In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Equivalent value, the Raptor is outnumbered: it's better but not _that_
much better.

The Raptor *might be* outnumbered, if everyone in Europe follows through
with their complete purchasing plans.

And in some areas (radar cross-section, for example), it's in a
completely different class.

Evidence for that, Mr Irby? It's a claim much advanced but never
substantiated.

Here's a better one: the Eurofighter has *never* been claimed to be a
full stealth fighter (except in a few brochures, where they stretch the
definition of "stealth" to include a smaller airframe and smokeless
engines). It has a somewhat reduced radar cross-section (about a
quarter of an F-16 from head-on, which isn't really saying much), but
it's nothing like the full stealth plane the Raptor was designed to be.
Just *looking* at the two planes makes that pretty bloody obvious.

Having a neatokeen Eurofighter won't help, if the other side can see
you from four times as far away as you can see them.

Again, source for this claim?

Stealth versus non-stealth. Modern aircraft technology. You should
read up on it. An RCS of a meter or so, versus an RCS the size of a
bird (or less, they're very vague about how small the RCS of the F-22
is). Note also that the only aspect they really claim as being very low
RCS for the Typhoon is the head-on one, not the sides or from the rear.

In a head to head fight, the Raptor will be killing Typhoons
while the Typhoons would still be trying to get a target lock.

Once again, is this based on analyis or on a sales brochure?

Stealth versus non-stealth. When you can't target someone else, and
they can still target you, you're screwed.

The Typhoon's radar is also a problem. Since the Typhoon wasn't
designed to be a stealth fighter, the radar they picked isn't a
low-detection type (like the Raptor's). The Raptor will often be
*acquiring* Typhoons before the Typhoon even knows it's being looked at.

Radar is only one sensor. A good fighter uses much more than one radar.

Yes, they also use the Eyeball Mk1 (the Raptor has some camouflage work
done in its paint job which makes it a bitch to see at even medium
range), infrared (the Raptor has IR-dispersal tech built into the
exhaust), and emissions (the F-22 has a good emission-control design).
Reduced emissions also makes any ECM you use immensely more effective,
since you can use much lower power levels and have less chance of a
passive homing system getting you.

The Eurofighter has, well, more composites than older planes, and a
little bit of stealth design in the fuselage. And then they hang all of
the weapons on the outside and give it a few ECM bits. Not good enough.

On current trends the RAF will get more Typhoons than the USAF will
Raptors...

Nope. The US plans on buying 339 Raptors (and with the changes over the
last two years, will probably have to buy more), while England only
currently plans to buy 232 Typhoons.

The US was going to buy 750+ Raptors. Now it's down to 339 and still
falling. We've signed a contract, the US hasn't.

Maybe so, but we're certainly going to buy them, and the European
countries are having money problems for the much cheaper and less
effective Eurofighters.

The F-22 is a really, really good aircraft but it's too damn expensive.
Sixty years ago the Me-262 outclassed almost anything in the sky - but
it was defeated by superior numbers of inferior planes.

There's a difference between having "less" and "not having enough."

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.