But, if its a mechanical sweep, I can't imagine that it'll be quick enough to be efficient. Besides, so far I haven't seen any info from BAE that says it can operate in both modes simultaneously. Their information says it can use MPRF to handle look-up and look-down...but look-up and look-down are still A2A modes. If it does both A2A and A2G at the same time, the accuracy of its aerial target tracking is going to suffer. Besides, those little stepper motors can only run so fast.

I have not found any info saying it can perform both modes at the same time on the web either. I have it in two seperate sources of an AFM publication that it can do this and it states it very clearly.

I know looking up and down does not mean A2A and A2G at the same time. The soure states the radar can perform air to air and ground mapping functions at the same time. It also goes on to say the radar can identify moving ground targets besed on weather they are tanks or normal vehicles.

It may be only the two seat Eurofighters that can perform both modes at the same time, I'm not sure.

I figured you probably knew the difference...just thought that information may have been misleading.

The information in the AFM publications you have may have been based on misinterpreting information from BAE. It happens. Even an enlisted USAF journalist with AF Times kept referring to "manual inversion" in an article he wrote about the A-10.

Oh, "decoupled" tandem cockpits.

Nothing to do with the 2 cockpit thing.. the 2 seaters are mainly used for training... They might be used as air-to-ground strike aircraft in Tranche 3, but currently, their main use is as trainers.


"Even though CAPTOR features a mechanically steered array, BAE Systems have indicated that the low inertia non-counterbalanced antenna coupled with four high torque, high precision samarium-cobalt drive motors allows extremely high scanning speeds. As a consequence of this the radar can interleave different operations such as air and ground mapping. This is quite an achievement for a non-phased array system."

Thats on the net...
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html

Ground mapping is only useful against stationary targets, and even there it has limited use. Thanks for the link, but, no matter what super whiz-bang materials the motors are made out of, they are still limited by the fact that they are stepper motors, and operating in both modes simultaneously will sacrifice accuracy in tracking higher-speed targets. BTW...I think the last statement in the article, based on what BAE told them, is just a little bit of uninformed, poetic license on the part of the writers.

The Captor is the most capable mechanically scanned radar, and I do not doubt its simultaneous a2a/a2g capabilities. In fact, the Typhoon has become a very capable multi-role platform and I have read Tranche 2, 3 and maybe even tranche 1 aircraft will recieve the Litening 2/3 targeting pods to self designate EGBU-24 bombs. In tranche three aircraft the Captor is supposed to be phased out of service by the the multination AMSAR (Active multimode scanned array radar) Does anyone have up to date info on this radar?

Well...feel free to not doubt those capabilities. But, those of us who work with radars every day, have our doubts. Self-designating GBUs or EGBUs?...yes...I have NEVER heard of that. The F-15E HASN'T been capable of that for over 14 years now.

I think you are missreading Iguana... he means that the aircraft will be capable of self designating its own bombs... i.e. not require another aircraft to paint its target.

It would have had TIALD to fall back on anyway if litening wasnt chosen.

The radar is good. though it may not be a phased array, or anything fancy, it does a heck of a lot. Maybe someone should pester the Typhoon pilots at the next airshow they are at

I would ask on a forum, but its been down for some time, theres usualy a few BAe engineers on there to pester..

quote:

Originally posted by endoftheviggen:
The Typhoon and Raptor are both extremely capable fighters, though the Raptor would probably win in most situations. However I would like to know everyones input on which is the best all around fighter. (BVR, Air combat maneuvering, cost, serviceability, deployablility, reliability and swingrole/multirole capabilities)

BVR, hands down, F22 all the way. With awacs or without. Using radar to hunt for targets is diffinently a stealth buster, but if that low probability of detection radar thing works, then I guess it's not as bad.

In a knife fight? That really depends on a lot of things, the most important of which is not even the aircraft. We'll assume that both pilots in either aircraft are trained very well. That both pilots actually have equal flight time on their aircraft and knows everything there is to know about any condition they might see and what buttons to push what knobs to turn without referring to a manual. Although I really doubt that most countries around the world has as many pilots with as many flight hours as America does. Not only are aircraft's expensive, but flying them is as well. In a C-130 we cost around $3000 to $5000 a flight hour. Some countries have the hardware and the pilots trained in the basics in how to fly that hardware, but how much practice they actually get, who knows.

The F-22 has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.27 compared to 1.18 for the Eurofighter and it can vector that thrust!link That is a very big advantage I think, but with short range HOB missiles that can out turn any aircraft and HMDS, it would seem a matter of who got the jump on who. Lets assume they are at equal altitude and are coming at each other head to head and don't blow each other up on the pass......I would say with thrust vectoring and the better thrust to weight ratio, the F-22 will be lining up its short range missile first.

If it came down to guns, well the F-22 will have an M61A2 20-mm multibarrel cannon and I heard that the 27mm that the Eurofighter initially had is being scrapped, possibly they won't even carry guns, but I could be totally wrong because that sounds like a really bad idea to me and people making the Typhoon can't be that stupid.

Anyway, in a knife fight:

1: Who see's whome first? I think the F-22 has advantage here

2: Who outturns better? F-22, better ratio and vector

3: Better trained pilot? open to debate ( as is everything else), but where do most Nato pilots go to train?

4: Luck



Serviceability and reliability remains to be seen.

Deployability has more to do with things beyond the aircraft itself. Such as, your countires ability to move maintenance teams, support/test equipment and ammunition to support that aircraft. I think the USA is very solid on this, regaurdless of the airframe. Both can super-cruise and refuel in the air, but how many countries has refueler aircraft in locations all around the world?

Cost? Well, if an F-22 can shoot down 250 million dollars worth of enemy aircraft with ease, while the Typhoon puts itself more at risk to do the same, then we can argue cost all day long. But if we are just talking about sticker price, ..well..yah. F-22 isn't going to be cheap.

Multirole? I don't know. I think the Typhoon can carry more even if the F-22 foregoes it's stealth and loads bombs externally, but the F-22 with stealth can take that small bomb load into situations that the Typhoon cannot.

Will the Raptor and Typhoon ever square off against each other for real? I doubt it, but maybe the French will sell Rafale's to China and an F-22 can fight that. Rafale and Typhoon looks an awlful lot like each other.

Edit: Forgot to include this. It is not rock solid indications, but interesting none the less.

quote:

Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an operational evaluation comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35. Due to the lack of information gathered on the 5th generation combat aircraft and the Su-35 during the time of this study it is not meant to be considered official.

The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft were put in simulated combat against the Su-35. The results were:

Aircraft Odds vs.
Su-35
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Dassault-Breguet Rafale C 1.0:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1


These results mean, for example, that in simulated combat, 4.5 Su-35s were shot down for every Typhoon lost.

The "F/A-18+" in the study was apparently not the current F/A-18E/F, but an improved version. All the western aircraft in the simulation were using the AMRAAM missile, except the Rafale which was using the MICA missile. This does not reflect the likely long-term air-to-air armament of Eurofighters, which will ultimately be equipped with the superior MBDA Meteor (while carrying the AMRAAM as an interim measure).

One must bear in mind that the full details of the simulation have not been released, making it hard to verify whether it gives an accurate evaluation of the capabilities of these aircraft (for instance, whether they had adequate knowledge of the Sukhoi and Raptor to realistically simulate their combat performance).

So according to research done by the British Defense research agency, a Raptor may shoot down 10.1 Su-35's for every Raptor lost, while a Typhoon does 4.5 Su-35's for every Typhoon lost. Using the price on Wiki's site for the cost of the planes, that would be @ $160 million dollars and the lives of over 2 pilots for Typhoon's to take down 10 Su-35's as comparded to $152 million dollars (price for 1 Raptor based on US buying 276 of them) and the life of less then 1 pilot flying a Raptor.

And yah, it's a simulation, so I would take that with a huge bucket full of salt.

Actualy all other Typhoon users but the UK will have a gun. The british ones will have also a gun but only to keep the aircraft within FBW parameters.

I read that the British will keep the guns in storage. Their Eurofighter will has a ballast weight installed in the gun bay to simulate carring a real one for the FCS to compensate.

BTW: Pilotasso, check your last post. You state that the British EFs will not have a gun and your next sentence says they will carry a gun.

I know what you ment to say but I think you mis-phrased your point slightly.

quote:

Originally posted by gfitzpatrick:
I read that the British will keep the guns in storage. Their Eurofighter will has a ballast weight installed in the gun bay to simulate carring a real one for the FCS to compensate.

BTW: Pilotasso, check your last post. You state that the British EFs will not have a gun and your next sentence says they will carry a gun.

I know what you ment to say but I think you mis-phrased your point slightly.

Oh, it's even more complicated than that . . . .


The Tranche 1 will arrive with the gun fitted. Later Tranches will have a large piece of ballast fitted in the place of the gun.

We're buying no ammo, and we're doing no training. Hmmn.

I'm not so keen on this idea myself, but we seem to save a couple of million a year . . . .

Actualy, you are assuming the F-22 turns better than the Typhoon at all air speeds.... which it doesnt.

Typhoon is said to have a better turn rate at high speed and high altitude than the F-22.

Your also forgetting the RWR systems installed on these aircraft.... you aint going to launch a missile without the other aircraft knowing...

in this case, the Typhoon may have the upper hand as its DASS uses an active MAW for detecting inbound missiles.. where as F-22 uses passive MLW.
Which means, the F-22 can detect a missile being launched, and when its motor is burning, where as Typhoon can detect an incoming missile throuout its flight within a given range, and possibly even give this info to the exact location of the missile to the pilot whether it be IR or a radar missile.

If the F-22 didnt beat a few 4th gen fighters, then somethings gone very wrong.. at $250M+ per aircraft.. it better be good.
At curent prices, thats possibly 3 or 4 Typhoons for 1 F-22 !

Also, those simulations done by what was known then as DERA used the AMRAAM as the Typhoons main weapon, it is said that when they put in the numbers for Meteors capabilities, the numbers went up over the 10:1 ratio.

As said, the likelyhood of a Typhoon and an F-22 going head to head is highly unlikely...

quote:

Originally posted by valleyboy1:
Your also forgetting the RWR systems installed on these aircraft.... you aint going to launch a missile without the other aircraft knowing...

AESA radars emissions cannot be detected just like any other. I dont know if they have rvolutionary RWR's capable of intercepting such signals, but none these can give warning if an AMRAAM (or meteor) is launched in TWS mode. Only when they go active you recieve warning.

But I have a doubt: Some F-15 variants can detect their own missiles on radar as they are launched and indicate them on the HUD as diamonds. Now we all know AESA radars (I assumed wrongly the captor to be AESA but there will be one for the Typhoon) can pick up much smaller and steatly targets so I guess it wouldnt be too difiult to devise a way to warn the pilot of an incoming high speed object as a probable missile. The drawback of this is that it might only work within the radars view cone. As someone suggested that the F-22 will have lateral AESA plates this might extend the detection to almost 360º.
If so the F-22 is raised to a whole new level for awareness.

quote:

Also, those simulations done by what was known then as DERA used the AMRAAM as the Typhoons main weapon, it is said that when they put in the numbers for Meteors capabilities, the numbers went up over the 10:1 ratio.

You seem to be assuming the F/A-22 will never carry anything but the AMRAAM. I don't doubt the Meteors will be better than AMRAAM's and I don't doubt that if we don't start using Meteors ourselves, we will make one just as capable if not more capable, no matter how much it cost !!

Define better turn rate, define what type of turn rate.

If you guys are reading all this stuff on the public domain, consider it trash as it isn't the final word nor the classified systems revealed. Reading off a manufacturer's or a bias doesn't have a lot of credibility.

quote:

Originally posted by valleyboy1:
I think you are missreading Iguana... he means that the aircraft will be capable of self designating its own bombs... i.e. not require another aircraft to paint its target.

Nope..not misreading. F-15Es handle this task completely autonomously with the use of their LANTIRN pods. I almost forgot...F-111Fs in 1986's Operation Eldorado Canyon also designated their own GBU targets with their PAVETACK pods.

For those who say it comes down to a **** dumb gun in a knife fight your wrong. Until we get the new Aim-9 id say we arnt going to do good in WVR combat. lemme corrct myself we arnt going to win in WVR combat until we get new Aim-9 simple as that.

If you played online youll notice how often you get too close for a missile shot.

" Switching to g... oooh hell!"