F-22 Raptor vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Discussion in 'Military Aviation' started by p2prada, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    An interesting write up in favour of the F-22.

    [​IMG]

    Some points to note,
    Pretty interesting that both F-22 and EF have very high AoAs (50[SUP]o[/SUP] for EF and 60[SUP]o[/SUP] for F-22 with FCS limitations). But the F-22 manages unlimited AoA with TVC. So, this helped get more kills for the F-22.

    Undisputed as of today. No doubt about it.

    Too bad this configuration will not exist during war time. At the same time the F-22's performance will remain off the charts while carrying 8 missiles internally.

    Even an IAF pilot claimed the same as that USAF source when it came to the MKI. It seems those on the receiving end of the TVC always claim the aircraft sinks. The USAF claimed the same when MKI used TVC and now the Luftwaffe claims the same when F-22 used TVC. Interesting. So, who's telling the truth?

    F-22 vs Eurofighter BFM in Alaska - The DEW Line
     
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  2.  
  3. methos

    methos Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    298
    I think it is not clear what is exactly meant with "slicked off as much as possible". If this only means "no external fuel tanks", then it sure is a configuration which will exist in war time - even though a war in central europe is very unlikely. Flying without external fuel tanks was planned during Cold War for a number of different tasks by the Germans. Using the EF without external fuel tanks was also done sometimes in Austria (simply because the ÃœG won't need external fuel tanks during most interception missions).

    I don't know, it is kinda hard to say. I remember that the Rafale also claims to have managed to beat the F-22 in the dogfight aspect. As far as thrust vectoring is concerned: Germany and the U.S. did a lot of thrust vectoring research together (essentially the X-31 is one of the main incarnations of this), while all Eurofighter-producing countries had a lot of experience in developing TVC, but still didn't went for it on the EF, while France didn't want TVC for the Rafale.
     
  4. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Grune was most probably talking about an aircraft carrying only internal fuel. So, no missiles and no ammo for the cannon.

    The problem is pretty much all training dog fights happen under set RoE, either set by the adversary, by oneself or by an external factor which may limit one aircraft and advantage the other.

    From the article,
    While certain uncontrollable factors such as weather and manoeuvring limitations did not allow for full-up engagements,

    I suppose they are talking about the OBOGS issue.

    So, these fights are not always a benchmark to what may happen in real combat. I am pretty sure you already know that.

    It would seem only those who can afford it are going for it. Britain, Germany and France had no need to waste billions on TVC to have the minimum capability required by their respective air forces. But it is in no way a novelty item considering the 3 of the 4 largest air forces are confirmed to have opted for it, US, Russia and India.

    Nevertheless I have read that designers don't see many advantages in TVC on medium and light aircraft because they already have aerodynamic advantages as compared to the heavier aircraft like F-22 or PAKFA without TVC.
     
  5. methos

    methos Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    298
    I don't think that they would simulate combat without dummy ammo and missiles - that would be pretty dumb and should not be the aim of a simulated combat. The article on flightglobal.com mentions that the aircraft were fitted with special equipment not used on other German EF, because they wanted to imitate the way the Brittons use their EFs... maybe this is part of the "slicked off"-thing.

    In the end they all have already wasted millions/billions on developing various prototypes with TVC. Germany developed 4 engines/aircraft with TVC, of which two were once sheduled for serial production until they were canceled. The Brittons, Italians and French also had various experimental TVC aircraft. I think the technology for TVC was more or less available without much increase in development costs - maybe the serial price would be higher due to production costs, but then again the EF programme was a pretty ambitious project.
     
  6. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Then the airframe is no longer "slicked off as much as possible" because the first step in lightening an aircraft is removing external stores.

    The entire exercise seemed to be about getting gun kills, so an external store isn't necessary.

    I reread the article. I did not read anything about the Germans actually adding something extra on the EF.

    Yeah. Development is fine and so was the technology, but lifecycle costs and maintenance is not fine. The nozzle on the MKI's AL-31FP has half the life as conventional nozzles. Apart from that the stress on the airframe is much higher. So, costs would have played a factor in not going for TVC.
     
  7. methos

    methos Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    298
    Gunkills are very rare in modern air-to-air combat and not the sole part of modern dogfight. "slicked off as much as possible" could mean "slicked off as much as possible while retaining the capabilities required for close air combat (dogfights)".

    Ironically, all the pictures taken from the U.S. airbase show the EFs with external fuel tanks and storage.


    You didn't read the article linked to with the words "Here is the link to the full story" then:
     
  8. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Grune says it all, in the other article
    IN FOCUS: German Eurofighters impress during Red Flag debut
    Basic Fighter Maneuvers or BFM. Done with missiles and guns. In this case most probably guns.

    For BFM, the external load configuration depends on the RoEs. So, you can decide beforehand if you want to carry tanks and weapons or not. You can be sure that the F-22s fought clean. So, to keep it fair, though not realistic, the EF can be expected to fight with a clean configuration as well.

    MKIs have fought clean in many of the simulated dog fights around the world. It won't be any different for other aircraft who will want to keep up with a superior aircraft.

    That's ok. The exercise was a full fledged training exercise with multiple aircraft. The BFM was only a small part of the overall training program.

    Yeah. Thanks for pointing it out, I forgot to check that.

    Anyway the additional sensors don't change the equations that much. They are all internal anyway. It is not necessary that the Germans used these sensors during BFM. Normally you want your aircraft to be very light during such exercises. So, you can say apart from external loads, even fuel was adjusted to match the situation.

    I think we can only agree to disagree here. Nevertheless IMHO, slicked off as much as possible would still mean taking out the external missiles first and then tamper with fuel loads so the aircraft takes off with enough fuel to last the fight. This fuel manipulation applies to the F-22 too. It's nothing different for the MKI either, where the Flanker is a beast at 25-50% fuel load. MKI also flies with clean loads and lesser fuel during such exercises than it will in a regular and more realistic 4+ hour mission. Col Ternof jokingly said the same where BFMs happened with the F-15 tops guns with tanks while the MKIs flew clean. We merely need to know more before confirming it. But this is something that is implied if you see how such exercises have taken place around the world.
     
  9. uvbar

    uvbar Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    23
    f-22 has a high rate of accidents
    f-22 is 150$ mil eurofighter typoon is 69$ mil
    f-22 has opreational problems and spares are costly
    with the devlopement of better radars 5th gen tech will be useless( Israeli statement when asked about f-35c)
    both have BVR warfae (obviously f-22's BVR tech is better but still)
     
  10. average american

    average american Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes Received:
    434
    The radar of the plane with the smallest radar signature is allways going to see the plane with the largest radar signature first, thats never going to change in the real world. In the real world you cant kill what you cant see and thats what will kill you in aerial warfare. Thats worth ten times as much in war.
     
  11. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    3 aircraft have crashed out of the 187. 2 were malfunctions and one was human error.

    The EF is a $100Million aircraft. The Italians are buying it for $78Million but that was 15 years ago.

    The cost vs capability difference is huge.

    Is that why they still went with it?

    These so called better radars only exist on paper. By the time these radars are operational the F-22 would already be obsolete. The F-22 is in the -40dBsm range or 0.0001m[SUP]2[/SUP]. The next step for the Americans is -70dBsm or 0.0000001m[SUP]2[/SUP].

    As of today, radars are useless on aircraft like the F-22, it does not depend on the size, power or band used.
     

Share This Page