On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:02:28 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 22:31:02 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
No, it's cheaper and easier to maintain than the F/A-22. (Notice the
hasty redesignation? This aircraft can carry two 1000lb bombs, it's a
mighty attack platform! Never mind that the P-47 was doing the same in
1943... that's progress for you). If you _really_ want to cripple the
Arabs, sell them Raptors.

Whether either is 'trash' will be a matter for squadron service to
prove.

Well, it has the RCS of a steel barn door, with or without outboard
stores.

Have you seen the plots, Al, or just LockMart propaganda? What aspect
and frequency are we discussing?

No, I have not seen the plots, but looking at, for instance the
forward aspect, the inlets and turbine blades are going to light up a
radar at quite a range.

And "cheaper" is generally not "better" when it comes to
weapon systems. The Raptor could eat the Eurobird for breakfast.

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

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

They will need them. Of course (I believe) the RAF will also get the
JSF, which will give them a stealthy platform.

Al Minyard