F22 Raptor Vs Euro Fighter
-
The only dogfights we lose
of what kind? hi aspect? with some kind of separation on to merge clean up?what?
-
Hi Chicho! (I was waiting for you )
… what is the internal fuel of a Typhoon and what is the internal fuel of a Rafale? … why the Typhoon needs the external tanks? … which has the greater fuel flow? => Thrust has a price to pay
Hi Dee-Jay,
Eurofighter clean internal fuel is 5t. I think Rafale is 4,7t right?
Eurofighter fuel consumption in dry range is very low including military power, the problem is using afterburners.
I like Rafale in dogfight, especially fighting in block one altitudes. It’s a huge adversary but I insist, for comparison, we have to test all aircraft with the same configuration.
Anyway I want to congratulate your country for your aircraft. I have good friends flying Rafale. We did TLP together in Florennes.Regards.
-
Eurofighter clean internal fuel is 5t. I think Rafale is 4,7t right?
I had the wrong figures … my figures said 4t for the EF! (Thank you for correction!) … Yep, 4t7 according to Wiki for the Raf.
for comparison, we have to test all aircraft with the same configuration.
Fully agree … and also have to know and take in consideration what are the “rules of he game” which are deterministic and not simply comparing a result or just videos or pictures. It is more complex that just saying one is better because it made a shot/kill => In real combat it is true … in training it is different. I guess you will agree.
Hope to meet you one day!
Cheers!
-
It is more complex that just saying one is better because it made a shot/kill => In real combat it is true … in training is it different. I guess you will agree.
Completely agree.
-
Looks like an F-22 in there to me……try 4:45… DJ posted this years back on here.
Nope that’s looking very much like an F-15. Wrong plan shape for F-22. Unfortunately the HUD symbology gets in the way just when it is going to show a nice view of the fins.
-
Nope that’s looking very much like an F-15. Wrong plan shape for F-22. Unfortunately the HUD symbology gets in the way just when it is going to show a nice view of the fins.
Although it is not the most clear cut view, going by the way it moves and the inner angle of the horizontal stabs it has to be an F-22
-
Like most other generational match-ups, the outcome of this type of engagement WVR, primarily, comes down to two major considerations:
1. The energy/angle/altitude of both fighters the moment they both make contact.
2. The individual capabilities of each pilot.
Specific performance capabilities without logged data to review/scrub, limits the discussion to classified speculation.
-
though No1 is predetermined(since its BFM-correct me if im wrong-), No2 is the most significant parameter
-
Like most other generational match-ups, the outcome of this type of engagement WVR, primarily, comes down to two major considerations:
1. The energy/angle/altitude of both fighters the moment they both make contact.
2. The individual capabilities of each pilot.
Specific performance capabilities without logged data to review/scrub, limits the discussion to classified speculation.
I disagree.
One of the most important parameters, which is not in your list, is the missile capability.Energy/angle/altitude plays a minor role in the outcome of a WVR engagement if one of acft has an A-A weapon with vast superior capabilities, like e.g. well off boresight shots. I will use again my favorite example: Take an old airframe, lets say F-5E. Modernize it with a HMD and a missile like a Python 4 (or even 5 or even a AIM-9X), you can call it F-5EM. Until very recently, this machine would have been able to shoot F-22 from the sky, since the F-22 only recently was able to make the first AIM-9X shot. (http://www.janes.com/article/51375/f-22-notches-first-guided-aim-9x-sidewinder-firing). Actually, it was only a test……IOC will be 2017!!!
Was the F-5EM a better acft than the F-22 until recently???
Regards
-
I disagree.
One of the most important parameters, which is not in your list, is the missile capability.Regards
Assuming the 1v1 exercise in question actually allowed any missile type.
If it was guns only then the above applies.
-
though No1 is predetermined(since its BFM-correct me if im wrong-), No2 is the most significant parameter
I should have clarified in a combat scenario where other resources have failed and a WVR situation ensues (totally theoretical of course).
-
I disagree.
One of the most important parameters, which is not in your list, is the missile capability.Energy/angle/altitude plays a minor role in the outcome of a WVR engagement if one of acft has an A-A weapon with vast superior capabilities, like e.g. well off boresight shots. I will use again my favorite example: Take an old airframe, lets say F-5E. Modernize it with a HMD and a missile like a Python 4 (or even 5 or even a AIM-9X), you can call it F-5EM. Until very recently, this machine would have been able to shoot F-22 from the sky, since the F-22 only recently was able to make the first AIM-9X shot. (http://www.janes.com/article/51375/f-22-notches-first-guided-aim-9x-sidewinder-firing). Actually, it was only a test……IOC will be 2017!!!
Was the F-5EM a better acft than the F-22 until recently???
Regards
See my above post. I should have mentioned that my comments were with the thought of meeting in combat, not a canned training scenario where all ‘hostilities’ start from relatively neutral positions.
Otherwise, if contact is made where one particular airframe is in an advantageous position, the weapons utilized isn’t that important…which is why I stated “primarily”…However, like you mentioned, it’s true that different weapon systems shouldn’t be scoffed at, and can make up for a good deal, all things being neutral at the moment both fighters make contact with each other.
Sorry for the confusion.
-
It’s always interesting to see these types of threads… In talking with folks that do this stuff for a living the game has changed drastically and most if not all engagements will happen BVR and you will be dead before the merge. The lethality is much higher than it was 10 years ago.
-
It’s always interesting to see these types of threads… In talking with folks that do this stuff for a living the game has changed drastically and most if not all engagements will happen BVR and you will be dead before the merge. The lethality is much higher than it was 10 years ago.
That depends largely on the Rules of Engagement, and the last handful of battles that have been fought with modern jet aircraft have been too restrictive to allow BVR combat to really take place, mostly requiring visual ID of the target before engaging.
-
Otherwise, if contact is made where one particular airframe is in an advantageous position, the weapons utilized isn’t that important…which is why I stated “primarily”…However, like you mentioned, it’s true that different weapon systems shouldn’t be scoffed at, and can make up for a good deal, all things being neutral at the moment both fighters make contact with each other.
Interesting statements. I would be really interested to know how much a bad starting position can be overcome by having an all-aspect LOAL AAM with imaging seeker, like the Python 5 or the AIM-9X Block 2 + HMD? (R-73mod2 has LOAL?)
What about the following Gedankenexperiment: 3rd generation platform against 4th+/5th. 3rd has the above mentioned missile. 4th+/5th has only legacy AIM-9M or Python3. What would be a bad starting position for the 3rd gen fighter, in which it cannot engage the 4th+/5th fighter (except of course being engaged from 6o´clock low=no visual)?
If the 3rd gen has up-to-date avionics to detect the radar of the 4th+/5th fighter, then it knows where it is. It is just a question of spoting the enemy fighter and firing, isn´t? -
That depends largely on the Rules of Engagement, and the last handful of battles that have been fought with modern jet aircraft have been too restrictive to allow BVR combat to really take place, mostly requiring visual ID of the target before engaging.
Any in particular?
In Desert Storm and Allied Force there were no such restrictions for F-15C drivers as long as the ID matrix was met. -
Any in particular?
In Desert Storm and Allied Force there were no such restrictions for F-15C drivers as long as the ID matrix was met.But there were for the F-14s. They nailed a single MI-8, I think, because they could not go through the matrix without external input. The F-15C could. Of course, some Turkey drivers said later that they could not get any kills because the AWACS were USAF….but that is another story.
EDIT: That is a nice example of a superb fighter with the longest BVR arm in the whole western inventory, but was not allowed to use it due to ROE.
Were all F-15C´s engagement really BVR? My memory tells me they were not…there is somewhere a pdf with that info…
-
But there were for the F-14s. They nailed a single MI-8, I think, because they could not go through the matrix without external input. The F-15C could. Of course, some Turkey drivers said later that they could not get any kills because the AWACS were USAF….but that is another story.
The F-14s didn’t have the software and systems to meet the ROE criteria and there were even claims the USAF E-3s called off F-14s in favour of F-15s……besides the point though regarding what was stated.
-
Not really. If a F-14 was engaged, and there were no F-15Cs around, then it would have go to directly in WVR combat, since BVR shots were not allowed for him. Exaclty what Sharpe meant.
-
Were all F-15C´s engagement really BVR? My memory tells me they were not……there is somewhere a pdf with that info…
Nope……never said they were…(read what I was replying too)…some were closer although actual ranges are not always given…one was an actual merge I think (need to check) IFF failed (well 2v1 so still not fair)