Delivery of Raptor delayed

"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?

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

I wonder how F22 is going to do that with its insect size backscatterer RCS
but B-52 size bi-static (forward scatterer) RCS.

Attacking countries with no multi-static radar development capability might be
the solution,but heck,you can attack such countries with B-17s too.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:17:02 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*.

Yup! it may be an upgrade to the raptor at a much later date, so the
Typhoons PIRATE IRST is infinitely better.

IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22.

No the Pirate system is capable of cueing the Missle shot all by
itself, the missile may require mid course guidance if required, but
otherwise its totally passive..

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.

Well the IRST tracked Venus!, the real question is how stealthy to IR
is the Raptor....

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.

Well if a radar missile is actually launched at a Typhoon or an F-22,
I'd rather have a decoy than not have a decoy;-).



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?

As opposed to a cruising Typhoon at Mach 1.5 , its the 0.2 Mach that
has little tactical advantage.

Source


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.

True, IIRC the Typhoon is better at Supersonic speeds around 1.5 or at
least that seems to be the best.

.... 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.

Do they include the Costs for the YF-23??.

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.

Thats not unusual its the same with the Typhoon!.

It just seems like
certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.

And others can see no wrong ;-)

Cheers



Cheers

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

Ooops missed out the source for thwe !.5 Mach claim

"Much is currently being made about supercruise, that is the ability
to cruise supersonically without the use of reheat (afterburn) for
extended periods of time. Although never stated explicitly (as for
example with the U.S. F-22) the Typhoon is capable of and has
demonstrated such an ability since early in its flight program
according to all the Eurofighter partnets. Initial comments indicated
that, with a typical air to air combat load the aircraft was capable
of cruising at M1.2 at altitude (11000m/36000ft) without reheat and
for extended periods. Later information appeared to suggest this
figure had increased to M1.3. However even more recently EADS have
stated a maximum upper limit of M1.5 is possible although the
configuration of the aircraft is not stated for this scenario (an
essential factor in determining how useful such a facility is). "

Cheers
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

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:45:53 +1000, John Cook
wrote:

Ooops missed out the source for thwe !.5 Mach claim

"Much is currently being made about supercruise, that is the ability
to cruise supersonically without the use of reheat (afterburn) for
extended periods of time. Although never stated explicitly (as for
example with the U.S. F-22) the Typhoon is capable of and has
demonstrated such an ability since early in its flight program
according to all the Eurofighter partnets. Initial comments indicated
that, with a typical air to air combat load the aircraft was capable
of cruising at M1.2 at altitude (11000m/36000ft) without reheat and
for extended periods. Later information appeared to suggest this
figure had increased to M1.3. However even more recently EADS have
stated a maximum upper limit of M1.5 is possible although the
configuration of the aircraft is not stated for this scenario (an
essential factor in determining how useful such a facility is). "

Cheers
John Cook


Uh. . . you still missed the source :-). It sounds a lot like the
Airtime Publishing blue book (Airpower somethin-or-other) that had the
Typhoon for the focus aircraft a few years ago though. In it they
mentioned that in turning the Eurofighter could outdo anything except
the F-22 had better sustained turning at both subsonic and supersonic
speed and better instantainious at high speed. The only area the
Eurofighter was better according to the article was instantainious at
subsonic speed.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:43:09 +1000, John Cook
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:17:02 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:



The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*.

Yup! it may be an upgrade to the raptor at a much later date, so the
Typhoons PIRATE IRST is infinitely better.

IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22.

No the Pirate system is capable of cueing the Missle shot all by
itself, the missile may require mid course guidance if required, but
otherwise its totally passive..


But then if the Eurofighter sends an update the F-22s ESM system will
pick it up. Not to mention the missile's terminal radar seeker still
needs to be able to detect 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.

Well the IRST tracked Venus!, the real question is how stealthy to IR
is the Raptor....

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.

Well if a radar missile is actually launched at a Typhoon or an F-22,
I'd rather have a decoy than not have a decoy;-).



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?

As opposed to a cruising Typhoon at Mach 1.5 , its the 0.2 Mach that
has little tactical advantage.

Source


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.

True, IIRC the Typhoon is better at Supersonic speeds around 1.5 or at
least that seems to be the best.

.... 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.

Do they include the Costs for the YF-23??.


I guess it depends on who's doing the math. Do you include all costs
for the entire ATF program or do you start the money-clock ticking
once the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23?




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.

Thats not unusual its the same with the Typhoon!.

It just seems like
certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.

And others can see no wrong ;-)

Nah I can see wrong. The wrongest thing in the whole F-22 soap opera
IMO is how friggin' long they're taking to get everything done. I
don't doubt that's been a significant factor in the total cost of the
program.

Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43...dlines-topnews
The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley Air
Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously planned.

Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still gotten
full scale production?

-HJC

Define full scale.

Many of the early British jets.
The English Electric Lightning.
The F-111.
Possibly the F-102
Brewster Buffalo.

If wanted or needed badly enough then mere obsolence is not a barrier.

bendel boy wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43...dlines-topnews
The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley Air
Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously planned.

Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still gotten
full scale production?

Define full scale.

The F-111.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...11-history.htm
In 1957 the US Navy requested industry responses for the design of a
low-altitude strike fighter.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...1-variants.htm
During a 1972 - 1973 tour of duty in Vietnam, F-111As flew more than 4,000
combat missions.

That's 15 years from inital request to combat operations.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...22-history.htm
In 1981, the Air Force developed a requirement for an Advanced Tactical
Fighter as a new air superiority fighter.

15 years later would be 1996.

What combat missions did the F-22 fly in 1996? ;-)

-HJC