currently in use.  But keep in mind that some figures are for 1998, which is almost 10 years ago!  Also, how reliable are these figures?

Quote
  Dassault Rafale More than 50m, depending on export sales
  Eurofighter Typhoon Austrian version: '03 62m
  Mitsubishi F-2 US $100m
  MiG-29 about '98 US $27m
  MiG-35 '07 US $70m
  Sukhoi Su-27 US $24m
  Sukhoi Su-30 US $ ~38m (Several variants)
    Sukhoi Su-30K for Indonesia: '98 US$ 33m
    Sukhoi Su-30MKK/MK2 for China: '98 US$ 38m
    Sukhoi Su-30MKI for India: '98 US$ 45m
    Sukhoi Su-30MKM for Malaysia: '03 US$ 50m
  HAL Tejas about US $23m
  JAS 39 Gripen about '98 US $25m
  Ching Kuo IDF (Taiwan) initially large order put cost per unit at US $24m
  F-14 Tomcat '98 US $48m
  F-15 Eagle '98 US $43m
  F-16 Fighting Falcon late models about '98 US $25m
  F/A-18E/F Super Hornet '98 US $60m
  F-22 Raptor Fly away unit cost is about US $120m
  F-35 Lightning II:
    F-35A US $45m
    F-35B > US $100m '06
    F-35C US $55m

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_generation_jet_fighter


If one F-22 can take out 10 Russian Su-30's, then it, a $120 million fighter, has cost the Russians about $380+ million dollars.  So it would pay for itself several times over.  (Note:  The DERA study actually says that the F-22 can take out 10 Su-35's, which are supposed to be significantly better than the Su-30; and no doubt more expensive!  The Mig-35 is supposed to be $70 million, according to who wrote this wiki page.)

Some say the real cost of an F-22 is more like $200 million per plane!  Shocked 


Edited by TranHungDao - 09-Jun-2007 at 10:07
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 10:33
1.  Don't forget the US has very sophisticated tactics too, which the DERA study probably didn't take into account, or for that matter, friendly aeriel combat wargames where Indian Su-30's were able to best American fighter pilots flying F-16's or F-18's if memory serves me.  In actual combat, the American pilots would be supported by aeriel command and control.  Even American air craft carriers are equipped with such sophisticated support planes, whose powerful radar can alert American pilots to enemy fighters before those enemy fighters can see the Americans.

2.  The Raptor also has IR (infrared) stealth.

3.  Personally, I think the Typhoon is hideous looking, despite its very impressive capabilities.  I definitely prefer the Raptor.  The Su-27 thru Su-37 are very pretty too.  Raptors, with their boxy lines, remind me of the newer Audi inspired Lamborghini Murcielago's, while the new Su's, with their sharp lines, remind me of the Ferrari 430.  The forward swept wing Su-47 is okay looking, and reminds me of Mazda RX-8 with its funky rear doors that open forward, not unlike the Berkut's wings.  LOL

4.  They say the Su-37 is perhaps the only plane that can keep up with the Raptor.  However, it is neither radar nor IR stealthy.  The Raptor is "governor limited" if you will, i.e. the plane's computers limit its truly awesome manueverability simply because the pilot would pass out if he tried to max out the plane's acrobatic capabilities, G-suit or no G-suit.

Because of this, they say the next generation fighter made by the US may actually be unmanned.  The people flying them will be fat overweight computer geeks living in their mom's basements.  What's the point of making better and better planes for pilots who couldn't possibly handle the overwhelmingly superhuman G-forces?!?

Unmanned and well armed Predators flying in Iraq and Afghanistan are flown in the US, no doubt by fat computer geeks.  Confused


Edited by TranHungDao - 09-Jun-2007 at 10:38
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2007 at 10:35
The Su-35 (and Su-37) have rare flying capabilities, that aparently are not taken into serious account (you said it: AMRAAM).
Actual combat is very hard to predict.

Defeat allows no explanation
Victory needs none.
It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly.
Back to Top
Serge L View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 488
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Serge L Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jun-2007 at 11:26
One Raptor is likely to beat a Typhoon.
2 Typhoons are likely to beat one Raptor.
You can have approximately 2 typhoons for the money you need to buy a Raptor.
Typhoons are worse than Raptors in air to air combat, but seem to be better in air to ground fight.

All this considered, If I were a defense minister, and I had some money to spend on fighter planes, I would buy Typhoons.
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jun-2007 at 16:31
Originally posted by Serge L Serge L wrote:

One Raptor is likely to beat a Typhoon.
2 Typhoons are likely to beat one Raptor.
You can have approximately 2 typhoons for the money you need to buy a Raptor.
Typhoons are worse than Raptors in air to air combat, but seem to be better in air to ground fight.

All this considered, If I were a defense minister, and I had some money to spend on fighter planes, I would buy Typhoons.
 
Where did you get that info?
 
The F-22 far out performs any aircraft in service today or projected to be in service.  This performance gap is very large.  In the recent Red Flag exercise, only 3 F-22 were killed by the OpFor units.  Normally, a loss rate of 20 percent is considered good in such exercise.   Even the F-15, when it first entered service had a loss rate of around that number.  The F-22 broke that record by a very wide margin and this is against the best pilots in the world. 
 
An Airforce study indicated that 95 percent of air to air kills since 1914 were the result of the victim never knowing  that its attacker was ever there.  The F-22 was built with this in mind.
 
First there is stealth, low observability, both in radar terms and IR.  I'm not saying that the F-22 is completely invisible to both radar and IR, but the detection ranges are not tactically useful.  You may be able to detect the F-22 on radar at ranges within less than a mile, at this range you should have seen it visually for the five miles.
 
Secondly, their the low probability intercept radar.  Modern radar emit radar waves that are detectible to radar warning receiver.  However, the F-22's radar uses random frequency hopping that the radar warning receiver cannot detect it.  In other words, an enemy has no clue that it has been painted by the enemy radar.  The only warning is when the terminal active radar of an AMRAAM is detected, and by then it is too late.
Back to Top
Lotus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 17-Aug-2006
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 117
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lotus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 10:37

There is an article here contrasting the capabilities or the Eurofighter and Raptor

Gen. John P. Jumper US  Air Force chief of staff is the only person to have flown both ( when the article was written in 2005)

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/03/mil-050322-afpn02.htm

 

 

"The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive," he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. -- all absolutely top notch. The manoeuvrability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."
The F/A-22 performs in much the same way as the Eurofighter.

 

"The F/A-22 Raptor has stealth and supercruise," he said. "It has the ability to penetrate virtually undetected because of (those) capabilities. It is designed to be a penetrating airplane. It can manoeuvre with the best of them if it has to, but what you want to be able to do is get into contested airspace no matter where it is."

 

So I guess once the planes have detected one another, the dog fighting ability of each plane is similar, I suppose however that the design of the Raptor ensures that it wont be the one detected first.

 

The most important thing in my opinion is what the plane looks like and how it performs at air shows, Tongue

I saw the Eurofighter at last years Farnborough air show, and it is a fantastic looking plane. I guess it will be a while before the US air force brings out its latest toys for us to look at.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.