Im talking about real life engagements sorry my mistake. If you know the reasons why comparing our SRAAM's to Foreign made ones then youll understand.

Some really cool videos of the Raptor HERE , if you haven't seen them already.

Show's it doing some tail slides, firing missiles on the roll as well as guns.

Typhoon uses what are basicaly 3 mini radars to give 360 degree coverage of incoming missiles, 2 in the roots of the wings, and one in the tail section, they are called MAW's, Its best detection will be in its forward hemisphere where the aircrafts radar will be much better at seeing any incoming missiles. This is part of what makes up DASS.

I dont know the range of the system.. probably highly classified... but it may be possible to give indication of an incoming active missile before it goes active. It also can give indication of incoming IR missiles, as it is not dependant on there being a radar signal from another aircraft, or the missile itself for it to detect it.

I beleive the system on the F-22 is a passive system, and needs to see the missiles motor burning for it to be detected.. which may be a problem if the missile has burnt out already.. again, the range of this system is unknown, but both will be great enough that WVR missile shots will not go unoticed....

Both systems have their pro's and con's... each tailored around what the aircraft is meant to do.

There are reasons why Typhoon didnt get an AESA to start with, the partner countries decided the technoology wasnt mature enough at the time, and is much to costly, the MMC modules currently cost a small fortune, and when a dish consists of more than a thousand of them, the price was considered too high.

AMSAR is supposed to find ways of making them more reliable, more powerfull for their size, and drasticaly bring their costs down. Then its possible the findings of the project will be put to use on several European aircraft, including Typhoon, Rafale, and possibly Gripen.

Whereas its unlikely to see it on Typhoon anywhere before Tranche 3 aircraft...
But as the make up of Tranche 3 aircraft is a long way until its known.. and it may just end up as a strike aircarft when looking at certain developments, CFT's, uprated engines, possible 2D / 3D thrust vectoring, new weapons being intergrated, and possibly AMSAR at the end of it.

Hey guys just wanna say some fascinatin posts. It's really an interesting time with all the new fighters being produced. To bad the russians have no money. Mig 29s 31s and su 27s used to come to an airshow neer whare I live and they are quite the sight to see.

But I wanted to add my two cents. At the end of the day it will be a real compitition that will determine this debate. Because everything might look one way on paper but in reality it'll differ. Take the 1994 William Tell fighter meet when F16's being flown by inferior pilots kicked the F15's right up the tail pipe.

"
"An F- 16 unit was not supposed to win William Tell 1994. Not only have F- 15 Eagle units owned this Superbowl of Air Superiority since 1982, they also outnumbered F-16 units five-to-two. Furthermore, both F-16 teams came from the "part-time" pilots and maintenance personnel of the Air National Guard, whereas four of the five F-15 teams came from active Air Force wings. And these wings had much larger pools of aircraft, pilots, and maintenance personnel from which to carefully select the finest to compete. Finally, and probably most importantly, the F-15's larger radar has about twice the range of an F-16. Eagle drivers could see and track their targets long before their Fighting Falcon counterparts knew what was there.

But someone must have forgotten to explain all this to the 119th Fighter Group. Last October, this ANG unit from North Dakota flew down to Tyndall in Florida with its air-defense F-16s and flew back with all the marbles and major bragging rights that go along with top prize at William Tell. In fact, the Happy Hooligans of the 119th and the Green Mountain Boys of the 158th Fighter Group of Burlington, Vermont, (the only other F-16 unit competing) finished ahead of all five competing F-15 teams. These results are making it much harder for F-16 proponents to hold back when talking air superiority.

"The F-15 is the beyond visual range airplane," said Lt. Col. Tom Larson, the operations group commander and project officer for Fargo's William Tell team. "The F-15 was built for BVR. It definitely has a lot of advantages with radar missiles. But this win proves what F-16 pilots have known all along: the F-16 is as good as any other aircraft in air superiority."
"

I find it interesting that the Eagles could see the F16's from twice as far away. On paper they should cream the F16s. I think counter measures will change the playing field un measurabley. I have a video of all the F14's air victories......and in all the dog fights they never hit anything at long range even when fighting against inferior mig 23s.

And to the the guy that said USA has the best trained pilots.....well your wrong. Way up here in canada we have ancient F18A's (only the Navy's Blue Angels are the only other users of this ancient model) held together with white glue and duck tape and at the 1995 william tell meet, canada won. Canadian fighter pilots get way more flying time then american pilots. English, Australian, Israele get boat loads of flight time as well which is at least equivalent to the average US fighter pilot.

Although I will give advantage in numbers to the states. And in the end that's what would win any war. That being said a 250 million dollar plane in this and the for see able future is over kill in the extreme seeing as 98% of the NATO conflict is peace keeping missions.

1 250 million dollar plane + 1 million dollar bomb + 1 well trained pilot taking out a mud brick shanty and the dudes scud missle strapped to a camals back equals = 1 bad economy.

Why does nato practice in the states? the same reason why the states and the rest of nato also spend a ton of time practicing in canada.....because there is nothing but room in both our countries.......have you been to england? I have...you can drive accros the country north to south in 4 hours.....there are lakes in canada bigger then England. yet the population of London is roughly half the poplation of canada. Hence there aint as much room to practice flying jets....especially dropping live ordanance.

So in short who the hell knows what is the better plane.......only time will tell....but I agree it is fun to speculate. On paper the F22 is pretty shinny and you can get a lot of bling for 250 million. But so much is classified and don't think for a minit the engineers of both sides aren't releasing propaganda for both their planes. So at this stage it is hard to even speculate remotly accurate.

For us aviation nutts it's a win win cause both planes and some of the future ones coming down the pipe line look pretty dam amazing!

A couple things. F-15 at higher altitude makes the F-16 its *****. The F-15 low and slow makes it the F-16s *****. In air superiority the eagle owns the falcon imho. One F-16 victory over the F-15 doesn't a champion make. Countermeasures are a very important part of air combat. The U.S. owns all others in this area as well. As far as the who's pilots are better, I see it like this. The best of the U.S. are equal to the best of any other nation. We just have more of the best. Same with good pilots, our good pilots are as good as anyone elses. We just have a billion more of them. Not to mention our air national guard pilots who have more hours in their planes then anyone in the world. As far as why you don't see BVR kills has to do with the U.S. policies of seeing what you shoot, or knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that its a bandit and not a bogey. U.S. pilots are on a VERY tight leash.

Yup...140th Viper drivers killed Eagles left and right in low-slow fights as well. The result was just the opposite high and fast. I will have to raise the BS flag on flying hours mentioned by our new Canadian friend, US pilots get more flying hours than those of most other nations...we may be only equal to some in this area, but we are DEFINITELY not falling behind them.

I once heard someone saying young Swedish pilots get more flight time than US pilots. Old swedish pilots just fly "enough". In US when you are new you don't fly so much, and then flight time increases.

And also, for example, say 2 years ago or whenever it was Swedish defense suddenly decided they were short on money so they just forbid anyone to fly.

So I guess the time period and availability of money makes nations let their pilots fly more or less.

Small competitions like that are not so interesting. There question is what quaality of training an airforce has strength to uphold on avergae on all combat units.

I don't believe for one second the US has the same standard on all its units. infact I have this view it is a huge military apparatus where more than half of it is in really bad shape where even the basic stuff is missing, in the airforce they are still flying non-upgraded aircraft .... and it seems to go on and on and on. They have numbers but the units are far from as shinay in all places.

So, how is it with flight time here and there in the US??? how was it in 2001? was it different in 2003 compared to 1978? I am sure the Irak wars have thrown the US military off balance financially and maintenance wise. Takes years to catch up.....

Right now I wouldn't be surprised if Swedish pilots get less airtime than US but ealier they had more. When I wisited an airbase in 1970 for a week the whole squadron was up 2 times a day for 2 hours 5 days a week with extra flying tuesday and thursday late night for night practice. Guess that is pretty much flying.... a guy needs to take a leak and eat and get fuel...

So what levels are the USAF able to keep up this very day?

Yup Nothing beats the F-16 when it comes to fighting with fewer means. Its great for small countries up here in europe.

As for the F-18A its still a great plane. As long as its prepared to carry the lates ordnance the canadians need no more than that.
It only shows its age next to the current 4rth generation aircraft already flying today.

As for the best pilots skills, the answer varies alot from who replies the question but also from the oprational perspective.
Right now who has the most operational airforce and trained pilots are the Israelis hands down...
I would not quite open a fan club after them right now but truth is when a nation has a rope over its neck, but with resourses to back them up, the results at hand are indeed spectacular. Israeli aplicants live, breathe the military life practicaly from their crates. they have 0.3% aplicant accepance rate for fighter pilots.
They wash out pilots if they show any signs of skill loss.

US enjoys of course the most sizable and capable force, with very healthy training. The BEST logistics in the world PERIOD.

As for the most capable and intrepid pilots under the most desperate operational conditions I have to say the handfull pilots over here have are among the besT! ANy other would just drop to his nees and surrender

Were talking about people who stripped down WWII vintage hurricanes from the junk yards, removed their guns and have them refited on T-6s harvards and sent for combat in the 70's as the poor mans A-10!!

We flew Fiat GR91's against tornado and jaguar crews with prestigious rankings. Some of these mock engagements involved F-16's from belgium and netherlands as defending aircraft.

The 201 squad (see my sig! )won the best foreign squad award in red flag 2000. Even though at the time there was realy no modern air to ground fighter sqadrons here anymore, and being the 201st an AA squad they droped iron bombs embarassing some of the dedicated AG crew over there. Of course these awards are like the oscars, only 1 movie outside the US gets nominated at a time and never for equal ranking.

quote:

Originally posted by dude_eh:
I find it interesting that the Eagles could see the F16's from twice as far away. On paper they should cream the F16s. I think counter measures will change the playing field un measurabley. I have a video of all the F14's air victories......and in all the dog fights they never hit anything at long range even when fighting against inferior mig 23s.

!

Does your video include Iranian F14 kills against Iraq? The Aim54 performed quite well in that conflict! BTW it might sound odd but most part time pilots and Squadrons in the USAF actually have an advantage over the fulltime pilots in that they have been working together much longer.

quote:

I find it interesting that the Eagles could see the F16's from twice as far away. On paper they should cream the F16s. I think counter measures will change the playing field un measurabley. I have a video of all the F14's air victories......and in all the dog fights they never hit anything at long range even when fighting against inferior mig 23s.

dude_eh, there are these things called "rules of engagement". On the TWO occasions were Tomcats downed Libian bogies, the ROE's didnt realy allow for long range shots. Once the bogies turned into the Tomcats for the forth time, they were within AIM-7 and even AIM-9 range. The Tomcats promply dispatched them accordingly. The huge range of the Phoenix was never concidered.

-Helk

The F-22 would no doubt beat the Typhoon! The Typhoon wouln't even know the F-22 was there until it it gets blown up. Considereing the F-22's thrust vectoring, it could out manouver(sp) the Typhoon in close combat if it even got to that point. I say F-22 all the way! YEH!

i would go for the typhoon because it as cheap as the f35 and the frist coparation between eu [uk france germany possaibly spain] and its still has lots of advance tech

quote:

Originally posted by harryrriedl:
i would go for the typhoon because it as cheap as the f35 and the frist coparation between eu [uk france germany possaibly spain] and its still has lots of advance tech

I'd take the F-35 over the Typhoon. Then I'd fly the **** out of it. Then give the keys back without filling the tans.

quote:

Originally posted by harryrriedl:
i would go for the typhoon because it as cheap as the f35 and the frist coparation between eu [uk france germany possaibly spain] and its still has lots of advance tech

Actually the Typhoon is a joint co-operation between UK, Germany, Spain and Italy. France was in there in the begining but a conflict of interests led to them going off and building the Rafale instead.

BTW, UK, Germany and Italy worked together before on the Tornado.

soory my bad i forgat about the tornado and italy dose the typhoon have longer range than f35 and f22 due to the delta wings. don't the canrads give it inproved manovablilaty.

Well the F-22 has 2d thrust vectoring so that gives it a great edge in the up and close dogfights but I am really not sure about the range difference between the typhoon, F-22, and F-35. I know the F-22 can go Mach 1.5+ without afterburner at 40,000ft where less fuel is needed so I would think the F-22 has a pretty nice range on it.

Well, they say that the Eurofighter can do 90% of what the F/A-22 can do, and with half the price tag.
The F/A-22 is a fantastic fighterplane no doubt, but like most other US built fighters, it is highly overrated.

quote:

Originally posted by robban75:
Well, they say that the Eurofighter can do 90% of what the F/A-22 can do, and with half the price tag.
The F/A-22 is a fantastic fighterplane no doubt, but like most other US built fighters, it is highly overrated.

1. Who are "They" that say that the Eurofighter can do 90 whatever?

2. Overrated? The F-15/16 were built in the seventies, vastly superior to anything else for nearly 20 years.

3. I think you get your overrated ideas from looking at war as a one on one dual. American aircraft are part of a puzzle. A puzzle that is, again, vastly superior to anything else. In a air war, any country would be destroyed very easily, not without loss, but it would be over with in a week. My point, how can fighter aircraft be overrated when they do their job so perfectly?

quote:

Originally posted by BoCfuss:
1. Who are "They" that say that the Eurofighter can do 90 whatever?

Can't remember, read it years ago in Airforces monthly, I think.

quote:

2. Overrated? The F-15/16 were built in the seventies, vastly superior to anything else for nearly 20 years.

Vastly superior to anything else for nearly 20 years?. Says who? In what ways? And compared to what? MiG-17's, MiG-21's?

quote:

3. I think you get your overrated ideas from looking at war as a one on one dual. American aircraft are part of a puzzle. A puzzle that is, again, vastly superior to anything else. In a air war, any country would be destroyed very easily, not without loss, but it would be over with in a week. My point, how can fighter aircraft be overrated when they do their job so perfectly?

I'm well aware that it's vital to coordinate ones forces in order to be effective. with Sweden being into netcentric warfare for nearly 40 years, I understand the importance. And of course, the F-15 and F-16 do their job perfectly, just like any other fighter I'd say. Just because there are 200 published articles on fighter A, and 20 published articles on fighter B does it mean that fighter A is the superior fighter? It's just easier to assume that it is. Don't get me wrong. The F-15 and F-16 are excellent fighters. But they are excellent fighters in a world of many other equally excellent fighters. It's just that the other fighters doesn't get as much "airtime" if you know what I mean.

What plane cuntrys get is dependant on buget, if i had a limted buget i would go for more numbers of the Typhoon than less numbers of the more expacave F-22. the more planes in the air the more chance of shooting an opposing 1 down i gess.