Russia's new stealth fighter, co-developed with India

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont think I have seen anything more than one or two pilots though, my source shows a sortie excerise rather than just a pilot or two. The difference is, iirc the EF never had to sit for maintance for 30 hours per 1 or w/e and has no reduction in performance in weather while the F-22 does.

Its payload size, uses (due to being multirole) and effectiveness in all situations are on a better cost margin. It even has better protection.

Out of interest, what source states the F-22 has actually beaten the EF in tests to counter my own? I have not actually seen a source from an event like I showed above. I just typed in F-22 beats Eurofighter and the first page of results was instead "EF beats F-22".

Your video is about as useful/reliable as my google searches. Probably both biased by the creators out to prove a point.

So we're talking maintenance or actual ability once up in the air? Cos I don't think anyone is saying the F-22 isn't ridiculously priced and high to maintain.

No idea if an F-22 has "beaten" a EF in a combat simulation. Considering the countries aren't at war and they're designed for different purposes, not sure if one exist to begin with. I'd imagine it's be all over the net if so, either way.

Arguable, because your internet searches could include posters on bias forums, while the actual airforce magazine quoted is unbias as an argument point of view here even if its bias on a political point of view in the real world. Although your right, every source we can find is bias to some degree and the planes cannot be properly compared, however...things like the maintanance are undeniable.

Well its part of the system in question. How useful is the F-22 as a combat platform compared to others if it has critical failures all the time, if I had a machinegun that can spit out hundreds of more bullets, with more accuracy than yours in half the time but mine overheats before it gets to effective status and has to go to the workshop for hours of repairs before being used, mine despite being slightly less effective is the better choice.

Well the EF locking the F-22 and successfully working with it is all over the net, but a lot of people just label it as propaganda, although half the time those people are soon to speak up and call the F-22 superior to all Air to air planes, with sources that are also all propaganda.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont know if its online unfortunatly, I have looked around but to no success.

I dont think the generation of tech used on either planes is much different, their going to use similiar weapons, tracking systems and their engines give off only slightly different thrust/weight ratios.

The only thing the F-22 has that the EF does not have at such high angles is stealth but, at some angels EF apprently equels it and radar is developing quicker than stealth and can lock onto a different spectram such as heat or EM.

the EF is slower, which is crucial to air combat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Specifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications

the range on the eurofighter is vastly superior though...

as to the maintenance thing, your machine gun analogy would be apt if F22s were constantly failing mid operation. They say they average a major issue about 1 per hour of flight time. How long are typical combat operations? if they aren't over an hour of flight time, then the maintenance issue isn't going to have a major impact on combat performance a majority of the time. With the low range of the F22, I tend to think that suggests they don't have long missions?

EDIT: and in terms of a fleet, so long as you aren't using them all every 30 hours, the time required to fix them isn't an issue either, as you can fly the operational ones on missions while you repair the ones just back from missions. It increases costs and man hours, but shouldn't reduce combat effectiveness, so long as you don't need to run constant hour+ operations with all of the craft.

on the contary, the F-22 page seems to be more specific for the "Mach" number, if you look at the actual Mph you get;

F-22; 1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h
EF; 2,495 km/h/1,550 mph

The EF is also smaller and lighter and as stated in the other article, quite agile. Further, off boresight is superior (if its close to the opponent) and if your interested, I think theres a video on the EF piolot suit that allows piolots to survive such high sustained G-forces, not sure F-22 has such feature (sustained G forces).

Also, what if a mission does cover an hour or more, and theres critical errors? I would not want to be in the F-22 if I could choose.

But surely you agree, having a plane that needs so much maintance and so often, is flawed. Even if it "is" as good as propaganda claims (superior to all other planes in the air theater of war) its just not necessery in todays market and its role can be replaced by others, like the EF.

Also I am curious, because I mainly dnot know how would an F-22 function if you wanted to use it to combat a threat in Europe or east? With such a low operational range, its going to have to be shipped over to us and then launch from an allied air base, assuming you were in a code red or the need was urgent (something fanciful like a major air strike from rogue Chinese elements) then its no doubt going to need repairs and such, and take too long to be useful and operational.

that last question could be asked of any plane that can't be put on a carrier, but good point none the less

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123010102

3/22/2005 - WASHINGTON -- The Air Force chief of staff added to his 5,000-plus flying hours with familiarization flights in both the F/A-22 Raptor and the Eurofighter aircraft.

Gen. John P. Jumper said the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. He is the only person to have flown both aircraft.

"They are different kinds of airplanes to start with," the general said. "It's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance."

The Raptor is the latest addition to the Air Force combat aircraft inventory. The Eurofighter is a combat fighter aircraft designed and produced as a joint effort by several European countries.

Despite being designed for different missions, General Jumper said the Eurofighter and the Raptor are equally high-tech aircraft.

"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 maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."

The F/A-22 performs in much the same way as the Eurofighter, General Jumper said. But it has additional capabilities that allow it to perform the Air Force's unique missions.

"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 maneuver 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."

General Jumper said he believes the Eurofighter and the Raptor will help America's allies and the Air Force each perform their part of the overall mission as they work together to execute the war on terror.

"We do things in a complementary way," he said. "We have been to war with our allies in Desert Storm, in Kosovo and more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. We all have our roles to play, and the role of the U.S. Air Force is in many ways to kick down the door and make sure the airspace is available for people to do whatever it is they want to do in the air or on the ground under that airspace."

One advantage of having flown the Eurofighter, General Jumper said, is that it allows him to get first-hand knowledge of technology U.S. allies use and to see how America's handiwork stacks up. He said he believes the two aircraft are running neck-and-neck, but America must always be vigilant to ensure it stays on the cutting edge of aviation technology.

"You can see the technology that is out there compared with ours," he said. "You see the avionics and all of the great progress that has been made. You make sure you are not too complacent, because the technology that they have is very competitive with technology that we have."

interesting

Yes I recall that, so he claims their fairly neck and neck then overall but have different purposes. Theres no major advantage to either side based on what he could percieve anyway.

ya, i may have overestimated how specialized the F22 was, I thought there were very major differences in performance between strike fighters and pure fighters

EDIT: I still think stealth is a massive advantage in a lot of ways

well perhaps, but as he said it uses that stealth for special missions. The EF would probably have to fire a long range cruise missle like the stormshadow (shown below, also shows off boresight) or something to defeat the same target as the F-22, rather than actually fly into such territory. But I dont hold much faith in stealth, I think theres too many factors, from weather to general angles (at some angels, heat and other things more obvious on radar) and at the end of the day, stealth only has breakthroughs every few decades, iirc I read radar upgrades on a far more regular basis.

Also, just an excuse to post this video, it would probably have to launch a cruise missle like below;

YouTube video

Obviously, this is propaganda/sales based but as were talking about planes, somehow relevent and cool all the same.

Originally posted by Burning thought
well perhaps, but as he said it uses that stealth for special missions. The EF would probably have to fire a long range cruise missle like the stormshadow or something to defeat the same target as the F-22, rather than actually fly into such territory. But I dont hold much faith in stealth, I think theres too many factors, from weather to general angles (at some angels, heat and other things more obvious on radar) and at the end of the day, stealth only has breakthroughs every few decades, iirc I read radar upgrades on a far more regular basis.

I think you're downplaying the effectiveness of stealth.

If it was really as useless as you make it out to be then governments around the world wouldn't be chomping at the bit to get their hands on it.

lol, no, im not under any impression that it makes the plane undetectable at all times, but in a dogfight, having some protection against being detected, imho, is better than not.

See, and I get the same feeling now reading about the F35, I think the Eurofighter might be superior specifically because it has been so streamlined for its specific purpose... I guess I always assumed that something like the f22 was designed only with dogfight/escort sort of things in mind, not to be this fighter-that-also-penetrates-that-can-also-do-X, etc. Or like, with the F35, how they are trying to make a single model that is useful for the airforce, army and navy.

lol, if I were a general, my "fighter" would have a very clearly defined role. I don't see what any air to ground capabilities are important in something you want to use to keep enemy planes off your strike craft... but lol, Im no general

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hasn't there even been one stealth aircraft shot down in the 30-40 years since stealth technology has been in use?

I think you're downplaying the effectiveness of stealth.

If it was really as useless as you make it out to be then governments around the world wouldn't be chomping at the bit to get their hands on it.

I think a nighthawk was shot down at some point but you cant say "no stealth planes have been shot down", theres not vast amounts of use of them is there, were not at war afterall.

Not really, stealth is useful yes, but it has a long list of weaknesses and on top of that, the uses it can be used in are concerning older generation tech. Infra red, EM emissions and radar tracking has come a long way. As pointed out, a bit of rain can reduce the stealth, and if the F-22 wants to hold more fuel or weapons to equel the kiling capacity of other planes, its got to put things on its pylons like those planes, and ruin some of its stealth. What I am saying is, stealth over complicates things.

The F-35 is mainly useful for a VTOL and carrier platform craft, or at least thats my view on why the UK is getting them. Eurofighters, just like the F-22 cannot fly from carriers.

Also, what sources state their "chomping at the bit"?, not many nations even try and build stealth aircraft, the Eurofighter does not have "much" compared to the F-22, neither do most western or eastern craft.

Originally posted by inimalist

lol, if I were a general, my "fighter" would have a very clearly defined role. I don't see what any air to ground capabilities are important in something you want to use to keep enemy planes off your strike craft... but lol, Im no general

That's the main purpose of the F-22, fly in and demolish the enemies air offensive.

The doubling as a ground attack fighter and intelligence roles are extra selling points, though there are craft that can handle those better. I can't imagine the military would send an F-22 to take out enemy tank(s) if an A-10 Warthog is available.

They should just build the jet from the film 'Firefox', that thing can outrun missiles.

Phuck jets, build a gundam.

The intelligence "roles" are the only selling point it has that other fights cannot necesserily do, although mainly redundant as I think I am right in saying there are other, more cost effective ways to get survailance.

Or the jet from "stealth" lol.

Originally posted by Mindset
Phuck jets, build a gundam.

The Japanese are working on them.

Or use swarms of Taranis UCAVs from a drone ship off shore that can recover and maintain them. Covers the problem of putting human lives on the line and makes war what it always should have been, a jolly good fun way of letting off steam.

With Steve Jobs gone Bill Gates is our last chance against the Japanese horde.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I think a nighthawk was shot down at some point but you cant say "no stealth planes have been shot down", theres not vast amounts of use of them is there, were not at war afterall.

Not really, stealth is useful yes, but it has a long list of weaknesses and on top of that, the uses it can be used in are concerning older generation tech. Infra red, EM emissions and radar tracking has come a long way. As pointed out, a bit of rain can reduce the stealth, and if the F-22 wants to hold more fuel or weapons to equel the kiling capacity of other planes, its got to put things on its pylons like those planes, and ruin some of its stealth. What I am saying is, stealth over complicates things.

The F-35 is mainly useful for a VTOL and carrier platform craft, or at least thats my view on why the UK is getting them. Eurofighters, just like the F-22 cannot fly from carriers.

Also, what sources state their "chomping at the bit"?, not many nations even try and build stealth aircraft, the Eurofighter does not have "much" compared to the F-22, neither do most western or eastern craft.

Yet the only instance I can recall of a stealth plane being shot down was a Nighthawk in Yugoslavia, and that instance I believe was in large part thanks to luck.

Well there's this plane as well as China's new stealth fighter. Any nation that has aspirations of taking on the USA seems to be looking for it.

You can say the same for a lot of craft, opportunities but you dont always get jet craft of any kind falling from the sky.

You dont need stealth to take on the USA. Stealth, as I said is an additional factor to using a plane, with many disavantages for the sake of a few bonus missions it can run, like as others have said, recon and deep strikes.

You could argue that all their trying to do, is match what is percieved by America as advanced, regardless of how effective it is.