In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22.

No, PIRATE's autonomous.

Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
boat.

How are you getting the firing solution? Radar? Put out many megawatts
of coherent microwaves and hope that a notional "low probability of
intercept" radar is actually a "zero PoI", because Typhoon has a rather
good RHAWS of its own?

About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
AMRAAM's range.

Where's the Raptor getting *its* targeting data from?

It's a similar problem to the submarine arena: once you get into
stealthy-passive mode, you end up with weapons that grossly outrange the
sensors cueing them. The need to not only find targets, but be
reasonably confident of what you're shooting at and the constraints of
ROE, is a serious problem if you're flying around cold-nosed.

its has a wider
range of missile countermeasures,

So the decoy-on-a-string is better than all-aspect stealth huh? You
must know something the USAF doesn't.

Depends on a lot of issues, few of which are suited to a public debate
demanding numbers. Also, how 'all-aspect' is the F-22's stealth? We both
know that no trustworthy RCS plots will be published any time soon.

Some claim it's heavily optimised to reduce its RCS from the front,
others that it's invisible all-around. (I'm willing to believe 'damn
hard to see from the frontal arc' but how do you stealth TV nozzles?)

On the naval side, the USN has worked hard and, I'm told, successfully
to reduce the RCS of its DDG-51s. It has also invested in active
offboard decoys for them (cf. Nulka) and keeps an interest in passive
decoys too: because low signature is a means to an end, not an end in
itself.

just a couple of areas where the
Raptor 'Comes up short'.

How about something tangible?

'Comes up short' is a real overstatement for the Raptor. Perhaps "fails
to demonstrate a clear relationship between increased cost and increased
capability" would be better.

If four enemy MiG-29s come up to fight each of the UK and the US, and
the Eurofighters shoot down all four, how does the Raptor manage to be
"more capable" than shooting down all four? Shoot them down, rebuild the
wrecks, reanimate the pilots, then shoot them down again?

Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
way tactically there's little in it,

Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?

Not for escort work - unless your strikers can also cruise at that
speed, no point leaving them behind.

Not for fighter sweeps - you're stealthy, they don't know you're there,
you just supercruise past leaving them blithely ignorant. (Or you
broadcast your presence, and hope they come up to fight... what if they
don't?)

Not for holding station on BARCAP - you're covering a location, who
cares how quickly you go around the racetrack while you're waiting

Not really for interception - you're not worried about loiter, you're
wanting to get to the Bad Guys ASAP.

I'm sure there *is* a current tactical advantage to supercruise, but
it's not immediately obvious against the current threat. (As opposed to
the original problem)

All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor

From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.

Of course. The F-22 probably does better in most sustained turn arenas
as well, once its thrust vectoring kicks in. (But dodging missiles in a
BVR fight is an instantaneous issue... sustained turn is for WVR fights,
where stealth is irrelevant)

Its not all one sided you know!.

Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long. It just seems like
certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.

The F-22 is a fantastic aircraft and without a doubt the best air-to-air
platform that anyone's likely to see for some while. It's even better
than the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes, I admit it), though there's a valid
argument about the cost-versus-capability tradeoff if the two faced off
(shades of P-51 Mustangs versus Me-262s... the jet was clearly
individually superior, but was outnumbered too badly by a 'good enough'
opponent to prevail).

The trouble is, it's perhaps *too* fantastic: it dates back to when the
assorted fUSSR fantasy-uberfighters were considered real threats.

There's much less of a credible air threat now, than there was when both
Raptor and Typhoon started life. It keeps coming back to the problem
that, unless you expect them to fight each other, they both thoroughly
overmatch the likely enemy, and one's about twice the cost of the other.


But what do you do with the huge sunk costs (both financial and
political) of the F-22 program? Bin it and buy a cheaper and provably
less capable foreign competitor? Yes, *that* is a sure vote-winner. Cut
the numbers back, like the B-2, and get a silver-bullet force while
seeking a cheaper alternative (like an air-to-air dedicated JSF)?

Damdifino.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk