I like all these "F-22 is way better" nerds :DDDDD It was a complete disaster just like the F-35. Way too expensive, can't fly in rain without the stealth ability get lost, and as soon the weponbays are open it is easy prey for other jets.
this plane has scary agility and acceleration,well for the EF vs. F-22 argument i guess its about the Pilots SKILL and not all about the technology the both planes have,
@zhangjingfei94 other than it being late in the game, most of its features are completely useless, its so called super maneuverability isn't super. The Rafale is still better than this aircraft yet it has been in service longer, but again its not a total failure, would make a great defensive aircraft but attacking its not much of any use. AG capabilities are beat by the F-15E, Air to Air is beat by the F-22.
@Kid574 stealth capabilities is advanced avionics, better than the so called modern. capabilities than can be upgraded in later block upgrades at anytime.
The EF is better than any other non stealth fighter aircraft on the market today. There are not very many stealth fighter around outside of the U.S. to challenge it. Even less capable stealth aircraft such as the F35 are not completely safe from it. It makes sense to use it as the primary fighter quantity force and complement it with some stealth aircraft. An all stealth fighter force is just too expensive and is very limited in terms of capabilities.
it funny how the gay narrator at the beginning say the yanks went wit stealth n europe went wit super-maneuverability..LOL..that is a bunch of queens stinky shit,truth is,the f22 is more maneuverable than the ef,only russian su-35 n probly t-50 can match the raptor in maneuverability,not this hunk o junk,man this europeans tend to over-hype there jets innit,same thing happen wit tornados,they say its better than f15's,guess what,it doesnt come close to the f15,this brits n european dream alot.
@215alessio "but this one is more rigid and can stay much longer in a 9 G Turn"
You really ought to take your own advice about "skunks" throwing shitty words.
The F-22 is a +9.5/-3.5 G rated airframe, compared to the EF's +9/-3. PLUS, the F-22 carries its 8 missiles INTERNALLY, negating any effects on aerodynamics and G loading, UNLIKE your Tiffy which must carry its missiles (AND TANKS) EXTERNALLY, which increases drag and lowers g loading.
-"And wait when te Trust vectoring Typhoon comes out the factories"
That won't do anything about its delta wing's high bleed rates in subsonic flight regimes (a well-known drawback of hi-sweep deltas). It also won't negate the fact that the EF will always carry its missiles externally. It'll ALWAYS be aerodynamically dirtier.
and what about the 'occasional' energy fight? Most engagements are NOT turn and burn fights. Any pilot who gets sucked into a turn and burn fight should be grounded
@nikobrown1990 They do not fall apart due to corrosion what happened was a inner water tank was leaking from within itself and it happened to be above a certain tile that was only one sided protected against water and cold.
@Firespectrum122 -"both will be outdated as advances into unmanned technology goes forward"
It'll be DECADES b4 unmanned fighters come online. Remote control is out if you want to retain stealth. That means you need an advanced AI to pilot the plane. Computers are great for fast linear reasoning. However they suck donkey balls when it comes to creativity and adaptive reasoning. That's why airliners still have pilots in the cockpit, despite the fact that every part of a flight can be automated.
@em745aa Actually, stealth is not an official requirement of a combat aircraft. MQ-9's are being used in combat now, who know's what they will be in the future?
@em745aa Oh of course! So you're saying that every aircraft since the wright brothers has been stealth capable! That's how they've always done it in war! For fuck's sake man, aircraft can always be detected, either through one means or the other. If UAV's were so easily detected by their control transmissions, why the hell would they spend so much money on, say, the Global Hawk, specifically designed for global surveillence: wouldn't that be easy for the enemy to detect and destroy it?
@Firespectrum122 The whole point of stealth is to reduce detection range to a point where ANY detection becomes moot. In combat, the guy who sees the other guy first wins the fight 99.9% of the time.
The F-22's stealth advantage has been proven ad nauseam at Red Flag and Northern Edge. Stealth IS the future of fighter aircraft. As such fighters will have flesh and blood pilots for a long time to come.
@em745aa If stealth IS the future, it's only logical that it will soon become void in the huge amount of countermeasures deployed against it. After that, I doubt fully fledged, multi-million dollar costing fighter aircraft, with a countered stealth ability will be the way of the future for long. No, much more likely unmanned aircraft: less expensive, less red-tape, less detectable, and many of which are equipped with stealth anyway.
@Firespectrum122 -"it's only logical that it will soon become void in the huge amount of countermeasures deployed against it"
Go tell that to the Chinese and Russians... and all the JSF partner countries for that matter. Seems like they're all wasting their time and money according to your (ahem!) "logic."
-"less detectable, and many of which are equipped with stealth anyway."
Make up your damn mind. Either stealth is worthless or it isn't...
And like I said before, you can't have a "stealth" UAV if it's remotely controlled.
You're also a fool if you think UAVs (no matter how modern) will have a snowball's chance in hell against a foe with a healthy air defense (be it an air force or SAMs). Can you say "turkey shoot?"... (And at ~$35M a pop, a very expensive turkey shoot.)
And just what do you mean by "EQUIPPED WITH" stealth?? Stealth is not some magical component(s) you can bolt on any airframe to suddenly make it stealth.
@em745aa As an effective countermeasure against the F-22. Perhaps if you wern't so quick to flame me, you would understand that I was talking about the future in forty years or so, not tomorrow. You've already proven that stealth isn't worthless. But pointing out that you can detect UAV's by their control transmissions when STEALTH UAV's have been developed for reconnaisance and combat roles is slightly ridiculous, even for an egoist like yourself.
@Firespectrum122 -"As an effective countermeasure against the F-22."
What "effective countermeasure" are you talking about???
-"But pointing out that you can detect UAV's by their control transmissions..."
If it's transmitting, IT CAN BE DETECTED... PERIOD... End of story. Why else do you think the eggheads at Northrop/Grumman went all out in making sure their AESA's had LPI modes?
Recon UAV's can be programmed to pilot themselves, because recon is a predictable, "dumb" mission. Maintaining LO is not a problem in this case since remote control is not needed. But how do you program a UAV to go in AUTONOMOUSLY and take out an enemy's air defences? Answer: YOU CAN'T! Because you need the human brain's capacity for adaptive reasoning for such missions. (Note that ALL the current "stealth" UAV contenders have recon/surveillance ONLY on their missions list.)
Rafale is stealthier and carries good tech but EF is more maneuverable. Imo, BVR capability and defense is more important these days than dogfighting capabilities.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
yeah they said that in Vietnam and look what happened ! the British had to go over and teach dogfight maneuvers and advanced tactics to the yanks infact that's when the school was given it's name of TOP GUN so it was technically founded by the British lol you must be getting sick of that bitter taste in your mouth i think it's called humble pie and if you would like to dispute this type in telegraph , top gun British pilots and it should put it to rest
Ah I see you managed to dodge that shit completely, good work.
No the bitter taste is in your mouth, it's called inferiority complex. I don't blame you though.
If say, Hawaii kicked decided to secede and kicked the US ass and went on to be the most powerful and successful country the world had ever seen we'd probably be bitter little shits like you too.
lmao you can deny it all you want but the truth is there for anybody to check out oh since you bring up the war of independence that wuld be Britain against itself with a lot of help from the French you really have no idea what your talking about do you ! i almost feel embarrassed for you but then how can i blame you hen all you do is write your own history ! how sad
I'm going to stop talking to you since I like the UK and surely the rational British people know you're stupid and most of what you say is complete asinine.
There is nothing for me to deny. The fact you believe Typhoon is better than Raptor in any sense of the word shows your acute bias and lack of knowledge about aviation.
Grow a brain fill it with information then come back and argue.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The US is the most powerful and successful country ever seen!! Have you ever heard of the British empire? 1/4 of the worlds land mass was under British control. Britain was a HYPER power never mind a superpower. Your army is stretched in Iraq! The British went into that country an changed it's name to Iraq !thats how powerful we were lol.
Said what in Vietnam? That doesn't make sense, and British did not go and teach shit lol. Where do you get this from? The vast majority of American aircraft shot down were by AAA. In air combat Americans had much better kill ratios than Vietnamese so, not sure where get this from.
Top Gun was not founded by the British jesus christ you talk straight from your ass I can smell it all the way across the atlantic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
when British pilots arrived at miramar in the early 1960's America was losing large numbers of aircraft in dogfights the tuition from the pilots of the intense air warfare instructors school in BRITAIN led to the Americans dominating the skies again and it was then that your naval warfare academy became known as TOP GUN lt commander dick lord's ( British ) tactics group the founding on which the original eight TOP GUN instructors built there course ! now shut the fuck up lol
Yeah probably the NIMITZ class carriers were also designed by the British..This is an inferiority complex I can well understand.
Most of the vital British weapons are made with US technology.
AWACS, APACHI ,TRIDENT 2 ,NIMROD ,TOMAHAWKS, F-35 you name it. Without US technology flowing into Britain's defence industries ,Britain is finished and without US Transport aircrafts British armed forces are going nowhere.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
LMAO actually without thhe British sharing technology with you wouldn't even have the jet engine not to mention the internet and circuites that run your computer ! to name but a few infact thinking about it we even made modern America hahaha stupid ignorent yank you can't change history no matter how many movies you make perhaps this is too much to swollow eh ! lmfao
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
actually you wouldn't have the A-bomb without Britian after British marines destroyed the heavy water plant in Norway without which the germans would have beaten us to it ! once again your lack if knowledge and history has let you down you retard ! lmao
why do the white countries have the best toys, WHITES ARE ugly stupid drug addicts that's why afghans mexicans southamericans and all our friends are sending drugs to north america and europe BTW we should make these drugs less toxic if you die from overdose who's gonna buy our drugs hahaha however thanks for make us rich u ugly white drug addicts
No ,Mr Raiden its simply not true ..The Jet engine was invented by the Germans Dr Hans von Ohain..This is a fact..His plane flew in 1941 M262, the British one two years later..Both men met in 1978 and compared their concepts and Whittle had to admit defeat .Whittle's concept was already outdated in 1950's, Von Ohains axial compressor is the one in operation today. Also the same with Radar invented by Germans.Watson Watts Chain-Home. was simply a modification of Christian Hulsmeyer invention.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
when British pilots arrived at miramar in the early 1960's America was losing large numbers of aircaft in dogfights the tuition from the pilots of the Intense air warfare instructors school in BRITAIN led to the Americans dominating the skies again and it was then that your naval warfare academy became known as TOP GUN lt commander Dick Lord's ( British ) tactics group was thhe founding on which the original eight TOP GUN instructors built there course ! whoopsy lol don't you look silly ;-)
That's right, F-22 is only stealth shit, which has better turning than the EF in every situation except instantaneous at supersonic speeds. And which is 2x more effective than EF Typhoons in BVR. According to Britain's Defense Agency anyway, lol.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@OlderG0ds: And I have "reliable data" that says otherwise.
The F22's fuselage cannot sustain 9G, it eventually takes damage, or even breaks appart, while the EF2000 is build specially to resist long, fast, high-G turns.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@OlderG0ds: Also the F22 can resist 9g for 15 seconds. The EF2000 can sustain on 9g for a very long period of time. In a dogfight, the F22 would fail just because of turning too fast.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
yeah that's why when the eurofighter went againt the raptor in a mock situation it picked up the f22 BVR lol and then what do you know the Americans didn't take part in the following days exersize ! i'm affraid the Typhoon wooped the Raptor :-)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
eurofighter far exceeds the f22, and as usual the f22 has to have stealth, doesnt have the balls to show its face in a fight! as soon as that eurofighter clocked its ugly ass, that f22 wood be history! anyway,, RAF , best pilots in the world! cood take on a f22 in a spitfire. word up!
-"but in a 1 on 1 dogfight with just cannon my moneys on the EF"
The F-22 can sustain 60° of alpha, and has pitch rates up to twice that of an F-16 (the EF's pitch rates may be better than the F-16's, but they aren't close to being TWICE as better).
Simply put, once an F-22 gets on an EF's 6, there's no way it'll be able to shake it off. Conversly, an EF will have one BITCH of a time trying to keep on an F-22's six.
(Sorry for the diarrhea postings... It's not something I do often.)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"The F-22 can sustain 60° of alpha"
I'm sure it can, the Typhoon managed to sustain over 70° alpha in flight testing, but for those like yourself that still doubt the Typhoon's high AoA performance. -
actually...the EF can do exotic moves supersonic and the f22's trust vectoring is at slow speeds...so the EF would just make a sharp turn or something like that and shake of the f22...but i certainly dont know about taking one down..
-"The EF was designed to take out Russian Migs/SU's trying to attack the mainland hence the hyper manouverability"
"Hyper maneuverability..." :) Cute.
Betcha didn't know that the Rafale actually has a small edge over the EF in horizontal maneuvering (turn rates).
You Brits need to take off those rose-colored blinders once in a while and go look at other aircraft demos. Go look at a few Hornet demos ("regular" and SH)... Maybe then the EF's maneuverability won't seem all that "hyper."
-"The F22 may be stealthy but what helps this is it carries internal weapons which have limited capacity"
You call 8 missiles "limited capacity??"
Also, you seem to forget that carrying missiles internally helps not only with stealth, but with aerodynamics and g-loading--both of which will be far better than a similarly loaded EF.
The F-22 will easily cruise over Mach 1.75 with 8 missiles. The EF will be (VERY) lucky to break Mach 1.2 with a similar load.
Unfortunately procurement is political. Each nation trying to protect it's own businesses. I think we should be buying the F-22 and not the F-35 to replace the Harrier.
Ehm, for your information, it would be like buying a Leopard 2a6 to replace the Paladin or so, F35 and Harrier have the same roles, but the F22 has a completely different role.
Well for one the F-22 isn't being exported as of now.
Though I do wonder if UK bought F-22's instead of Typhoons how people's attitudes would be different, Brits would probably be saying F-22 is the best in that case.
Secondly the F-35B version is replacing the Harrier because of it's V/STOL capabilities. F-22 is not carrier capable, and Britain needs at least STOVL aircraft for their aircraft carriers since they are smaller though QE class will have more room for takeoffs.
We'd never be able to afford the F22. Not now with the recession on. there's cuts everywhere by our government, now we could end up with one F35 carrier and the other being just a helicopter assault carrier, and my even get the F35C!! Instead of the B... 232 Tiffie's(EF) nah(150), 138 F35's nah(50-60), 2 new carriers?Helicopters n equipment for insurgency will be tripling. Cheers dude!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
actualy u need to wake da fuck up. this video doesnt even cover half of the crap this fighter is capable of. you can preprogram manuevers and give it orders to pull a monuever that will knock the pilot out and then take out the target. this thing is beyond anything you ever dreamed of. american propaganda is real good at diluding its citizens. hell i remember watching a F-22 movie were the pilot and designers were saying taht its veritcal thrust was first ofits kind.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
ITS NOT and the russians also have a 360* thrust vectoring. american people need to wake the fuck up and stop believing these stories being thrown at you.
now you're reaching for the EF's sake... nice try , but F-22 will wipe ALL fighter jets out.. like i said even the US fighter jets and we have the BEST..... F-22 has too much top secret stuff in it, that us youtube ppl would only dream of...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
yawn.......................................yea yea yea im sick of stupid yanks posting on typhoon vids saying F-22 this F-22 that it can fly backwards it can take on 1 million other aircraft and win with the pilot sitting upside down wearing only his underpants.....F-22 has been cancelled pal last 2 being made thats it........its that good you have cancelled it
By the way the EF can only fly at mach 1.5 without weapons aboard and at 1.1 with weapons. I am not sure how the EF could outmaneuver the f-22 when it has its weapons onboard which reduces performance and creates more drag. F-22 stores its weapons inside so no drag there or performance decrease
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"By the way the EF can only fly at mach 1.5 without weapons aboard and at 1.1 with weapons."
monimstarfox, BAE have stated in the past that the Typhoon can supercruise at Mach 1.5 with 4 AMRAAM + 2 AIM-9, but they refer to this as being a 'clean configuration' due to the negligible impact that load has on the planes performance, and that's were the confusion stems from as people assume it refers to what the Typhoon is capable of clean, minus weapons.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
(cont.)
The Typhoon proved capable of supercruise at Mach 1.3 with eight AAM's, a 1000L centreline tank, plus over a ton of test equipment in tropical conditions during Singapore's FX competition; I wonder if the F-22 could supercruise at all under the same conditions ?.
well the f-22 can because it doesnt carry all that Its a strike aircraft its made to engage and beat any other aircraft in the air. It can carry bombs but only a few. Answer to your question is yes and plus it doesnt carry its ordnance on its wings reducing stress on the wings while maneuvering plus drag. The EF doesnt do this so i wouldnt be surprised if a few wings snapped off while maneuvering with a full payload.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Answer to your question is yes"
I don't think it's ever been stated that the F-22 can supercruise with external fuel and weapons, but the thing you need to consider is that although carrying weapons internally doesn't increase drag, the drag of the clean airframe itself will be greater to start with, and of course that's drag your stuck with regardless of payload.
Its not stated but its not denied. How does that make sense a clean airframe creates less drag then an airplane with weapons on its wings. So that means the EF has to compete with drag from its frame itself and the drag created by the missiles, bombs and external tanks?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"How does that make sense a clean airframe creates less drag then an airplane with weapons on its wings."
Because that 'clean' airframe must be built around a volume large enough to hold a weapons load internally, that inevitably increases the drag, and it's drag that your stuck with regardless of payload. ;)
drag is determined by aerodynamic efficiency, and size is only part of it. If you have a bunch of weapons hanging on the wings, it certainly creates more drags than weapons that are stored into a weapon bay that smoothly blend into the airframe with a flat, no bulge surfaces. that's why a small box is 'draggier' than a big cone.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"If you have a bunch of weapons hanging on the wings, it certainly creates more drags than
weapons that are stored into a weapon bay ..."
Explains why a Typhoon achieves the same top speed as the F-35 does even while carrying 3 external fuel tanks, or why the F-35 flying 'clean' can't supercruise while a Typhoon carrying 'draggy' external stores can.
I'm completely unaware that typhoon can reach mach 1.6 while carrying 3 fuel tanks. It would be great that you can point me to a source. Anyway, to explain your question: the f-35's low top speed is due to its SHAPE (which support my point even more). There are many inherent factors on its shape that you can just see by looking at it, but the biggest reason I think is its wing sweep angle.
...If you read some discussion about f-35 over some forum, there are speculation about f-35 supercruise ability given its enormous thrust and clean configuration. Well, maybe it will, once it enter service. but one thing is clear, its engine was not designed to supercruise, that's why the marketing NOW does not feature it as supercruise. If the future unfolds that it can, lockheed will probably put it into their marketing ploy. However, it's certain that won't be a true 'supercruiser'...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"...If you read some discussion about f-35 over some forum, there are speculation about f-35 supercruise ability given its enormous thrust and clean configuration."
And I will bet the same people are still 'speculating' that the Typhoon can't supercruise at all. (rollseyes) ...
and I never say I agree with them. That's why I say even in the future, f-35 can hit supersonic speed without reheat, it's still not a true supercruiser, because its engine doesn't have the hardware for it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Anyway, to explain your question: the f-35's low top speed is due to its SHAPE (which support my point even more)."
The point is that you can't generalise by saying that internal weapons carriage is automatically the more aerodynamically efficient solution, and it's obvious that the Typhoon performs the way it does despite carrying weapons externally.
the point is that internal weapon carriage has less drag in general term, but aircraft performance is not dictated by only that, wing sweep angle, thrust, etc. are also big factors. I think you got the point mixed up, there.
Anyway, I don't fully know under which condition the typhoon achieved its supercruise and for how long, but according to carlo kopp, its engine does not feature the distinct characteristic of a supercruise engine (an example would be the f-35 engine, though provide more thrust than the f-22's, it doesn't feature the characteristic of a supercruise engine for cost saving). Now, did I just randomly bring this up to bash typhoon? certainly not, but that to answer your question about f35...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
stealthyf23, I suggest ignoring Kopp's article, but to address just one obvious error. -
"... comparable to growth variants of the F/A-18's GE F404. The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance rather than cruise burn."
Yet the F119 has a bypass ratio of 0.45:1, and ironically variants of the F404 i.e. GE-400/402/RM12 have lower bypass ratios than either the EJ200 or F119 yet don't allow the aircraft they power to supercruise.
lol, I know! carlo kopp has been so out of grace with many of his heavily biased and outrageous articles suggesting both the cancellation of f-35 and typhoon and instead buying , but I pointed to him on that particular issue because in that very particular issue, he had a point. You claimed that typhoon's supercruise has significant tactical impact, based on what? Do you know the conditions in which these incidents happened? how long it sustained that speed?
....to the definition of the f-22 even if it breaks sound barrier in the future (I'm talking about f-35) as its engine doesn't feature the characteristic of enduring high temperature for supersonic cruise. So the notion that the typhoon supercruise while f-35 is best pending for the future. One thing is clear though, the reason why it's not in lockheed's marketing right now, is because they have nothing to back up that claim unless some test result shows up.
one other thing to note is that typhoon, though store weapons externally, has excellent weapon layout for air to air missiles to minimize as much drag as possible (which is probably a big contributor to its supercruise incidents). If your argument persist, then the designers wouldn't design it so, since it still has to carry the same missile loads anyway which means same drag, right?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"So that means the EF has to compete with drag from its frame itself and the drag created by the missiles, bombs and external tanks?"
Ans yet the Typhoon can reach the same top speed as the F-35 can 'clean' while carrying three external 1000 Litre tanks; I'll leave you to ponder why. ;)
Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of an aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load so yes it can sustain a super-cruise of mach 1.83. With a useful load that fits the EF's multirole niche it can only fly at mach 1.1
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"... it can sustain a super-cruise of mach 1.83."
Not sure where your getting the Mach 1.83 from but if it's possible at all then it would likely only be with a minimum fuel and weapons. The F-22 can supercruise at 'up to' Mach 1.72 according to the USAF, and according to this chart published by AFA it can even reach Mach 1.75, BUT only carrying 50% internal fuel, and even then only at one particular altitude. -
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"With a useful load that fits the EF's multirole niche it can only fly at mach 1.1"
The Typhoon can supercruise at up to Mach 1.5 with 4 MRAAM / 2 SRAAM.
As I said before it's a multi-role aircraft, but one of those roles is air-superiority, if your interested in making a fair comparison then you need to consider the stated performance of both aircraft with an equivalent weapons load, or as near to equivalent as is possible with the information available.
oh by the way at sea level the typhoon can only reach mach 1.20 has its maximum speed.
By the way i dont know were you got that the f-22 can only supercruise at 1.7 with 50 percent fuel but i do know that at 50 percent fuel the f-22 has a higher thrust to weight ratio then the EF. It is a multirole fighter but only doing one role wouldnt put it into the multirole fighter category. This is not a fair comparison F-22 is a air superiority fighter t specializes in one area the EF Does not.
As for supercruise, well, that's one controversial term there. Supercruise, as marketed for the raptor, is the ability to go supersonic without afterburner and SUSTAIN it long enough and under a variety of scenarios to have an significant tactical impact. But then the term "supercruise" is so vague, that developers can just use to their own end. If an aircraft, under some special condition, break sound barrier without reheat, well, that's supercruise, isn't?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"But then the term "supercruise" is so vague, that developers can just use to their own end."
Saying that a late block F-16 can supercruise because it can just about exceed Mach 1 on a good day carrying 2 winders and minimum fuel would be stretching the definition, but the Typhoon's capability to supercruise is not only real but also tactically significant.
9g's with all that i think thats a far offshoot of the EF's 14g capability so weapons,bombs and tanks do take away from its maneuverability. EF is cleared up to 14g without weapons with weapons 9g.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"9g's with all that i think thats a far offshoot of the EF's 14g capability"
The Typhoon isn't capable of 14g under normal circumstances any more than the F-22 is, but it does retain it's 9g manoeuvrability even with a weapons load larger than the F-22 can currently carry.
I like all these "F-22 is way better" nerds :DDDDD It was a complete disaster just like the F-35. Way too expensive, can't fly in rain without the stealth ability get lost, and as soon the weponbays are open it is easy prey for other jets.
JazzJaRa 1 month ago
12 americans and russians dont like!
SorrybutJebiga 4 months ago
i was wondering....in the eurofighter does the flight computer adjust the rudder or does the pilot have to do that
Diemorder 8 months ago
Narrator sounds like Tiff Needel
vk45de 10 months ago
@vk45de it is.
pacsum 10 months ago
@vk45de i think it is. feels like watching fifth gear lol
julianleeho 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this plane has scary agility and acceleration,well for the EF vs. F-22 argument i guess its about the Pilots SKILL and not all about the technology the both planes have,
pathfinder0009 1 year ago
this aircraft is a failure...
SpywareHater 1 year ago
@SpywareHater WHY??
zhangjingfei94 1 year ago
@zhangjingfei94 other than it being late in the game, most of its features are completely useless, its so called super maneuverability isn't super. The Rafale is still better than this aircraft yet it has been in service longer, but again its not a total failure, would make a great defensive aircraft but attacking its not much of any use. AG capabilities are beat by the F-15E, Air to Air is beat by the F-22.
SpywareHater 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpywareHater
So you know more 'bout typhoon than the pilot speakin huh ... :)
Kid574 1 year ago
@Kid574 so the Typhoon is stealth huh? Its not even as good as Rafale, which was already proven.
SpywareHater 1 year ago
@SpywareHater
I didn't say that the EF2000 "Typhoon" is a stealth!!!! ;)
I was just commenting your words about the typhoon specifics and capabilities !!!
Kid574 1 year ago
@Kid574 oh thats easy, inferior to the F-22 in A2A
SpywareHater 1 year ago
@SpywareHater
stealth capabilities vs modern avionic/equipment = USELESS (IR sensors tracking, IR active scanning etc.)
Kid574 1 year ago
@Kid574 pointless continuing, you're ignorant
SpywareHater 1 year ago
@Kid574 stealth capabilities is advanced avionics, better than the so called modern. capabilities than can be upgraded in later block upgrades at anytime.
SpywareHater 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the typhoons radar has once got a lock on the "steathed" raptor in a simulatory dogfight excercise. so there goes that advantage.
plus the RAF have better pilots
MrCrispy616 1 year ago
best fighter jet yet, the only thing that can compete with it in my opinion will be the f35
momoreza123 1 year ago
The EF is better than any other non stealth fighter aircraft on the market today. There are not very many stealth fighter around outside of the U.S. to challenge it. Even less capable stealth aircraft such as the F35 are not completely safe from it. It makes sense to use it as the primary fighter quantity force and complement it with some stealth aircraft. An all stealth fighter force is just too expensive and is very limited in terms of capabilities.
stupidburp 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
oh stealth jet kiddis - our f-22 and f-35 a only for a-band radar stealth. - the eurofighter can see all shitty stealth jets ;)
the gepard to and other stuff to- stealth jets are expensive has low weapon armor - for ?? for nothing
xxxxxRevolutionxxxxx 1 year ago
look at his mouth in points down. He has been pulling to many G's lol
Louisthefish23 1 year ago
Care free handling = ESP for planes
ecouriercouk 1 year ago
@ecouriercouk
lol nah ESP stops the car from crashing when you shit yourself ;)
metube1120 1 year ago
sounds like on hell of a fighter
strideisgood 1 year ago
my god is that Tiff????????
a5180433 1 year ago
this sounds like Tiff
vk45de 1 year ago
@grumm70 Not with a sim, but by remote. Think of the MQ-9 reaper and Global Hawk.
Firespectrum122 1 year ago
it funny how the gay narrator at the beginning say the yanks went wit stealth n europe went wit super-maneuverability..LOL..that is a bunch of queens stinky shit,truth is,the f22 is more maneuverable than the ef,only russian su-35 n probly t-50 can match the raptor in maneuverability,not this hunk o junk,man this europeans tend to over-hype there jets innit,same thing happen wit tornados,they say its better than f15's,guess what,it doesnt come close to the f15,this brits n european dream alot.
fmoa 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@fmoa
why are you so pissed about man?
And Yes it us shurely way lightyears better than the F15 F16 F14 F35 Mig 29
Not all things have to be about america on you tube. Every time there is a non American jet some skunk has to trow shitty words at it
The F22 is more manouvrable at lower speeds but this one is more rigid and can stay much longer in a 9 G Turn
And wait when te Trust vectoring Typhoon comes out the factories. (already some models existing)
215alessio 1 year ago
@215alessio "but this one is more rigid and can stay much longer in a 9 G Turn"
You really ought to take your own advice about "skunks" throwing shitty words.
The F-22 is a +9.5/-3.5 G rated airframe, compared to the EF's +9/-3. PLUS, the F-22 carries its 8 missiles INTERNALLY, negating any effects on aerodynamics and G loading, UNLIKE your Tiffy which must carry its missiles (AND TANKS) EXTERNALLY, which increases drag and lowers g loading.
em745aa 1 year ago
-"And wait when te Trust vectoring Typhoon comes out the factories"
That won't do anything about its delta wing's high bleed rates in subsonic flight regimes (a well-known drawback of hi-sweep deltas). It also won't negate the fact that the EF will always carry its missiles externally. It'll ALWAYS be aerodynamically dirtier.
em745aa 1 year ago
@em745aa
and what about the 'occasional' energy fight? Most engagements are NOT turn and burn fights. Any pilot who gets sucked into a turn and burn fight should be grounded
metube1120 1 year ago
@em745aa
Most planes are capable of well over 9g's but it is limited because of the pilot.
From what ive read the f14 didnt like doing high g turns whilst supersonic, whats the f22 like?
metube1120 1 year ago
@metube1120 The F-22 can super-cruise and go to 9G whilst sustaining it.
TheMilitaryTactics 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMilitaryTactics
And its a wast of money.
G777GUN 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheMilitaryTactics im sure it can but its a shame that they are all falling apart due to corrosion =(
nikobrown1990 8 months ago
@nikobrown1990 They do not fall apart due to corrosion what happened was a inner water tank was leaking from within itself and it happened to be above a certain tile that was only one sided protected against water and cold.
TheMilitaryTactics 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@fmoa I've seen exactly the same video with an American narrator who says exactly the same!
piesanmash 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Luftwaffe/RAF are legends
they dont use 2nd best planes
they use the BEST
FUCK USA :D
motormonkeyNL 1 year ago
Comment removed
motormonkeyNL 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
eurofight isnt american therefore its rubbish no euro trash fighter can beat the f 22
sniker45 2 years ago
OMG! Stop this madness! I say Eurotrash > usatrash ^^
Antarktida1337 2 years ago
f-22, eurofighter, both will be outdated as advances into unmanned technology goes forward. enjoy fantastic planes like these while you can.
Firespectrum122 2 years ago
@Firespectrum122 -"both will be outdated as advances into unmanned technology goes forward"
It'll be DECADES b4 unmanned fighters come online. Remote control is out if you want to retain stealth. That means you need an advanced AI to pilot the plane. Computers are great for fast linear reasoning. However they suck donkey balls when it comes to creativity and adaptive reasoning. That's why airliners still have pilots in the cockpit, despite the fact that every part of a flight can be automated.
em745aa 1 year ago
@em745aa Actually, stealth is not an official requirement of a combat aircraft. MQ-9's are being used in combat now, who know's what they will be in the future?
Firespectrum122 1 year ago
@Firespectrum122 -"Actually, stealth is not an official requirement of a combat aircraft"
Yeah, you're right. I mean, the LAST you want is to make it hard for the other guy to know you're coming.
*rollseyes*
em745aa 1 year ago
@em745aa Oh of course! So you're saying that every aircraft since the wright brothers has been stealth capable! That's how they've always done it in war! For fuck's sake man, aircraft can always be detected, either through one means or the other. If UAV's were so easily detected by their control transmissions, why the hell would they spend so much money on, say, the Global Hawk, specifically designed for global surveillence: wouldn't that be easy for the enemy to detect and destroy it?
Firespectrum122 1 year ago
@Firespectrum122 The whole point of stealth is to reduce detection range to a point where ANY detection becomes moot. In combat, the guy who sees the other guy first wins the fight 99.9% of the time.
The F-22's stealth advantage has been proven ad nauseam at Red Flag and Northern Edge. Stealth IS the future of fighter aircraft. As such fighters will have flesh and blood pilots for a long time to come.
em745aa 1 year ago
@em745aa If stealth IS the future, it's only logical that it will soon become void in the huge amount of countermeasures deployed against it. After that, I doubt fully fledged, multi-million dollar costing fighter aircraft, with a countered stealth ability will be the way of the future for long. No, much more likely unmanned aircraft: less expensive, less red-tape, less detectable, and many of which are equipped with stealth anyway.
Firespectrum122 1 year ago
@Firespectrum122 -"it's only logical that it will soon become void in the huge amount of countermeasures deployed against it"
Go tell that to the Chinese and Russians... and all the JSF partner countries for that matter. Seems like they're all wasting their time and money according to your (ahem!) "logic."
-"less detectable, and many of which are equipped with stealth anyway."
Make up your damn mind. Either stealth is worthless or it isn't...
em745aa 1 year ago
And like I said before, you can't have a "stealth" UAV if it's remotely controlled.
You're also a fool if you think UAVs (no matter how modern) will have a snowball's chance in hell against a foe with a healthy air defense (be it an air force or SAMs). Can you say "turkey shoot?"... (And at ~$35M a pop, a very expensive turkey shoot.)
em745aa 1 year ago
And just what do you mean by "EQUIPPED WITH" stealth?? Stealth is not some magical component(s) you can bolt on any airframe to suddenly make it stealth.
em745aa 1 year ago
@em745aa As an effective countermeasure against the F-22. Perhaps if you wern't so quick to flame me, you would understand that I was talking about the future in forty years or so, not tomorrow. You've already proven that stealth isn't worthless. But pointing out that you can detect UAV's by their control transmissions when STEALTH UAV's have been developed for reconnaisance and combat roles is slightly ridiculous, even for an egoist like yourself.
Firespectrum122 1 year ago
@Firespectrum122 -"As an effective countermeasure against the F-22."
What "effective countermeasure" are you talking about???
-"But pointing out that you can detect UAV's by their control transmissions..."
If it's transmitting, IT CAN BE DETECTED... PERIOD... End of story. Why else do you think the eggheads at Northrop/Grumman went all out in making sure their AESA's had LPI modes?
em745aa 1 year ago
Recon UAV's can be programmed to pilot themselves, because recon is a predictable, "dumb" mission. Maintaining LO is not a problem in this case since remote control is not needed. But how do you program a UAV to go in AUTONOMOUSLY and take out an enemy's air defences? Answer: YOU CAN'T! Because you need the human brain's capacity for adaptive reasoning for such missions. (Note that ALL the current "stealth" UAV contenders have recon/surveillance ONLY on their missions list.)
em745aa 1 year ago
it looks better and more evil in black, but you can see it easier
Evidental 2 years ago
I wish the US AirForce bought these, but they didn't
CaptainTred 2 years ago
the EF woz made to be better thn the Rafale coz the french pulled out to make their own fighter
Louisthefish23 2 years ago
Rafale is stealthier and carries good tech but EF is more maneuverable. Imo, BVR capability and defense is more important these days than dogfighting capabilities.
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yeah they said that in Vietnam and look what happened ! the British had to go over and teach dogfight maneuvers and advanced tactics to the yanks infact that's when the school was given it's name of TOP GUN so it was technically founded by the British lol you must be getting sick of that bitter taste in your mouth i think it's called humble pie and if you would like to dispute this type in telegraph , top gun British pilots and it should put it to rest
danny1229c 2 years ago
Ah I see you managed to dodge that shit completely, good work.
No the bitter taste is in your mouth, it's called inferiority complex. I don't blame you though.
If say, Hawaii kicked decided to secede and kicked the US ass and went on to be the most powerful and successful country the world had ever seen we'd probably be bitter little shits like you too.
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lmao you can deny it all you want but the truth is there for anybody to check out oh since you bring up the war of independence that wuld be Britain against itself with a lot of help from the French you really have no idea what your talking about do you ! i almost feel embarrassed for you but then how can i blame you hen all you do is write your own history ! how sad
danny1229c 2 years ago
I'm going to stop talking to you since I like the UK and surely the rational British people know you're stupid and most of what you say is complete asinine.
There is nothing for me to deny. The fact you believe Typhoon is better than Raptor in any sense of the word shows your acute bias and lack of knowledge about aviation.
Grow a brain fill it with information then come back and argue.
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The US is the most powerful and successful country ever seen!! Have you ever heard of the British empire? 1/4 of the worlds land mass was under British control. Britain was a HYPER power never mind a superpower. Your army is stretched in Iraq! The British went into that country an changed it's name to Iraq !thats how powerful we were lol.
piesanmash 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lmao couldn't have said it better myself
danny1229c 2 years ago
Said what in Vietnam? That doesn't make sense, and British did not go and teach shit lol. Where do you get this from? The vast majority of American aircraft shot down were by AAA. In air combat Americans had much better kill ratios than Vietnamese so, not sure where get this from.
Top Gun was not founded by the British jesus christ you talk straight from your ass I can smell it all the way across the atlantic.
What's next is Mcdonalds British too?
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
when British pilots arrived at miramar in the early 1960's America was losing large numbers of aircraft in dogfights the tuition from the pilots of the intense air warfare instructors school in BRITAIN led to the Americans dominating the skies again and it was then that your naval warfare academy became known as TOP GUN lt commander dick lord's ( British ) tactics group the founding on which the original eight TOP GUN instructors built there course ! now shut the fuck up lol
danny1229c 2 years ago
TOP GUN is British ?? get your ass out of your rectum stupid limey...
sidewinder188 2 years ago
Yeah probably the NIMITZ class carriers were also designed by the British..This is an inferiority complex I can well understand.
Most of the vital British weapons are made with US technology.
AWACS, APACHI ,TRIDENT 2 ,NIMROD ,TOMAHAWKS, F-35 you name it. Without US technology flowing into Britain's defence industries ,Britain is finished and without US Transport aircrafts British armed forces are going nowhere.
This is too much to swallow I suppose.
sidewinder188 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
LMAO actually without thhe British sharing technology with you wouldn't even have the jet engine not to mention the internet and circuites that run your computer ! to name but a few infact thinking about it we even made modern America hahaha stupid ignorent yank you can't change history no matter how many movies you make perhaps this is too much to swollow eh ! lmfao
danny1229c 2 years ago
You woudn't have the A-BOMB without us you ignorant limey.
Lol actually Jet engine and the radar was invented by Germans .without the USA sharing technology you wouldnt have your nuclear submarines either.
sidewinder188 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
actually you wouldn't have the A-bomb without Britian after British marines destroyed the heavy water plant in Norway without which the germans would have beaten us to it ! once again your lack if knowledge and history has let you down you retard ! lmao
danny1229c 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why do the white countries have the best toys, WHITES ARE ugly stupid drug addicts that's why afghans mexicans southamericans and all our friends are sending drugs to north america and europe BTW we should make these drugs less toxic if you die from overdose who's gonna buy our drugs hahaha however thanks for make us rich u ugly white drug addicts
RICHbrowngrow02 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
jet engine was invented by frank whittle ..radar was british also ... dont really wonna start an argument but there facts
MrRaiden1989 2 years ago
No ,Mr Raiden its simply not true ..The Jet engine was invented by the Germans Dr Hans von Ohain..This is a fact..His plane flew in 1941 M262, the British one two years later..Both men met in 1978 and compared their concepts and Whittle had to admit defeat .Whittle's concept was already outdated in 1950's, Von Ohains axial compressor is the one in operation today. Also the same with Radar invented by Germans.Watson Watts Chain-Home. was simply a modification of Christian Hulsmeyer invention.
sidewinder188 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
sorry m8 but ive just looked it up Sir frank whittles engine was running in 1937. 5 months before Dr hans von ohain
MrRaiden1989 2 years ago
whittles engine was working first but von ohains engine was put into a plane and in the air first
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
when British pilots arrived at miramar in the early 1960's America was losing large numbers of aircaft in dogfights the tuition from the pilots of the Intense air warfare instructors school in BRITAIN led to the Americans dominating the skies again and it was then that your naval warfare academy became known as TOP GUN lt commander Dick Lord's ( British ) tactics group was thhe founding on which the original eight TOP GUN instructors built there course ! whoopsy lol don't you look silly ;-)
danny1229c 2 years ago
More rambling, delusional crap from the idiot.
sidewinder188 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The rafale is the best now anyways
pakruy 2 years ago
Bullshit. The Rafale is a light version from the Typhoon.The French drop out from the project for many years.
This is the reason that Rafale and Typhoon look fast similar.
BadTeutonik 2 years ago
Forget The "Rafale". Rafale ist just the light version from the Typhoon.
You just need to read the technical analysis from the two birds...
BadTeutonik 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the Rafal weights more and is less manouvrable.
But anyway my compliments to the French aviation they made the best passenger plane ever bult!
215alessio 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
European fighters rock :D love JAS 39 Gripen and EF thypoon <3. Best aircrafts ever built. f-22 sucks
foxinterspecial 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's right.. F-22 is only stealth shit. Stealth technology is death.
BohemiaPatriot 2 years ago
That's right, F-22 is only stealth shit, which has better turning than the EF in every situation except instantaneous at supersonic speeds. And which is 2x more effective than EF Typhoons in BVR. According to Britain's Defense Agency anyway, lol.
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@OlderG0ds: Faster turning rate than the EF2k? Sure, only that the EF2000 turns 2 degree/s faster than the F22
Helge129 2 years ago
And where do you get this information from?
I have reliable data saying otherwise.
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@OlderG0ds: And I have "reliable data" that says otherwise.
The F22's fuselage cannot sustain 9G, it eventually takes damage, or even breaks appart, while the EF2000 is build specially to resist long, fast, high-G turns.
Helge129 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@OlderG0ds: Also the F22 can resist 9g for 15 seconds. The EF2000 can sustain on 9g for a very long period of time. In a dogfight, the F22 would fail just because of turning too fast.
Helge129 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yeah that's why when the eurofighter went againt the raptor in a mock situation it picked up the f22 BVR lol and then what do you know the Americans didn't take part in the following days exersize ! i'm affraid the Typhoon wooped the Raptor :-)
danny1229c 2 years ago
It picked up a raptor carrying external tanks.
aquietguy 2 years ago
Nope that didn't happen your retarded internet rumors are not fooling anyone.
Typhoon and Raptor have never had any "mock situation" as you put it.
If you can prove me otherwise go ahead. Tell me when, where, what exercise it was, and give an official source.
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
Agreeee
Kommandant10 2 years ago
Este vídeo é incrivel
mjgborges 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
eurofighter far exceeds the f22, and as usual the f22 has to have stealth, doesnt have the balls to show its face in a fight! as soon as that eurofighter clocked its ugly ass, that f22 wood be history! anyway,, RAF , best pilots in the world! cood take on a f22 in a spitfire. word up!
FunGuy133 2 years ago
please sir keep dreaming you can kill what you cant see.. word up
monimstarfox 2 years ago
-"but in a 1 on 1 dogfight with just cannon my moneys on the EF"
The F-22 can sustain 60° of alpha, and has pitch rates up to twice that of an F-16 (the EF's pitch rates may be better than the F-16's, but they aren't close to being TWICE as better).
Simply put, once an F-22 gets on an EF's 6, there's no way it'll be able to shake it off. Conversly, an EF will have one BITCH of a time trying to keep on an F-22's six.
(Sorry for the diarrhea postings... It's not something I do often.)
em745aa 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"The F-22 can sustain 60° of alpha"
I'm sure it can, the Typhoon managed to sustain over 70° alpha in flight testing, but for those like yourself that still doubt the Typhoon's high AoA performance. -
d0CnA4hBLJE (7:45 - 8:20)
S6ekN3xHApE (1:18 - 1:40)
qaTwkjZPGAo (1:17)
YYMuHAD20kU (6:05)
LMiWPj4DzP0 (2:55 - 3:05)
yUK-TY_SFbQ (1:10 - 1:50)
MrPikon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"the EF's pitch rates may be better than the F-16's, but they aren't close to being TWICE as better"
The Typhoon is by far more unstable in the pitch axis, and consequently has the potential for far greater pitch acceleration than the F-16.
Static margin (% of Mean Aerodynamic Chord) -
F-16: -5% MAC
Typhoon: -35% MAC
Time to double amplitude. -
F-16: 0.6 sec
Typhoon: <0.25 sec
MrPikon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(cont.)
And in the absence of any hard figures for pure pitch rates, the maximum G-onset rates of both aircraft are known, and can be compared. -
F-16: 6 g/sec
Typhoon: 15-20 g/sec
Putting all the stats aside for a minute though, can you show me another aircraft (F-22 included) that can match this
em745aa ? -
watch?v=9wXN8UFM3bM (0:37)
MrPikon 2 years ago
actually...the EF can do exotic moves supersonic and the f22's trust vectoring is at slow speeds...so the EF would just make a sharp turn or something like that and shake of the f22...but i certainly dont know about taking one down..
nickcars100 2 years ago
@nickcars100 -"the EF can do exotic moves supersonic and the f22's trust vectoring is at slow speeds"
The F-22's maneuverability envelope shits all over the EF's, regardless of speed.
-"so the EF would just make a sharp turn or something like that and shake of the f22"
I've yet to see your Tiffy demonstrate comparable pitch and turn rates:
watch?v=k0CPPlFk4Yo
em745aa 1 year ago
-"The EF was designed to take out Russian Migs/SU's trying to attack the mainland hence the hyper manouverability"
"Hyper maneuverability..." :) Cute.
Betcha didn't know that the Rafale actually has a small edge over the EF in horizontal maneuvering (turn rates).
You Brits need to take off those rose-colored blinders once in a while and go look at other aircraft demos. Go look at a few Hornet demos ("regular" and SH)... Maybe then the EF's maneuverability won't seem all that "hyper."
em745aa 2 years ago
-"This has now obviously changed but luckily the delta Wing config allows for a heavy load of munitions"
No more so than any other wing with a low aspect ratio:
i26.tinypic.c om/2pplqfo.gif
em745aa 2 years ago
-"The F22 may be stealthy but what helps this is it carries internal weapons which have limited capacity"
You call 8 missiles "limited capacity??"
Also, you seem to forget that carrying missiles internally helps not only with stealth, but with aerodynamics and g-loading--both of which will be far better than a similarly loaded EF.
The F-22 will easily cruise over Mach 1.75 with 8 missiles. The EF will be (VERY) lucky to break Mach 1.2 with a similar load.
em745aa 2 years ago
-"If you were to then put weapons on the outside which is possible the Stealth capability would diminish"
A moot argument. Even with external stores its RCS will be lower than the EF's.
Besides, the F-22 can still carry a full AtA loadout in a stealthy manner, which is _FAR_ more than what I can say for the EF.
em745aa 2 years ago
Unfortunately procurement is political. Each nation trying to protect it's own businesses. I think we should be buying the F-22 and not the F-35 to replace the Harrier.
ptd463 2 years ago
Ehm, for your information, it would be like buying a Leopard 2a6 to replace the Paladin or so, F35 and Harrier have the same roles, but the F22 has a completely different role.
Helge129 2 years ago
Well for one the F-22 isn't being exported as of now.
Though I do wonder if UK bought F-22's instead of Typhoons how people's attitudes would be different, Brits would probably be saying F-22 is the best in that case.
Secondly the F-35B version is replacing the Harrier because of it's V/STOL capabilities. F-22 is not carrier capable, and Britain needs at least STOVL aircraft for their aircraft carriers since they are smaller though QE class will have more room for takeoffs.
OlderG0ds 2 years ago
We'd never be able to afford the F22. Not now with the recession on. there's cuts everywhere by our government, now we could end up with one F35 carrier and the other being just a helicopter assault carrier, and my even get the F35C!! Instead of the B... 232 Tiffie's(EF) nah(150), 138 F35's nah(50-60), 2 new carriers?Helicopters n equipment for insurgency will be tripling. Cheers dude!!
zucoy21z89 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
actualy u need to wake da fuck up. this video doesnt even cover half of the crap this fighter is capable of. you can preprogram manuevers and give it orders to pull a monuever that will knock the pilot out and then take out the target. this thing is beyond anything you ever dreamed of. american propaganda is real good at diluding its citizens. hell i remember watching a F-22 movie were the pilot and designers were saying taht its veritcal thrust was first ofits kind.
marco0798 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ITS NOT and the russians also have a 360* thrust vectoring. american people need to wake the fuck up and stop believing these stories being thrown at you.
marco0798 2 years ago
Your correct the MiG 35 has thrust vectoring.
bubbles867 2 years ago
-"Their a different beast designed for different purposes"
EF = air superiority as primary role
F-22 = air dominance as primary role
Seems to me they were both designed for similar purposes.
-"None have been tested in a real combat situation"
The F-22 has seen plenty of excercise training, with ROE restrictions it would never face in real combat.
em745aa 2 years ago
-"If there is a difference it's going to be small"
Of course as a Brit you'd think that. ;)
-"F22 project has been canx I believe by the Obama Administration"
No. The total procurement has been capped at 187.
em745aa 2 years ago
-"to be honest, i dont believe that the f22 is so much better than a typhoon!"
To be REALLY honest, the F-22 is actually A LOT better than the EF. :)
-"Give the typhoon a better radar and the advantages of the f22 are gone because its not really stealthy!"
ghostofaflea.c om/archives/009743.html
em745aa 2 years ago
now you're reaching for the EF's sake... nice try , but F-22 will wipe ALL fighter jets out.. like i said even the US fighter jets and we have the BEST..... F-22 has too much top secret stuff in it, that us youtube ppl would only dream of...
cherylz1 2 years ago
lol. first time i've seen the black model. now i need the unpainted one XD
Firespectrum122 2 years ago
This is a nice jet, BUT F-22 will kick ANY fighter jets ass. even Our own (US) fighter jets....
cherylz1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
yawn.......................................yea yea yea im sick of stupid yanks posting on typhoon vids saying F-22 this F-22 that it can fly backwards it can take on 1 million other aircraft and win with the pilot sitting upside down wearing only his underpants.....F-22 has been cancelled pal last 2 being made thats it........its that good you have cancelled it
1MrTurd 2 years ago
EF supercruse: mach 1.1
F-22 supercruse: mach 1.83
Avionics f-22: currently at 100 % will rise to 300 percent when missions are avliable
Avionics eurofighter: 100 percent
Manuverablitiy f-22: Designed to maneuver at supersonic speeds has thrust vectoring
Manuverablity EF: Also designed to maneuver at supersonic speeds has canards.
monimstarfox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"EF supercruse: mach 1.1
F-22 supercruse: mach 1.83"
Correction:
Typhoon: Mach 1.5
F-22: Mach 1.72
"Manuverablitiy f-22: Designed to maneuver at supersonic speeds ..."
Both aircraft were designed to manoeuvre at supersonic speeds, but the Typhoon is unmatched even by the F-22 in that area of performance.
MrPikon 2 years ago
By the way the EF can only fly at mach 1.5 without weapons aboard and at 1.1 with weapons. I am not sure how the EF could outmaneuver the f-22 when it has its weapons onboard which reduces performance and creates more drag. F-22 stores its weapons inside so no drag there or performance decrease
monimstarfox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"By the way the EF can only fly at mach 1.5 without weapons aboard and at 1.1 with weapons."
monimstarfox, BAE have stated in the past that the Typhoon can supercruise at Mach 1.5 with 4 AMRAAM + 2 AIM-9, but they refer to this as being a 'clean configuration' due to the negligible impact that load has on the planes performance, and that's were the confusion stems from as people assume it refers to what the Typhoon is capable of clean, minus weapons.
MrPikon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
(cont.)
The Typhoon proved capable of supercruise at Mach 1.3 with eight AAM's, a 1000L centreline tank, plus over a ton of test equipment in tropical conditions during Singapore's FX competition; I wonder if the F-22 could supercruise at all under the same conditions ?.
MrPikon 2 years ago
well the f-22 can because it doesnt carry all that Its a strike aircraft its made to engage and beat any other aircraft in the air. It can carry bombs but only a few. Answer to your question is yes and plus it doesnt carry its ordnance on its wings reducing stress on the wings while maneuvering plus drag. The EF doesnt do this so i wouldnt be surprised if a few wings snapped off while maneuvering with a full payload.
monimstarfox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Answer to your question is yes"
I don't think it's ever been stated that the F-22 can supercruise with external fuel and weapons, but the thing you need to consider is that although carrying weapons internally doesn't increase drag, the drag of the clean airframe itself will be greater to start with, and of course that's drag your stuck with regardless of payload.
MrPikon 2 years ago
Its not stated but its not denied. How does that make sense a clean airframe creates less drag then an airplane with weapons on its wings. So that means the EF has to compete with drag from its frame itself and the drag created by the missiles, bombs and external tanks?
monimstarfox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"How does that make sense a clean airframe creates less drag then an airplane with weapons on its wings."
Because that 'clean' airframe must be built around a volume large enough to hold a weapons load internally, that inevitably increases the drag, and it's drag that your stuck with regardless of payload. ;)
MrPikon 2 years ago
drag is determined by aerodynamic efficiency, and size is only part of it. If you have a bunch of weapons hanging on the wings, it certainly creates more drags than weapons that are stored into a weapon bay that smoothly blend into the airframe with a flat, no bulge surfaces. that's why a small box is 'draggier' than a big cone.
stealthyf23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"If you have a bunch of weapons hanging on the wings, it certainly creates more drags than
weapons that are stored into a weapon bay ..."
Explains why a Typhoon achieves the same top speed as the F-35 does even while carrying 3 external fuel tanks, or why the F-35 flying 'clean' can't supercruise while a Typhoon carrying 'draggy' external stores can.
MrPikon 2 years ago
I'm completely unaware that typhoon can reach mach 1.6 while carrying 3 fuel tanks. It would be great that you can point me to a source. Anyway, to explain your question: the f-35's low top speed is due to its SHAPE (which support my point even more). There are many inherent factors on its shape that you can just see by looking at it, but the biggest reason I think is its wing sweep angle.
stealthyf23 2 years ago
...If you read some discussion about f-35 over some forum, there are speculation about f-35 supercruise ability given its enormous thrust and clean configuration. Well, maybe it will, once it enter service. but one thing is clear, its engine was not designed to supercruise, that's why the marketing NOW does not feature it as supercruise. If the future unfolds that it can, lockheed will probably put it into their marketing ploy. However, it's certain that won't be a true 'supercruiser'...
stealthyf23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"...If you read some discussion about f-35 over some forum, there are speculation about f-35 supercruise ability given its enormous thrust and clean configuration."
And I will bet the same people are still 'speculating' that the Typhoon can't supercruise at all. (rollseyes) ...
MrPikon 2 years ago
and I never say I agree with them. That's why I say even in the future, f-35 can hit supersonic speed without reheat, it's still not a true supercruiser, because its engine doesn't have the hardware for it.
stealthyf23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I'm completely unaware that typhoon can reach mach 1.6 while carrying 3 fuel tanks. It would be great that you can point me to a source"
'December 1999
1st in-flight relight with 03Z engine
1st Flight with full functional Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU)
1st time Mach 1.6 with 3x1000 litre tanks'
eurofighter . com / po_mi . asp ?srcx=dev1
MrPikon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Anyway, to explain your question: the f-35's low top speed is due to its SHAPE (which support my point even more)."
The point is that you can't generalise by saying that internal weapons carriage is automatically the more aerodynamically efficient solution, and it's obvious that the Typhoon performs the way it does despite carrying weapons externally.
MrPikon 2 years ago
the point is that internal weapon carriage has less drag in general term, but aircraft performance is not dictated by only that, wing sweep angle, thrust, etc. are also big factors. I think you got the point mixed up, there.
stealthyf23 2 years ago
Anyway, I don't fully know under which condition the typhoon achieved its supercruise and for how long, but according to carlo kopp, its engine does not feature the distinct characteristic of a supercruise engine (an example would be the f-35 engine, though provide more thrust than the f-22's, it doesn't feature the characteristic of a supercruise engine for cost saving). Now, did I just randomly bring this up to bash typhoon? certainly not, but that to answer your question about f35...
stealthyf23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
stealthyf23, I suggest ignoring Kopp's article, but to address just one obvious error. -
"... comparable to growth variants of the F/A-18's GE F404. The 0.4:1 bypass ratio is characteristic of modern fighter engines, and is optimised for transonic performance rather than cruise burn."
Yet the F119 has a bypass ratio of 0.45:1, and ironically variants of the F404 i.e. GE-400/402/RM12 have lower bypass ratios than either the EJ200 or F119 yet don't allow the aircraft they power to supercruise.
MrPikon 2 years ago
lol, I know! carlo kopp has been so out of grace with many of his heavily biased and outrageous articles suggesting both the cancellation of f-35 and typhoon and instead buying , but I pointed to him on that particular issue because in that very particular issue, he had a point. You claimed that typhoon's supercruise has significant tactical impact, based on what? Do you know the conditions in which these incidents happened? how long it sustained that speed?
stealthyf23 2 years ago
....to the definition of the f-22 even if it breaks sound barrier in the future (I'm talking about f-35) as its engine doesn't feature the characteristic of enduring high temperature for supersonic cruise. So the notion that the typhoon supercruise while f-35 is best pending for the future. One thing is clear though, the reason why it's not in lockheed's marketing right now, is because they have nothing to back up that claim unless some test result shows up.
stealthyf23 2 years ago
one other thing to note is that typhoon, though store weapons externally, has excellent weapon layout for air to air missiles to minimize as much drag as possible (which is probably a big contributor to its supercruise incidents). If your argument persist, then the designers wouldn't design it so, since it still has to carry the same missile loads anyway which means same drag, right?
stealthyf23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"So that means the EF has to compete with drag from its frame itself and the drag created by the missiles, bombs and external tanks?"
Ans yet the Typhoon can reach the same top speed as the F-35 can 'clean' while carrying three external 1000 Litre tanks; I'll leave you to ponder why. ;)
MrPikon 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrPikon 2 years ago
Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of an aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load so yes it can sustain a super-cruise of mach 1.83. With a useful load that fits the EF's multirole niche it can only fly at mach 1.1
monimstarfox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"... it can sustain a super-cruise of mach 1.83."
Not sure where your getting the Mach 1.83 from but if it's possible at all then it would likely only be with a minimum fuel and weapons. The F-22 can supercruise at 'up to' Mach 1.72 according to the USAF, and according to this chart published by AFA it can even reach Mach 1.75, BUT only carrying 50% internal fuel, and even then only at one particular altitude. -
img169 . imagevenue . com / img . php ?image=53700_F-22_Dry_Thrust_122_632lo . jpg
MrPikon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"With a useful load that fits the EF's multirole niche it can only fly at mach 1.1"
The Typhoon can supercruise at up to Mach 1.5 with 4 MRAAM / 2 SRAAM.
As I said before it's a multi-role aircraft, but one of those roles is air-superiority, if your interested in making a fair comparison then you need to consider the stated performance of both aircraft with an equivalent weapons load, or as near to equivalent as is possible with the information available.
MrPikon 2 years ago
oh by the way at sea level the typhoon can only reach mach 1.20 has its maximum speed.
By the way i dont know were you got that the f-22 can only supercruise at 1.7 with 50 percent fuel but i do know that at 50 percent fuel the f-22 has a higher thrust to weight ratio then the EF. It is a multirole fighter but only doing one role wouldnt put it into the multirole fighter category. This is not a fair comparison F-22 is a air superiority fighter t specializes in one area the EF Does not.
monimstarfox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"the typhoon's fuselage and structure was made to sustain up to 14g's and what do you mean normal circumstances"
That is the structural load limit of the airframe, not the normal load limit.
"oh by the way at sea level the typhoon can only reach mach 1.20 has its maximum speed."
The F-22 is no faster at sea level.
"By the way i dont know were you got that the f-22 can only supercruise at 1.7 with 50 percent fuel"
See the link I posted. ;)
MrPikon 2 years ago
Yes the structural loadlimit of the airframe i thought the EF was designed to push itself to the limit?
F-22 fly's at mach 1.3 at sea level while the EF is at mach 1.2
Your link doesnt work
monimstarfox 2 years ago
As for supercruise, well, that's one controversial term there. Supercruise, as marketed for the raptor, is the ability to go supersonic without afterburner and SUSTAIN it long enough and under a variety of scenarios to have an significant tactical impact. But then the term "supercruise" is so vague, that developers can just use to their own end. If an aircraft, under some special condition, break sound barrier without reheat, well, that's supercruise, isn't?
stealthyf23 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"But then the term "supercruise" is so vague, that developers can just use to their own end."
Saying that a late block F-16 can supercruise because it can just about exceed Mach 1 on a good day carrying 2 winders and minimum fuel would be stretching the definition, but the Typhoon's capability to supercruise is not only real but also tactically significant.
MrPikon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"i do know that at 50 percent fuel the f-22 has a higher thrust to weight ratio then the EF."
Not according to the published data it doesn't.
"It is a multirole fighter but only doing one role wouldnt put it into the multirole fighter category."
It's a multi-role fighter but one of the roles it's designed for, the primary role it was designed for is air-superiority.
MrPikon 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrPikon 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"wouldnt be surprised if a few wings snapped off "
'The armament they carried was that
intended for war emergency, that is guided
short-range ASRAAM, IRIS-T or AIM-9L
Side-winder missiles for air-to-air combat, the
AIM-120 AMRAAM for the intermediate
range, depending on the nation, and the laserguided Paveway II and GBU-16 for air-to-surface environments. At this loading status,
the Typhoon is cleared for loads up to nine
times the gravitational force of the earth in
extreme flight maneuvers'
MrPikon 2 years ago
9g's with all that i think thats a far offshoot of the EF's 14g capability so weapons,bombs and tanks do take away from its maneuverability. EF is cleared up to 14g without weapons with weapons 9g.
monimstarfox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"9g's with all that i think thats a far offshoot of the EF's 14g capability"
The Typhoon isn't capable of 14g under normal circumstances any more than the F-22 is, but it does retain it's 9g manoeuvrability even with a weapons load larger than the F-22 can currently carry.
MrPikon 2 years ago
the typhoon's fuselage and structure was made to sustain up to 14g's and what do you mean normal circumstances
monimstarfox 2 years ago