It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why isn't Eurofighter getting stealth?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
well mad man we are grate ful that u came through for us BUT u arnt our defense force i think our military could handle its self quite nicely if we went on the defensive
what with our reserves being so well trained


huh? I didn't say anything about this - You must have misread someone elses name for mine. I have no doubt you could defend your self. I do believe it would be foolish to deny the aid of such a powerful and close ally as the US though.




posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
woooah man i think im going crazy im sure some 1 said ud think u would be grateful for the US help oh and cool the revolution war was against BRITAIN not ENGLAND sorry if this is a small thing but frankly i hate it when we scotish died and england gets some glory for it!


ppp

posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   
"When did you give us carriers? I must have missed that one."

in ww2 to fight the japs.

"If the American Revolution wasn't a war against England, then who was it against?"

fellow americans. the word revolution kinda gives a subtle hint in that.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppp
"When did you give us carriers? I must have missed that one."

in ww2 to fight the japs.

Other way around there buddy..... The US Gave our English buds ships and and arms. Think about it - While England was getting bombed every day, the US was untouched. We were giving you guys stuff before we were even involved in the war.

"If the American Revolution wasn't a war against England, then who was it against?"

fellow americans. the word revolution kinda gives a subtle hint in that.


You are thinking of the American CIVIL war. The revolutionary war was to be free of English rule over us. Hence the old story - "THE RED COATS ARE COMING, THE RED COATS ARE COMING!!!" Those were Brittish (or English - sorry, I don't want to offend a fellow Scottsman
please correct me if i'm wrong) soldiers.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppp
"When did you give us carriers? I must have missed that one."

in ww2 to fight the japs.

Are you kidding me? Did you ever hear of lend lease? I have never heard of you giving us carriers. Perhaps you can post a link or a few names?

"If the American Revolution wasn't a war against England, then who was it against?"

fellow americans. the word revolution kinda gives a subtle hint in that.


And who did we revolt against?



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppp
And USA is a generation behind because I have seen articulated lorries that turn better than an F/A-22.

"Thrust vectoring..."

It will be added in the future, but there is no need for it. Many poepl on this forum like to say the worst thing you can lose in a dogfight is speed! Im sure you are aware of the effect thrust vectoring has on a fighters speed in dogfights! By contrast canards dont cause a large loss of speed. TVC is a neat trick, but its more useful for taking off with a heavy load (which F/A-22 will never do) or for taking off on short runways.

It can just point the nose up or down, not turn the aircraft as 3D vectoring does. Thrust vectorisng is no use in a dogfight with a fighter equiped with canards!


I don't think you understand how aircraft maneuver in combat. It is true that the F-22 uses 2D thrust vectoring to vary the pitch of the nose. However, the aircraft has a phenomenal roll rate independent of thrust vectoring. The aircraft simply rolls to a new bank angle and uses the thrust vectoring to pitch the nose in any desired direction. This gives the aircraft the ability to point its nose just about anywhere it wants to even as the opponent pulls high g's to try to get away. If the F-22 gets into a close-in engagement thrust vectoring gives the plane the ability turn inside the opponent and remain on his tail no matter what he does. This capability is a vast improvement over planes like the F-4, F-14 and F-15 that were almost always pitted against more maneuverable opponents. As for canards, they have some advantages but become ineffective at high alpha because of flow separation and low dynamic pressure. Thrust vectoring is unaffected by high angle of attack aerodynamics.

You seem to be a big fan of 3D thrust vectoring, but I should point out that there are no production aircraft in the world that have this ability because there isn't any significant advantage to doing so given the complexity of the nozzle design. I'm sure you'll say the Su-37 uses 3D thrust vectoring, but it's really a "psudeo-3D" effect. The designers merely rolled the 2D nozzles off the vertical so that they have a limited effect on yaw. NASA and German research on the X-31 concluded that the advantages of 3D thrust vectoring simply weren't worth it.


Originally posted by ppp
But Raptor will appear on the PIRATE IRST before Eurofighter will on F22's IRST.


I'm not familiar with the system you speak of, but IR sensors are secondary. As I said earlier, radar remains the dominant method to detect an aircraft at long range. By the time the F-22 is close enough to be picked up by IR, odds are that it will already have shot you down. As American Mad Man said, the goal of the F-22 is to detect a target, track it, fire upon it, and destroy it before the adversary even knows you're there.


Originally posted by ppp
Wow...those are the BVR results, the comment was on dogfighting. This proves nothing in respect to dogfighting, unless radar range somehow relates to turning an aircraft?


I wasn't commenting on dogfighting, just replying to your contention that the Typhoon is "9 points" below the F-22. The comparison provided in the site I mentioned suggests that the differential is much more significant, at least in the long-range air-to-air role.

I suspect that the percentage comparisons you cited are an overall rating for all classes of combat--air-to-air and air-to-ground. The F-22 was originally designed purely for air superiority and only recently has taken on a ground attack role. As a result, the aircraft is rather limited in what it can carry since the internal bays were not sized around large air-to-surface weapons. (Though it should be noted that the latest weapon being integrated is the Small Diameter Bomb, of which four could be carried in each bay.) The Typhoon, however, was designed from the start as a multi-role air and ground attack platform. As a result, the Typhoon is much better in the ground attack role since it can carry much more ordnance for that type of combat. This factor raises the Typhoon's overall score in comparison with the F-22. Nevertheless, the Raptor remains superior in the air-to-air roll since it is so much more difficult to detect in the first place and it has such exceptional maneuverability.

What is important is that both aircraft have their strengths and weaknesses based on the requirements they were designed for. That's why I dislike comparing planes against each other--because there is no right answer. If you ever get into aircraft design in an aerospace engienering program, you'll see what I mean.


Originally posted by ppp
"but this is just food for thought"

Eat some before you post in future


I'm not sure why you're insulting me, but it appears that you are simply a contrarian type of person who likes to stir up trouble, based on your other posts. I suggest that you learn the fine arts of respect and politeness in expressing your views. You will have far greater success in making friends and influencing people if you do so.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by aerospaceweb
I'm not sure why you're insulting me, but it appears that you are simply a contrarian type of person who likes to stir up trouble, based on your other posts. I suggest that you learn the fine arts of respect and politeness in expressing your views. You will have far greater success in making friends and influencing people if you do so.


Hear Hear.

Obviously this guy flys off the handle when it comes to posting.

PPP do yourself a favor and research before posting.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by ppp
"When did you give us carriers? I must have missed that one."

in ww2 to fight the japs.


Are you kidding me? Did you ever hear of lend lease? I have never heard of you giving us carriers. Perhaps you can post a link or a few names?


My best guess is that ppp is thinking of the couple of British carriers that operated in the Pacific during the closing stages of the war against Japan. They were still operated by British crewman and not "given" to the US in any way. They merely operated alongside the US Navy, as allies tend to do...

[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The Eurofighter shouldn't even be compared with the Raptor. It should be compared to the JSF, since the JSF will be primarily a "multi-role" fighter, just as the Eurofighter.


seekerof



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
we arnt comparing it to the f22 cause we know theres no point
also can i say 1 thing to u americans THIS COUNTRY IS NOT ENGLAND IT IS THE UNITED KINGDOM ! DO U GET THAT NOT ENGLAND BUT THE UK !
secondly who cares who done what thats the past this is the present we should be concerned about the future!



posted on Apr, 21 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppp
"Boeing is the single largest military producer in the free world right now."

But that is including civilian and military, when counting pure military BAE is the largest!

"u arnt our defense force i think our military could handle its self quite nicely if we went on the defensive
what with our reserves being so well trained"

Yes, Britain is better than the USA at fighting wars, thats a fact! Britain has never lost a war (remember the American revolution wasnt a war against Britain ). Britain has this record despite having to fight the whole European continent for 3 years without military help, and also having to support Russia and give the USA carriers when they finally entered the war som thyey could fight Japan.

Britain also fought the Falklands without assistance, and has invaded the USA and burned down washington.


I think we cant safely say that Britain can doa little more than defend itself. By contrast, the USA seems to lose every war unless Britain is helping them.

If Britain pulls out of Iraq, the USA will have 100,000 stiff's


Okay, you kind of people make me stay on these forums. Okay, first, Britian never faced America, that guy with the horse running down the street yelling "The British are Coming" are chanting for when our allies come, you can help us out. Right? I think I am right?


Please, I could write a MLA research paper on this topic how you are wrong. Thank you



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
the falklands was a disater !
i mean we lost about 200 men there !



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   
oh thank god a long awaited euro fight Pro post..........stay strong fellow euros our plane rains supreme ....for now....



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Not as long as these 'puppies' are around:






seekerof



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
really people, we have enough problems with terrorists now. Both the raptor and the Eurofighter are best suited for their respective countrys so dont compare them.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppp
Yes, Britain is better than the USA at fighting wars, thats a fact! Britain has never lost a war (remember the American revolution wasnt a war against Britain ). Britain has this record despite having to fight the whole European continent for 3 years without military help, and also having to support Russia and give the USA carriers when they finally entered the war som thyey could fight Japan.

Britain also fought the Falklands without assistance, and has invaded the USA and burned down washington.


I think we cant safely say that Britain can doa little more than defend itself. By contrast, the USA seems to lose every war unless Britain is helping them.

If Britain pulls out of Iraq, the USA will have 100,000 stiff's


Ehm, ehm. Britain never lost a war? How about hundred years war? American independence war? 2 Afganistan wars in 19. century? Suez 1956? Whole imperium lost in 50ties?



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   
longbow can i point out 1 little thing to u if we actually cared about those pitiful countries we would have done someing about it and also the falklands might have been a disaster but we sure kicked some ass i mean come on we took on a larger force and won !!!!
and seekrof good point but they wont be flying against each other most likely alongside each other !

[Edited on 05/03/2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Typhoon_______+00.5db =1.5m
Rafale________+00.0db =1.0m
B-1B/F-18E____+00.0db =1.0m


Got these RCS figures from another site. How accurate are they?

Does that make the Tornado 6m RCS? How does the RAM help, since this is as big as any normal fighter sized target!

With all this F-22 Vs TYphoon I would not worry. Since the USA government will have to send a suppliment to the suppliment they already attached to the budget ...in order to cover the Iraq occupation, they will have to hack and slash there way through weapons programs and F-22 is a prime candidate for the budget axe.

Thats the most lethal weapon of all the budget axe. It can kill hundreds of precious fighter jets with a single stroke


[Edited on 22-4-2004 by psteel]



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
since the retirement of the ef-111 advark, the usaf does not have any jamming aircraft. Ehy dont they buy ea-18g's like the us navy?



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
since the retirement of the ef-111 advark, the usaf does not have any jamming aircraft. Ehy dont they buy ea-18g's like the us navy?


Wrong, they have the use of EA-6B's that are manned by joint USAF and USN teams.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join