I thought the F-22 was already developed and entering service. Isn’t the current debate about how many F-22s are needed? Since the former Russian republics, Turkey, Mediterranean Africa, and Indonesia have no fighters in the pipeline that can equal the F-22, couldn’t it be argued that the money would be better spent on other aspects of defense? More ground troops, better body armor, development of the post-F-22 air superiority fighter?
I went back to the start of this exchange and I can’t be sure what the antecedent for “it” is.
If the claim is that the people who build the F-22 say the Tornado is 80% the capbility for 20% the price, we have a serious problem.
But if the claim is that the people who build Tornado say the Tornado is 80% the capbility for 20% the price, we have a sales brochure. Certainly not a disinterested analysis.
Sailboat
Actually, what is wrong with an older fighter jet platform like the Tornado? you can always upgrade the avionics and add weapons systems. I don’t think that the furure will see much in the way of conventional war-rather, we ought to be using drone technolgy, satellites, robots, etc. as much as possible. This is cheaper and has less risk to life. Plus, modern warfare is so expensive-most if Iraq’s $22 billion airforce was desrtroyed in a few hours. materiel goes fast, and theloss usually bankrupts the conbatants. Similarly, the navy-it makes no sense to concentrate forces in large , sinkable ships. The navy knows this, and is moving to small, fast, robotic-assisted ships (the LCS class0, that combine cheapness of operation and smaller crews.
Lack of stealth. While conventional air-air combat is probably a thing of the past, every two-bit dictator has a battery of cheap SAMs. With the improvement of missile technology, chaff and flares just don’t fool the missiles like they used to. The best defense is to not be detected.
If it does come down to air-air - the Tornados (Quartz was actually talking about the Typhoon) will be toast before they ever spot any F-22s (especially in times of all out war with relaxed conditions on BVR engagements).
A big chunk of the cost of ships like the F-22 are the integrated avionics suites and sensor fusion. Trying to upgrade an existing platform to acceptable levels will cost an and a leg.
The problem is this, though–most modern battlefields are NOT going to come down to BVR all-out-war engagements. They’re going to come down to surviviability, engaging targets on the fly after visual ID, close-air-support within close distances of friendly ground troops, and such.
As has been stated previously, the existing F-15 fleet already can decimate lesser air forces in an all-out BVR engagement, well outside SAM/AAA range.
The real test of aircraft on modern battlefields is going to be a combination of payload, range, and ability to quickly and efficiently ID and prosecute targets on a guerilla war-style battlefield–the F-22’s sensor suites are exceptional, but do not help ID targets at range, the sidewise and downwards visibility is reputedly poor, the 20mm cannon does not pack enough of a strafing punch, and the ATG/AGM weapon selection is anemic at best–not to mention that loading any appreciable amount of ATG is going to wildly inflate the radar cross-section anyway.
The Eurofighter, by contrast, has many more wing hardpoints, arguably better yaw/roll maneuverability, a respectable top speed, and better visibility. It carries nearly every air-to-ground munition known to NATO, and mounts a 27mm gun which has the oomph to tear apart smaller armored vehicles. It’s also much cheaper and lighter, and has a smaller physical cross-section making it a harder target for optically guided and unguided SAMs and AAA, which are going to be the biggest anti-aircraft threats on the modern battlefield, mark my words.
The days of needing a specialized long-range anti-bomber intereceptor (and that’s the F-22’s designed role, don’t kid yourself) are long past. The relative ability of aircraft in a visual-intercept and close-air-support role is going to be the true test of any modern aircraft until we exit the current stage of history–“Red Storm Rising” to the contrary, there is no way two nuclear-armed nation-states can have anything more than a brushfire war without someone firing one off, IMHO.
The stealth armed dirigible has been described as “80% as good as the Eurofighter for 20% of the cost”–by the very people at Site 51 who are currently building it.
We’re talking about the Typhoon, not the Tonka. And it’s the Typhoon that’s 80% of the Raptor for 20% of the price.
Wiki:
"While making a complete assessment is impossible based on publicly available information, there is a study by the UK’s DERA comparing the Eurofighter Typhoon to other contemporary fighters; in it, the F-22 significantly superseded all other types (including the Typhoon) in combat performance, although it should be noted that the unit cost of the F-22 is several times that of any other modern fighter aircraft.
Maneuverability in real-world combat is hotly debated, with some experts claiming it is inferior to the Typhoon. It is not known whether USAF claims about Raptor’s superior maneuverability are accurate; many argue that, in any case, today’s beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles make maneuverability less important."
[b/]THIS** is the level of discussion on the following board**
Back to the EF vs. the Raptor: The Raptor wins in every category that exists. BVR: no contest, stealth and a greater capability to supercruise put the Raptor far ahead - now, if the shi! really hits the fan and they have to merge: the EF has a tremendous instantaneous and sustained turn rate - possibly equal to what the Raptor can do - but no one really knows, and if they do know and are saying it here, the OSI will be all over their A$$. Based on the wing loading and thrust of the two jets, the EF would probably have the advantage, but with TV in the equation, I can’t imagine the Raptor wouldn’t be able to slow down and turn inside the EF without trouble. Think about the size of the wing on the Raptor, it’s HUGE!!! If you put TV on a wing like that, it’s slow speed handling characteristics would be off the charts. Add that to JHMCS and the AIM-9X… and it’s scary…
Break Break - Off Topic, but here goes: Does the WVR performance numbers matter that much anymore? Can you outmaneuver an AIM-9X, or ASRAAM, or Pyhton IV, or IRIS-T? I sure as he!! wouldn’t want to merge with somebody that has those capabilities. Does A/C performance really matter anymore? Can a better performing A/C defeat the newest IR missiles? I pose the questionhttp://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3303.html
Did I see on one of those jerk off shows on the Discovery channel that the Raptor can fly sideways and shoot at the bad guys as they fly past?
When dealing with such things, it’s dangerous to use Wikipedia as an authorative source.
If you want more info, go to the Typhoon website, or BAE Systems and get the press contact details.
That would be the Harrier.