Raptor and Eurofighter go head to head

[spacemanc]

Title taken from the article, so sorry if a bit misleading. Article doesnt give much detail on them as it mainly concerns their appearence at Farnbrough today. It points out the misplaced priorities of the armed forces ( maybe not so much applicable the US forces )

Taken from :

Raptor and Eurofighter go head to head | The Register

Farnborough There were a lot of things on show today at Farnborough, but probably if they were honest there was only one event which absolutely everyone here was determined not to miss. That was the first ever overseas (public) appearance of the F-22 Raptor, the latest, most unbelievably expensive uberfighter from the USA. In a scheduling decision which was certainly no accident, an RAF Eurofighter Typhoon went through its paces above the trade-only crowd immediately before the Raptor's appearance.

The two planes are the last of the Cold War superfighters, built to fight the sky-blackening late-80s fleet of the Soviet Voyska PVO*. Both the Raptor and Eurofighter were designed to win control of the skies from planes like the Su-27 and Mig-29, the last generation of Commie planes. At the end of the Cold War, America was still equipped with the F-15 (and the F-14 carrier fighter), which some said could not reliably beat the new Soviet jets; the RAF had no decent fighter at all, having been equipped with the laughable Tornado F3 in order to keep the British aerospace industry alive.

In the end, nothing turned out the way the fighter plans said it would. The Soviet Union collapsed, and the massive tank armies stationed along the Inner German Border disappeared - along with their strike air and fighter cover. Until those armies went, NATO very reasonably worried about a lightning conventionally-armed invasion of West Germany. Would France, Blighty and the US really trigger a global nuclear war just to save Germans from communist domination? Maybe not, the Soviets might reasonably think; hence the tanks and fighters.

So the West thought it needed to hold the Soviets in conventional war - to slow down or stop the tank armies, and keep their air force back behind the Iron Curtain. There would be no easy option for the Soviets to snip off Germany and the Netherlands and then stop before receiving a French nuke. That's where the Raptor and the Eurofighter came in.

Nowadays, though, there don't seem to be many scenarios where Russia and the West would have a conventional fight. The Mig-29 and Su-27 duly turned up, and an even scarier Su-35 is planned, but nowadays the Russian design bureaux must live on gas revenues and export sales to the cheaper end of the Third World market, rather than the focused revenues of a vast empire. It is true that Western air forces might conceivably have to fight developing-world air forces equipped with exported Russian machines; but it's hardly the likeliest of missions for them. Furthermore, this wouldn't be Voyska PVO. This would be, probably, no more than a handful of jets, poorly maintained, poorly flown. Ordinary western fighters with modern missiles and electronic-warfare kit, backed by radar and tanker planes, cooperating with other forces and weapons such as imaging satellites and cruise missiles, could expect to win easily.

It's noticeable that the US Navy - the third biggest air force in the world at the end of the Cold War - plainly believe in this view of the modern world. The USN has not bothered to replace its F-14 Tomcats with a new generation of ultrafighter. Instead, the Top Guns of the future will fly in an enhanced version of the trusty F-18 multipurpose jet.

But the Raptor and the Eurofighter are here anyway, the thunder of their jets shaking the buildings here at Farnborough. The billing at the airshow is interesting, with the Raptor not present on the ground and visiting briefly just this once in the air on a day not open to the general public. By contrast, Eurofighters and pilots will be on hand all this week - reflecting the reality that the Raptor isn't available for export sale (and may not be for the foreseeable future), whereas this is emphatically not the case with the Eurofighter. The Raptor is hot - the press gallery was packed out for its appearance, whereas the humdrum Eurofighter drew a fairly small crowd.

But to people outside the aviation biz, both planes seem fairly irrelevant to the modern world. Not to mention expensive: each operational Raptor will have cost US taxpayers perhaps £175m once the planned production run finishes. The price per Eurofighter which actually flies operationally in the RAF will probably be about the same, if current rumours of cost increases on the final batch are true. This seems like poor value; the Raptor appears to be every bit as much an agile, overpowered superfighter and it has Stealth too.

But it hardly matters. Either one of these jets costs more than seven times as much as a hugely more useful Chinook transport chopper. The reality of geopolitics today is that these planes will never fight an equal battle against the Russian planes they were built to match. They might swat down a few rickety second-hand MiGs or Sukhois one day, above some Third World warzone; but it wasn't worth building them just for that, not when cheaper jets could do the job without more than minimal losses. Not when British and US ground troops are fighting and dying, suffering and losing battles unnecessarily, every day right now - often for lack of cheap helicopters and transport planes. A fighter pilot costs more to replace than a footsoldier, but his life isn't intrinsically more valuable. You couldn't tell that from the way the air forces of the West spend their money, however.

In the end, good as the air displays were this afternoon (many apologies for the pics, but at least they are genuinely related to the article) a nifty display isn't enough to make these two planes worthwhile. About the only way either could really pay its way would be in a fight against the other. ®

*Voyska Protivo Oborona Vozdushnaya - "Troops of Anti-Air Defence" - the old Soviet air-dominance command.

[Hotrod525]

Nice post, but to anser a question; Yeah, they will got to trigger a nuclear conflict if Germany was ever invaded by Russian cause we all know they where not about to stop on German border but go across untill they reach ocean. And we have Military Alliance, so we have to do something, and U.S. much more and better ICBM + SLBM + Nuke Bombers so no one realy want it to end in nuclear holocaust, Russian known they will be strike and as soon the 1st missile appear on radar screen...Just a BLOODY WW3.

Now, Eurofighter and Raptor are very expansive, thats trues, but you know the main reason why they build it ? to acheive Air Dominance VERY easily over any fighter. USSR is no longuer a "real treath" but that dosent mean, tomorow we will not fight against China [PURELY AN EXAMPLE] wich is developping cutting edge fighter too...

[spacemanc]

Im not sure where your sources are for the view that US had ( or has ) much better and a larger quantity of ICBM and SLBM,s - the Russians know their s**t in this area, and the quantities are pretty equal due to various treaties. Also imo far to much faith is put into stealth technology, especially considering the russians are pretty good at rader and AA missile tech.
As the article points out, if the soviets had invaded West Germany, no nukes would have been used, as the nuclear armed nations would have let West Germany etc hang rather than risk their own "assured destruction" ( Sorry German readers )
Thats the whole reason that conventional forces were maintained during the cold war instead of just having the nukes.
I dont totally agree with the hacks view point that the new jets are white elephants. They expected life of the new jets is probably 25 years, so some new jet would have been required. Im sure an uprated version of the F-15 would have been sufficient for the USAF and the RAF could have saved a himalayan sized mountain of cash by doing the same.

Operational unit costs :

Raptor £170 million each ( expected )
Eurofighter £180 million each ( expected )

The prices per jet would decrease if more units were ordered, but this would still increase costs overall.

[Ironcomatose]

"It's noticeable that the US Navy - the third biggest air force in the world at the end of the Cold War - plainly believe in this view of the modern world. The USN has not bothered to replace its F-14 Tomcats with a new generation of ultrafighter. Instead, the Top Guns of the future will fly in an enhanced version of the trusty F-18 multipurpose jet."

That paragraph lost him all credibility. Not only are the old F-14s retired already but the new stealth F-35s will be coming into service soon.

[spacemanc]

Originally Posted by Ironcomatose

"It's noticeable that the US Navy - the third biggest air force in the world at the end of the Cold War - plainly believe in this view of the modern world. The USN has not bothered to replace its F-14 Tomcats with a new generation of ultrafighter. Instead, the Top Guns of the future will fly in an enhanced version of the trusty F-18 multipurpose jet."

That paragraph lost him all credibility. Not only are the old F-14s retired already but the new stealth F-35s will be coming into service soon.

F-14 squadrons have been replaced with the F-18 Super Hornet so "the USN has not bothered to replace them with a new generation of ultrafighter"
The F-35 is no Raptor - in many respects its not much better than an F-16!

[Ironcomatose]

Originally Posted by spacemanc

F-14 squadrons have been replaced with the F-18 Super Hornet so "the USN has not bothered to replace them with a new generation of ultrafighter"
The F-35 is no Raptor - in many respects its not much better than an F-16!

What? The F-35 has longer range than the F-16 and can carry more payload as well as being a stealth aircraft. And i cant find any number or anything about it being compared in terms of maneuverability to the F-16 but i doubt its bad.

Point is that there is a very much next-gen aircraft coming to the Navy, the F-35. Only thing is that it is still in its late stages of development but you could say that it is, in fact, replacing the F-14 as well as all F/A-18s before E/F.

EDIT: One more thing, the Super Hornet has new engines(longer range), higher fuel cap, new avionics and more wing space for tighter turns etc... in a dogfight. Its practically a new plane.



The bottom being the Super Hornet.

[SuperTimo]

we need the eurofighters so everyone looks up and sees we are still a very powerful country for a such a small island.

[Ironcomatose]

Originally Posted by SuperTimo

we need the eurofighters so everyone looks up and sees we are still a very powerful country for a such a small island.

And so people like you can zip around in them.


Seriously though, it is never a bad thing to upgrade military tech. War is a deadly business and you want to be able to bring the best "toys" to the fight on day one, not a year later after it becomes apparent that they have a better war machine than you do.

[spacemanc]

Originally Posted by Ironcomatose

What? The F-35 has longer range than the F-16 and can carry more payload as well as being a stealth aircraft. And i cant find any number or anything about it being compared in terms of maneuverability to the F-16 but i doubt its bad.

Point is that there is a very much next-gen aircraft coming to the Navy, the F-35. Only thing is that it is still in its late stages of development but you could say that it is, in fact, replacing the F-14 as well as all F/A-18s before E/F.

EDIT: One more thing, the Super Hornet has new engines(longer range), higher fuel cap, new avionics and more wing space for tighter turns etc... in a dogfight. Its practically a new plane.



The bottom being the Super Hornet.

Dont believe the hype.
The standard armament of the F-35 is 2 AA Missiles and 2 bombs ( yes 2 ) if it wants to keep its stealth. Obviously if it wants to carry more, then it has to be mounted externally, which massivily reduces the range, loses the stealth capability, and it can then carry pretty much the same payload as the F-16. ( Bear in mind that to be sure of shooting down one hostile jet, usually 2 AA missiles will be required )
Its maneuverability, its top speed, and one engine are not great features either.

Originally Posted by SuperTimo

we need the eurofighters so everyone looks up and sees we are still a very powerful country for a such a small island.

Who actually gives a f**k? I never understand all this "punching above our weight" crap - we've got nukes - dont invade us - end of. Id much rather have the cash in my pocket, than some pretty useless jets, though I can understand ther need to keep the production infrastructure going in case things change.

[$kelet0r]

Originally Posted by Ironcomatose

"It's noticeable that the US Navy - the third biggest air force in the world at the end of the Cold War - plainly believe in this view of the modern world. The USN has not bothered to replace its F-14 Tomcats with a new generation of ultrafighter. Instead, the Top Guns of the future will fly in an enhanced version of the trusty F-18 multipurpose jet."

That paragraph lost him all credibility. Not only are the old F-14s retired already but the new stealth F-35s will be coming into service soon.

Actually no, he's not wrong. The F35 is meant to be a workhorse jet, much like the F16. It has stealthy features but it is by no stretch a 'superfighter'. The USN will still for a few decades at least be dominated by the F18E/F and upgrades.