On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:16:47 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

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?

This brings up something I've been wondering. I don't know if this is
urban legend or what. Supposedly workstations dealing with classified
materials have to have the monitors shielded so signals can't be
picked up out the back? I'm wondering, when it comes to your typical
fighter if these same signals are shielded. It seems to me there
would be other sources of electrical "noise" than just an actively
transmitting radar or radio.







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?


From it's LPI radar. In that scenario though it really comes down to
can the Meteor or AMRAAM track an F-22. The Typhoon can stare at the
sucker all day long but if it can't guide a weapon to it without firng
up the radar. . .




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?)



The speed gives you a lot more options though. There were many times
in Desert Storm when they saw aircraft running for Iran but couldn't
get fighters there fast enough because either A) The couldn't get the
speed with their external tanks or B) the didn't have the range if
they punched off the tanks.





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


But you can cover a bigger area with the same reaction time.





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

Yeah top speed is important but unless you have the tankers flying
around to refuel you you aren't going to get very far without external
tanks which drags your speed down. I doubt the numbers are public but
it would be interesting to see the numbers for a simulated 400 mile
intercept flown by an F-22, Eurofighter, F-15, and Mig-31. They have
to fly out, deal with the target, and fly back to base with no
tankers. Who gets there first and who makes it back to base? The
enemy could have stand off weapons so the further out you intercept
the better. It would be interesting to see the results. My money
would be on the Mig.





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)


Last time I checked there are still Su-27s and Mig-31s flying. Come
to think of it there are probably more countries flying Flankers these
days then those generals back in the 80's might have imagined in their
worst nightmares. Or are you saying that since Russia never built the
1.42 or Berkut that we should stick with the thirty year old F-15?
The idea is to be *better* than the other guy not wait until he can
kick your ass before you try to achieve parity.




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).


I don't know. It's pretty tough to over rate stealth. If those were
stealthy Me-262s. . .well back in those days I suppose "invisible"
would have been more appropriate. . . how well would P-51s have
faired?







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


Actually the ATF came about because the Flankers and Fulcrums were
seen as such a threat. The 1.42 got tacked onto the list when it
became apparent they were working on *something* but it was originally
with the Flanker and Fulcrum in mind. They figured trying to make a
fighter MORE manueverable than those two was bumping up against the
old law of diminishing returns so they went a different direction
altogether with the stealth and supercruise.





There's much less of a credible air threat now, than there was when both
Raptor and Typhoon started life.

I would say different not less. How many countries have S-300s? How
many have Flankers? And just because it may *appear* to be less now
doesn't mean it will remain that way. The F-22 is intended to be
viable for the next thirty or more years.



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.


I don't know. How well would a Typhoon do against Su-37s armed with
KS-172s? There are several nations that are shopping for that combo.





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.


Me either. The JSF seems a nonstarter because it's so much slower and
while this isn't the 50's where speed is the be all and end all there
is still a place for it. Also from what I've read the JSF won't
exactly sparkle in a dogfight either. Or carry much of an internal AA
load.