Delivery of Raptor delayed

The
Eurofighter by comparison can fulfill most of the Raptor's job at
one-third of the cost.

So it's what. . .$40 million. Damn let's buy some.

My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.


The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero *might*
equal a Ferrari on one specific point (though admittedly I can't think
of one except maybe weight) but the whole package together is an
entirely different deal. Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.
Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department. Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
other areas.








If Sukhoi built the Su-47 it would still be
less costly, more heavily armed, and more powerful with dogfighting
skills we can't duplicate. Hell, even the Superflanker costs just a
fraction of the F-22. Ansd since the USAF knows its a wasteful program
they have tried to sell other proposed versions, turning it into the
F/A-22, FB-22, and even a more distant X-44 MANTA version.

X-44 "Manta"???? You're an idiot. Do you know what the "X" in X-44
stands for? (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't stand for "X-Men")

And the X-44 is based on what airframe?- the F-22.


And again I say, so what? It was a proposal -years past- for a
modification to ONE prototype to test flight controls. Big friggin
deal. Pretty much every aircraft out there has been used for test
purposes at one time or another. It has absolutley ZERO influence on
whether any of them are bought or not.











Give us
taxpayers a break- buy the F-35 for all services.

Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
by using a direct comparison.

I was using dinosaur in context of the wasteful overbudget program.
The Europeans and Russians have aircraft that could take the F-22 on:
Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Superflanker, Su-47, etc...

The *Gripen*???? A Block 60 F-16 would kick it's ass up around it's
ears let alone an F-22.

Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
a Raptor!!!

LOL!! The Viggen lost out to the F-16 for the European sales so I
guess nobody else agrees with you.





You know you guys only have fun with air superiority when it comes to
striking poor, third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript
pilots... under ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with
no spare parts.

Somebody get me a hanky.




I'm so F**king impressed by America's aerial combat
record over the last quarter century.

Me too. How many US pilots have been downed by opposing fighters?
One? Hell Russian flight demonstration teams (the guys who are
SUPPOSE to be good) have killed more of their own than that.




Let's compare it to the Israeli
record


And who were they fighting? Remind me I forget. Oh yeah , "poor,
third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript pilots... under
ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with no spare parts"




or at least try flying air superiority over Russia, China, N.
Korea- nations that will appear in numbers and fight back with modern
equipment.


They've never really bee stupid enough to start something with us. (So
far anyway.)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:21:14 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:


The
Eurofighter by comparison can fulfill most of the Raptor's job at
one-third of the cost.

So it's what. . .$40 million. Damn let's buy some.

My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.


The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero *might*
equal a Ferrari on one specific point (though admittedly I can't think
of one except maybe weight) but the whole package together is an
entirely different deal. Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.
Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department.

The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors, its has a wider
range of missile countermeasures, just a couple of areas where the
Raptor 'Comes up short'.

Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
other areas.

Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
way tactically there's little in it, BTW Cost is better too!!.


All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor.... one
could argue that for R&D money the Raptor has cost, it should be
better in _all_ areas regardless, and be cheaper to manufacture and
support...

Its not all one sided you know!.

Cheers










If Sukhoi built the Su-47 it would still be
less costly, more heavily armed, and more powerful with dogfighting
skills we can't duplicate. Hell, even the Superflanker costs just a
fraction of the F-22. Ansd since the USAF knows its a wasteful program
they have tried to sell other proposed versions, turning it into the
F/A-22, FB-22, and even a more distant X-44 MANTA version.

X-44 "Manta"???? You're an idiot. Do you know what the "X" in X-44
stands for? (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't stand for "X-Men")

And the X-44 is based on what airframe?- the F-22.


And again I say, so what? It was a proposal -years past- for a
modification to ONE prototype to test flight controls. Big friggin
deal. Pretty much every aircraft out there has been used for test
purposes at one time or another. It has absolutley ZERO influence on
whether any of them are bought or not.











Give us
taxpayers a break- buy the F-35 for all services.

Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
by using a direct comparison.

I was using dinosaur in context of the wasteful overbudget program.
The Europeans and Russians have aircraft that could take the F-22 on:
Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Superflanker, Su-47, etc...

The *Gripen*???? A Block 60 F-16 would kick it's ass up around it's
ears let alone an F-22.

Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
a Raptor!!!

LOL!! The Viggen lost out to the F-16 for the European sales so I
guess nobody else agrees with you.





You know you guys only have fun with air superiority when it comes to
striking poor, third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript
pilots... under ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with
no spare parts.

Somebody get me a hanky.




I'm so F**king impressed by America's aerial combat
record over the last quarter century.

Me too. How many US pilots have been downed by opposing fighters?
One? Hell Russian flight demonstration teams (the guys who are
SUPPOSE to be good) have killed more of their own than that.




Let's compare it to the Israeli
record


And who were they fighting? Remind me I forget. Oh yeah , "poor,
third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript pilots... under
ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with no spare parts"




or at least try flying air superiority over Russia, China, N.
Korea- nations that will appear in numbers and fight back with modern
equipment.


They've never really bee stupid enough to start something with us. (So
far anyway.)

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"John Cook" wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:21:14 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

.

The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero *might*
equal a Ferrari on one specific point (though admittedly I can't think
of one except maybe weight) but the whole package together is an
entirely different deal. Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.
Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department.

The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors, its has a wider
range of missile countermeasures, just a couple of areas where the
Raptor 'Comes up short'.

It other words the Eurofighter was located before the opposition launched a
missile to destroy it. That means the Eurofighter pilot is left with nothing
but the faint hope that the weapon about to destroy his plane will succumb
to the limited number of countermeasures his plane is equipped with due to
budget constraints at the MoD.

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




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.




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

How about something tangible?






Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
other areas.

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?




BTW Cost is better too!!.


No arguement there :-)





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.




.... one
could argue that for R&D money the Raptor has cost, it should be
better in _all_ areas regardless, and be cheaper to manufacture and
support...

There are tradeoffs in where you apply your R&D dollars too. You
figure they built four prototypes of two different designs and two
completely new engines in addition to breaking ground pretty much
everywhere. And sometimes even the mundane ends up costing $$$ when
you factor in the necessity for stealth. I imagine the radome on the
F-22 costs a few bucks more than that of the Eurofighter. Even the
nozzles on the engines are likely significantly more expensive, even
the vectoring aside. None of that stuff comes cheap and it doesn't
help that they stretched the program so long.



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.




Cheers

The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero

Quite correct definition but also unfortunately explains why its already
obsolote.
For example Iowa class Battleships were also in a league of their own,but?

Or lets put this way, could a brand new Ferrari compete with a vintage F86 or
Me262?

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.


The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros.

Which is part of the problem. The requirement is to be "significantly
better than the threat": the F-22 may be a Ferrari, but the Eurofighter
is a Porsche. Both leave the competition behind, but one costs over
twice what the other does. Once you've won, "winning more" doesn't help
that much: what do you do, go back and strafe the wreckage?

Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.

'Reduced RCS' rather than stealth. (Of course, emitting is still a
problem for the F-22 if it wants to stay unobtrusive)

Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department.

True - it's got PIRATE, the F-22 lost its IRST as a cost saver. Be
interesting to compare countermeasure suites, too.

Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department

Where, precisely?

and a plethora of
other areas.

Where does the Eurofighter lack against the current and projected
threat? (Unless you're saying you're going to export full-spec Raptors
to hostile nations...)


On the other hand, it's a lot more flexible. (Well, you *can* hang all
sorts of external ordnance on a F-22 - once it's been through clearance
trials - but there goes the stealth). It's demonstrating excellent
reliability: the ground staff at Warton have allegedly been complaining
that they usually catch up on the flight-test data while the aircraft
are downed, but the Typhoon doesn't break much and is quickly fixed when
it does.

And for a given budget, you can get roughly twice the Eurofighters for
the same force of Raptors: which is important, because both aircraft are
"much better" than the current and projected threat, but numbers end up
counting. Can't attrit an enemy raid if there's no CAP available to hit
it.

Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
a Raptor!!!

LOL!! The Viggen lost out to the F-16 for the European sales so I
guess nobody else agrees with you.

Sweden had a very restrictive arms export policy, which was one of
several factors. They teamed with BAE to sell Gripen for just that
reason. (The Viggen's a solid aircraft, with some advantages over the
F-16A it was competing against, but some drawbacks too. And the F-16 was
and is a very good aircraft, though sometimes much maligned by the
US...)

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

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.


The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros.

Which is part of the problem. The requirement is to be "significantly
better than the threat": the F-22 may be a Ferrari, but the Eurofighter
is a Porsche.

A better description based on "where it is built" would be: mid-range GM
model.

'Reduced RCS' rather than stealth. (Of course, emitting is still a
problem for the F-22 if it wants to stay unobtrusive)


Well,if you start experimenting with the definitions you must also mention two
more of them:

1)Monostatic (backscatterer) RCS.
This is what you are referrring to and this could be reduced very significantly
by hard body shaping.
Both B2 and F22 (at least as far as frontal threat zone concerned) have
identical and excellent backscaterer RCS values.
There is no way that any conventional bacscatterer radar that positioned
inside of their forward thread zone could possibly detect these two planes
before its too late.

2)Bi-Static (forwardscatterer) RCS
Totaly different story here,as Germans and Brits discovered 60 years ago,hard
body shaping significantly reduces the backscatterer,but NOT
forwardscatererers.
On contrary,agressive use of hard body shaping in order to reduce backscaterers
to absulutely lowest levels actualy increases forwardscaterers.

Thats the reason why the planes with insect size monostatic RCS,B2 and F22,have
B-52 size Bi-static RCS,which makes them very vulnerable to the detection using
low power commercial and military emitters.