Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    :facepalm2:

    What stats suggest it is better?

    And secondly... since when do statistics matter on a plane that has flown once? It has no combat experience, or all you know it might melt in the sun.
    Gosh, perhaps the fact that it's a 5th generation fighter, whereas the Eurofighter is a 4.5 generation fighter? There's better technolohy available these days than there was say 10 odd years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi/HAL_FGFA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_LMFS
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Gosh, perhaps the fact that it's a 5th generation fighter, whereas the Eurofighter is a 4.5 generation fighter?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi/HAL_FGFA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_LMFS
    You compared it to the f-22.

    Now now don't change your story .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    You compared it to the f-22.

    Now now don't change your story .
    I never compared it to the F22, because I know the F22 is better.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    I never compared it to the F22, because I know the F22 is better.
    The Typhoon's combat performance, compared to the new F-22 Raptor and the upcoming F-35 Lightning II[109] fighters and the French Dassault Rafale, has been the subject of much discussion. In March 2005, Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, talked to Air Force Print News about these two aircraft. He said,“ The Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F/A-22 Raptor. They are different kinds of airplanes to start with; it's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula One car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance. Further, "The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high g forces), very impressive," he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. — all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive.

    And also

    During the exercise "Typhoon Meet" held in 2008, Eurofighters flew against F/A-18 Hornets, Mirage F1s, Harriers and F-16s in a mock combat exercise. It is claimed that the Eurofighters won all engagements (even outnumbered 8 vs 27) without suffering losses.[123][124]

    The aviation magazine "Flug Revue" reports that in 2008 German Typhoon were pitted against French Rafales. The results are said to be "extremely gratifying", the main difference being the "much greater thrust of the EJ200 engine"
    ..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    ..
    "In March 2005" - I'd like to hear him say that now.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    "In March 2005" - I'd like to hear him say that now.
    Your just grasping at straws now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    "In March 2005" - I'd like to hear him say that now.
    He flew a fully operational f-22.

    So whats your point?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    He flew a fully operational f-22.

    So whats your point?
    If you're honestly attempting to tell me that the Eurofighter is better than the F22 then there's no point in even continuing.

    It's a far more powerful machine altogether and in that 'Typhoon Meet' no F22's were listed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    If you're honestly attempting to tell me that the Eurofighter is better than the F22 then there's no point in even continuing.

    It's a far more powerful machine altogether and in that 'Typhoon Meet' no F22's were listed.
    Well frankly who's opinion is worth more, yours or a guy who has flown both?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Well frankly who's opinion is worth more, yours or a guy who has flown both?
    You're comparing a 4.5 gen fighter to a 5th gen fighter, there ends the argument.

    Who was this geezer anyway, someone in the RAF no doubt.

    Despite a protracted and costly development period, the United States Air Force considers the F-22 a critical component for the future of US tactical airpower, and claims that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected fighter, while Lockheed Martin claims that the Raptor's combination of stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, combined with air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities, makes it the best overall fighter in the world today.

    Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Chief of the Australian Defence Force, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    You're comparing a 4.5 gen fighter to a 5th gen fighter, there ends the argument.

    Who was this geezer anyway, someone in the RAF no doubt.
    He was a US test pilot :rofl2:.

    And his opinion>yours.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    He was a US test pilot :rofl2:.

    And his opinion>yours.
    Source?

    What about the opinion of the US Defence Department and that of the Chief of the Australian Defence Force?

    Despite a protracted and costly development period, the United States Air Force considers the F-22 a critical component for the future of US tactical airpower, and claims that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected fighter, while Lockheed Martin claims that the Raptor's combination of stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness, combined with air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities, makes it the best overall fighter in the world today.

    Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Chief of the Australian Defence Force, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Source?

    What about the opinion of the US Defence Department and that of the Chief of the Australian Defence Force?
    The Australian chap must have a crystal ball because it wasn't in service when he said that.

    The f-22 is an air superiority fighter and the eurofighter is multi purpose.

    That is why the chap said the eurofighter is comparably good at what it does compared to the f-22, and did not directly compare.

    What evidence did the DOD use to say those claims?

    Oh and the guy is US General Jumper.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Gosh, perhaps the fact that it's a 5th generation fighter, whereas the Eurofighter is a 4.5 generation fighter? There's better technolohy available these days than there was say 10 odd years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi/HAL_FGFA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_LMFS
    The F-22 entered service before the Eurofighter, and has been in development since the 1980s. It's technically more of a 4.5th Generation fighter.

    It's not like fighters don't undergo periodic software and engineering upgrades, either, or get outfitted with new weaponry developed after the development of the fighter finishes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    f22 requires something silly like 22 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour flying time, its not that great
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    This time maybe we could not sink a battleship filled with teenage recruits...
    combatants is a better way to describe them
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    guys, if you're going to debate the relative merits of the 'phoon against the raptor against the Dave against darwin knows what else, start a different thread!
    1435 are running 'phoons in MPA, the Argentinians have Mirage. The US aren't going to sell 22s to anyone in South America, and the T-50 is a long way from export (or combat flight), even with the prospective Indian investment in Russian fighter programs. The Typhoon can only be beaten (really) by a 5th gen fighter, and even then, if you take the Raptor out of its ISTAR envelope, even with its thrust vectoring, my money would be on 1435.
    This isn't even taking the multi-role capability of the Typhoon into account, which is partly why Buenos Aeries registered complaints at the posting of the aircraft in the South Atlantic - I mean, how ruddy dare we, stationing an aircraft with such obvious superiority in a potentially active airspace!

    :edited to add: 1435 are the QRA/fighter flight down south in the Islands, the Dave is the F-35.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    In regards to the SSBNs, the Vanguard is the Borei's counterpart and I for one would prefer the Borei.
    Thats pretty obvious considering the Vanguard class is a 25 year old design and Borei is only a 5 year old design!!

    Although in terms of queitness and chance of being detected, the advances of the Borei class really dont make that much difference in the grand scheme of things.

    all modern SSBN's are quiet enough now to evade the vast majority of surface, air and subsurface ASW assets currently and near projected out there.

    Doesnt matter if its a Ohio, Vanguard, DeltaIV, Typhoon, or Triomphant class boat, they are all likely to be undetected until launch and ALL have long range MIRV ICBM's. Beyond that the class differences make very little difference to thier ability to be used as a Strategic Nuclear deterrent. Note i have deliberately ignored the chinese type 94 with JL-2 ICBM as it is as yet an unproven system.

    (Original post by Rucklo)
    Why?

    And why are you comparing a 80's sub to a modern?

    Surely it should be compared to what replaces Vanguard?
    Vanguard class is likely to have a hull life extension plan to take them well into the mid 2020's if not beyond. USA has no plans at present to develop a successor to Trident and as we use the US weapon system then it makes little sense to commit to new hulls until we know for certain what weapon system we will fit and its expected lifespan.

    But regardless of that as i said above this qoute, theres little difference between different class's of SSBNs as quite frankly submarine noise technology has only come on so far.

    (Original post by Stalin)
    let's compare the Russian SSBN(Borei Class) to the British SSBN(Vanguard Class), there's no comparison, the Russians win hands down.
    "Win" a game of top trumps yes, in terms of strategic missile sub operations and strategy, that remains to be seen, the russian submarine service still has MASSIVE problems that go way beyond just the procurement of a new class of SSBN's.

    (Original post by Stalin)
    It's faster,
    Completely irrelevant to Strategic SSBN operations and Continuos At Sea Deterrence. As im sure you know, ALL submarines, even brand new latest designs are noisy as hell at higher speeds. Thats just the way it is. hence SSBN operations are at lower speeds across all countrys to maximise noise reduction and hence lessen the chance of detection as well as increasing the ability of the onboard sonars to detect threats.
    (Original post by Stalin)
    can go deeper underwater,
    Again irrelevant for SSBN operations. All current and projected SSBN's require shallow launch depths and there is little advantage going very deep. Remember you need to be at a depth you can still maintain one way radio comms as well as you need to be able to get to launch depth quickly to help gain advantage in a "first strike/pre-emptive" strike scenario.
    (Original post by Stalin)
    will have more men aboard
    how is this a good thing?? small well trained crew requires less space, smaller more efficient domestics services can be used, less crew domestic noise, greater endurance for similar food storage space (less mouths to feed etc).
    (Original post by Stalin)
    carries 15 Bulava SLBMs(which apparently have evasive maneuvering, mid-course, countermeasures, decoys and a warhead fully shielded against both physical and electromagnetic pulse damage, range is approximately 8000km).
    16 missiles but thats nit picking!

    Evasive manouvering is only available during 1-3rd stage rocket activation. And its an unproven capability on an almost 40 ton missile!!! The speeds such missiles go at will make it hard for it to make any violent course changes needed to avoid a missile at close range. The russians theory behind the evasion is that launch detection is not immediate thus the range between ICBM and the engaging missile is long range so the simple time distance fuel equation determines if the missile defence rocket can engage or not so a course change might take it out of the capability of a defence shield missile. Still thats assuming there is a missile defence asset close enough to engage and thats not likely as its not how the missile shield is designed to work. So in reality its a capability of limited use or effectiveness.

    No nuclear warhead can take evasion once released for re-entry as its a ballistic weapon only from then. Being EMP proof is nothing new as is surviving a nuke blast in 500metres. remember a warhead is an atmospheric re-entry body and accordingly toughened anyway. Again nothing new. A blast WILL put it off course though reducing its accuracy and depending on the target that may be all thats necessary. many lower grade nuclear hardened facilities are fine as long as theres no direct hit, so knocking the incoming warhead off course is fine.

    Mid course target adjustment is again nothing new really. The technology is not new. it just has limited strategic use except for a mission abort scenario. Although a mission abort would not prevent a counterstrike by the opposing force who would be justified in missile release the moment they confirmed a missile launch detection targetted at them, from a suspected russian submarine/silo. The russians would then be reliant on missile defence to stop thier own destruction!

    The weapon is no more accurate than anything else out there (not that it needs be) and uses stellar and GLONASS guidance systems, again nothing new.
    (Original post by Stalin)
    I'll concede that the Vanguard Class has been around for 15 odd years, however considering the fact that Russia has endured a complete transformation and 2 economic collapses, I'd say it's a sign that they're back for good.
    Back for good is one thing, complete rebuilding of its military capability is something different. Sure in 10 years im sure the russians arsenal will have caught up with its western counterparts but they arent there yet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    mmmmm i wonder who gave me a blank neg rep for this thread. at least have the decency to say why you neg'd me!!:rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by warrenpenalver)
    x
    Oh, I completely agree.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 15, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.