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.

 

F-22 vs Typhoon (Eurofighter)

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The Europeans will never build an aircraft that can match ours unless we just suddenly give up and then it would take them twenty yearsto match what we presently have. No disrespect or bashing intended, just the plain facts of who we are. I consider England not a part of Europe.


Two points: you overestimate the US aerospace industry (Airbus is bigger than Boeing remember
) and you assume we care.

Our ethos is to build an extremely versitaile plane (i once saw a list of weapons types cleared for the EF, it's stupidly long) that many air forces can use in a range of roles, then build hundreds and hundreds of them, rather than the US idea of building a plane for one specific purpose, build a few hundred then alter it to do other subsidiary roles.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

What you mean is that Airbus is an inferiorly engineered aircraft, therefore cheaper, so they are able to sell more and have a larger workforce. Records will show that Airbus, while everyone seems to like them, has held the record in mechanical failures to which they have no competition.




posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The Europeans will never build an aircraft that can match ours unless we just suddenly give up and then it would take them twenty yearsto match what we presently have. No disrespect or bashing intended, just the plain facts of who we are. I consider England not a part of Europe.

so your saying that the gryfen is a bad plane?considering it had a radar system in standard issue that hadnt even been put on the drawing paper yet.
and your saying that scotland,wales,ni,repulic of ireland,france,germany,norway,denmark,austria,italy,spain,belguim,ukraine,russia,finland,portugal,bulgaria,hungary,belarus,lithuiania,latvia,estonia,t he czech rep,serbia,romania,greece ,switzerland ,albania,moldova, the netherlands and slovakia and iceland oh and not to forget russia. cant make a good plane? uhhh i think your being a BIT optimistic.
also dont call the UK england cause its racist.

You could probably take all the engineers in Europe and put them in a pot, stir it around and dump it and still not come up with a decent one. Oh, by the way, don't call England the UK, that's like calling an American a yankee.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cjwinnit

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The Europeans will never build an aircraft that can match ours unless we just suddenly give up and then it would take them twenty yearsto match what we presently have. No disrespect or bashing intended, just the plain facts of who we are. I consider England not a part of Europe.


Two points: you overestimate the US aerospace industry (Airbus is bigger than Boeing remember
) and you assume we care.

Our ethos is to build an extremely versitaile plane (i once saw a list of weapons types cleared for the EF, it's stupidly long) that many air forces can use in a range of roles, then build hundreds and hundreds of them, rather than the US idea of building a plane for one specific purpose, build a few hundred then alter it to do other subsidiary roles.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

My aplogies for being seemingly over hostile in fact trading in the past, to you,cjwinnit and Devilwasp.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:59 AM
link   
When I read through these postings I really might think that there is a new cold war going on between (old) Europe and the USA - on an econmic basis. To me it sound childish to have a discussion like that - like "our" airplanes are better then yours - in the end: who cares?
I have been on board of Boeings and Airbuses - and had always a pretty good time - mostly depending on the weather and on the airline I chose to fly with. This discussion is probably as pointless as neverending as between Windows and Linux Users.
My personal opinion: Airbus is at the moment better to pick up the trends in the market and therefore gets the orders - and that is beyond any doubt what happens. It is a bit difficult to even have pointless discussions with people who can`t even be convinced with pure facts.
But back to the EF and the F22: As far as I know there are not only still a lot of problems with the EF - which is due to become operational in the near future - perhaps...- but from what I have read the problems with the F22 might be become even bigger.
I can`t really compare the two planes on a technical basis - because I am - as most of the people here - no expert - but from what I have seen so far of them in flight - the EF gives a pretty impressive flying display and until I haven`t seen the F22 in comparision - and sure will have to wait some more years to see one live here in Europe - he is my winner - on a very subjective basis ;-)
Regards
Wayne



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 05:10 AM
link   
But these pointless discussions are fun! We may seem over aggressive at times but make no mistake, WE LOVE IT!


Also, the Typhoon is now in service with 29 and 17 Sqns, RAF and some foreign units
so most, if not all, problems have now been overcome. The outstanding issue with the type is the secondary attack capability, which will allow it to replace the Jaguar, is not quite where the RAF wants it to be but this was always going to take a little longer to integrate into the airframe.

The Typhoon is better than the F/A-22 as far as Britain is concerned because if we were buying the Raptor we would be lucky to get one squadron of them.

Also, if as many say the Typhoon is a jack of all trades while the Raptor is a master of air supremacy, or similar sentiments, why is it called the F/A-22 and not just F-22? Looks to me like a mistake



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
i wouldnt call it a master. really the pupil of a master. its still nothing compared to the YF 23
besides you cant compare the 2
ones a air superiority fighter the others a light fighter ,diffrent leagues.
anyhow the raptor has stealth while the tyhpoon has agility and speed and the raptor has better radar.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Typhoon isn't a light fighter, that is Gripen territory, the Typhoon is more in the same league (size wise) as the F-18, more a medium fighter while the Raptor is a real heavyweight. My point was in response to those who say that the Typhoon isn't as good as the Raptor because it is trying to do two jobs while the Raptor isn't hampered by the need to be an attack type, which simply isn't true.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Also, if as many say the Typhoon is a jack of all trades while the Raptor is a master of air supremacy, or similar sentiments, why is it called the F/A-22 and not just F-22? Looks to me like a mistake


GREAT point. Everyone here is assuming that the EF can fullfill more roles, and is therefor more flexable - but this is far from the case.

In fact, the F/A-22 can be used in MORE roles then the EF. For instance, the Raptor can be used in anti cruise missle and EW roles. To my knowladge, the EF cannot perform these same missions.

Also, don't forget that the extreme stealth of the F/A-22 gives it a distinct advantage in A2G missions.



posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

In fact, the F/A-22 can be used in MORE roles then the EF. For instance, the Raptor can be used in anti cruise missle and EW roles. To my knowladge, the EF cannot perform these same missions.


the EF will be about the same because both planes carry about the same number of missiles for that role. The big thing you need for anti-cruise-missile missions is AWACS support, something both planes will get.



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I must say all of what you have said is likely to be true but how on Earth can we argue this point ... The RAF and UASF are not going to war with eachother and are not likely too so I belive we should start Talking about which armies are better the NATO Force or the Iraqi Coalition ... Haha ...



posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
what you need to remember about these two jets is pretty simple they were built about the same time yet the Typhoon is only a fourth generation plane while the F22 is fifth generation.

The F22 also has real supercruise of 1.5 mach unlike the european plane which doesn't have true supercruise.

F22 has stealth Typhoon doesn't.
F22 has superior Radar and Weapons
F22 has thrust vectoring Typhoon doesn't.

Also American pilots are ten times as good as any flying the Typhoon with Americas superior training.

It's like comparing Airbus to Boeing really Airbus just isn't in the same league or comparing a Volkswagon Beetle to a Bugatti veyron.

I still think the F22 is quite an ugly plane with problems but it's light years ahead of anything european.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Shamantor, thanks for a good laugh, I do like irony. At first I thought you were serious until I saw the line about '10 times better' pilots and then I got the joke. Nice one



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I'm with you on that one Waynos!

And with the American pilots record of blue on blue, all the 'superior' skill and weaponary is kinda like giving a 4 year old a bigger gun with more ammo, who's he going to shoot first, himself or his mates?

:-)

Cheers

Robbie



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

...or comparing a Volkswagon Beetle to a Bugatti veyron.
...


The Veyron was designed and is built by Volkswagen...



posted on Aug, 2 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
The obvious way to defeat the Raptor is to build 5000 Predator sized UAV's and saturate the battle space with more radars and airframes than can be destroyed.

No expensive "Will it work" R&D.... just good ol fashioned quality vs quantity.



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
The board is so cold, let me burn a fire.

I have watched many airshow done by Eurofighter in youtube videos.
Compare with the SHE/F which originally developed from a mediocre 3nd jetfighter F-18C/D did quite impressive action in many airshows, the Eurofighter fitted with Canard that was designed for hi-maneuver to neutralizing Soviet counter-air fighter superiorly like Su-27 did the performance which looks only like a donkey run around a mill。
If you don't see what I mean:


Is this the only thing EF can do?



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I'll Settle this argument once and for all: the Spitfire would kick both planes ass



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:13 AM
link   
i just read an article stating that the eurofighter had done a mock combat flight against f-18s us navy harriers and f-22s and had won every battle even when outnumbered 22 to 8 without a single loss shooting down every plane it had encountered.of course its not real combat but gives an idea of what this plane is capable of



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by devilwasp
 
Why did you forget Poland??




posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 

It's because of people with the attitude like yours, that we might be losing our edge. They do have the smarts, and if they are willing to come up with the money they can surely build something equal if not better. Just look at the big 3...what do they produce? A heap of metal junk....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join