"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Chad
Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Got numbers for that one? Be interesting to see what they're
using.

The only claims I see are from various Eurofighter sites, which
variously compare it to the F-16 or the Tornado. Basically, it's
about
1/4 ot the frontal RCS of most standard fighters.

Too vague to be useful, then.

Over what aspects?

Over almost all aspects. You can see a lot of this just by looking
at
the structure of the planes. The Eurofighter is a basic F-16/F-5
replacement, with some blending and a lot of composites, but not
anywhere near ehough of the full blending and special treatments
that
you need for a real stealth plane.

Okay, there's the disagreement. You're looking for "real stealth",
we're
looking for significant RCS reduction. Invisibility gets expensive
fast:
there are other ways to improve your odds.

....

Then why are you in such complete denial of how stealth works? I'm
serious... if you know about planes and stealth, this is
kindergarten-level stuff.

Depends if your mantra is making the aircraft invisible, or making
it
harder to detect, tricky to track and a lot more difficult to hit.

Paul, this is silly. As you say, F-22s are highly unlikely to do
battle with EUian Typhoons in this universe at least.

That said, you know as well as I that detection range is a 4th root
function of RCS. That means that small changes in RCS make_very_small
changes in detection range. While no-one is publishing "official" RCS
measurements, Typhoon is likely to have an RCS on the same order as an
F-18E/F while the F-22 has been described by official sources to be in
the F-117 range. The difference in detection ranges between the two is
likely to be at least a factor of 10, militarily important especially
when each type, now retasked to air-to-mud, has to deal with things
like SA-10/20s.