F-22 vs Typhoon

[SMIDSY]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Given the same generation fighters, flown by *competent pilots, the determining factor in an air-to-air engagement is something known as the 'unseen fighter'.

Example:  Two F-4s are engaged with two Mig-21s.  If another Mig-21 were to join the fight, that side would likely win.  Conversely, if an F-4 were to sneak into the fight, that side would win.

*The pilots dont have to be the best, just competent to fly and fight in the plane.

Source: The Air War over Vietnam.

such statements were proved false durring the Vietnam war where compitent american fighter pilots maintained the lowest atrition rate for fighters that the US has ever suffered: 1:1. however, after the navy and air force improved training, it went back up to acceptable levels. the reason that the US comes out on top in most arial engagements is because we have the best pilots. however, if a better pilot is facing a plane that completely outclasses his own, he's screwed.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SMIDSY
he's screwed.

Again it doesn't just boil down to the pilots or the planes, it's the TACTICS employed.  

IE 4 on 2 engagment could be completely turned around with use of AWACS.

Exploit the advantages and minimize the weakneses.

[Tac]

AWACS isnt tactics. its hardware.

[Furball]

you don't give much credit to the training in the Royal Air Force Ripsnort.

[AKH]

But he did:

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Its whos behind the stick, not the stick.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Tac
AWACS isnt tactics. its hardware.

But proper use and exploitation of it in combat is a tactic.

You can have all the shiny new toys you want but if you don't employ them correctly they wont stay shiny and new very long.

[Nifty]

Last time I checked, Situational Awareness was part of being a superior pilot.  That would account for not getting bounced in a fight.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Nifty
Last time I checked, Situational Awareness was part of being a superior pilot.  That would account for not getting bounced in a fight.

Oh yea that's right.  Those big radars and huge air combat command centers directing the fight and all those tankers keeping the planes up in the air......that's all the pilots doing.  

[xrtoronto]

Gotta love this thing:

[Nilsen]

The Yurofighter is a contender to replace our F16M3s and i hope either that or the GripenN wins. Both have _very_ different strenghts so im finding it hard to choose. I hope none of the other two contenders win.

[Replicant]

@Nilsen, although I work with the Eurofighter, I must say I love the Gripen!

[Nilsen]

The Eurofighter has more engine power and two of them. It will give us the additional safety over the North Sea and mountains. The EF group has met all finanical and technical requirements although cost is still not set in stone.

The Gripen-N will have twice the range of the original Gripen. ESA radar, very short take-off and landing (5-600m or even less), Designed to be used from "dusty" roads and highways just like the Viggen. It will cost less in purchase price and the life cycle cost is lower, and all the weapons we want to put on it will be integrated within the purchase price. It is designed for much fewer maintnance hours per flying hour than any of the competing progams.

I started off as a JSF fanboy, then moved to EF and now im leaning towards the Gripen-N but still the EF is a big contender.

If i could choose right now I would go for the Gripen-N in combination with the UCAV system the swedes are working on and the Taurus cruise missile.