[IceFire]

From what I can see, the Typhoon would kick it's ass.

I'd say its close enough to say that situation and the pilots involved would be the determining factor.  The Typhoon isn't as stealth as the F/A-22 is but the Typhoon has a far greater weapons capacity.  If I were a third party nation trying to figure out what next gen fighter I wanted...I think the Typhoon would be the number 1 choice.  It can carry darn near anything...even a pair of stealthed cruise missiles!

[an0n]

It's cheaper too, ain't it?

[Unknown Target]

There was a guy on the forum I got this from (Il-2 Sturmovik on ubi.com), and apparantly he worked for a guy whos brother was an F-22 test pilot. These are the brother's thoughts on the F-22:

07/06/05
F22 Raptor Pilot Report
Aircraft: 4002 Date: 10 June 2005
Flight: 2-664 Takeoff: 1042L
Pilot: Randy Neville Land: 1141L
Test Conductor: N/A Flt Time: 1.0 Hr
Chase : JB Brown ECS: File 54
OFP: 54

Overview

This was the final flight for 4002 before it returns to storage. It was also my final Raptor flight before moving to Seattle. The flight went smoothly, although I encountered some highly localized showers upon exiting the aircraft.

As I leave the program with a bit over 600 hours in this amazing machine, I realize just how fortunate I have been to have the opportunity to be involved in the development of the incredible blend of technologies that the Raptor represents.

I can remember the early days of working with the engineering IPT's and helping with the training of the First Flight control room team. When Paul Metz got airborne in 4001 for the first time, I was the "Voice of Raptor", narrating events to flight line guests over a PA system and to various program sites via a live video feed. I was fortunate to fly the first flight on 4005, which was also the first time we flew with the Block 3.0 software and actually demonstrated sensor fusion. The 2-year surge to complete envelope expansion was quite a ride, including the Mach 2.0 split-s's and even the -11g fini-flight on 4003. Some may express concern at the pace of developing new technology, but, frankly, looking back as EMD slows down and operational units ramp up, it is hard to believe how far the program has come. From the days of 1998 when we had an annual goal of 183 flight hours, to the massive ramp up to support the envelope expansion surge along with Initial OT&E when we flew over 2800 hours in FY2004, we have had a constant string of challenges. Hidden to many, but obvious to those of us on the program, every single one of those flight hours has a story behind it, punctuated by the dedication, ingenuity, frustration, exhilaration, brains, and sweat of a huge team of motivated professionals. It has been an honor to be associated with this program and with all the professionals everywhere on the team. Thanks for the ride.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

FYI, for your reading pleasure (or not), I have attached an article that I originally drafted as a potential light-hearted, PR-type article for casual perusal. It is notably non-technical, and has nothing to do with the flight today, but for lack of anything better to do with the article, I stuck it here. Enjoy.

You've probably known someone who could be categorized as a "layman's philosopher". You know - the type of person who can condense life's vagaries into a bumper sticker slogan. The great baseball hall-of-famer Yogi Berra was a gold mine of such philosophy. Some of his more memorable comments were:

"It's like déjà vu all over again", and "It ain't over till it's over".
Or, my personal favorite: "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

Well, speaking of catch phrases, our original concepts of "minimize housekeeping" and "carefree maneuvering", although not stated with Yogi's flare for hidden eloquence, have perfectly captured the essence of the F-22 airframe. It makes me think that we as test pilots could be more descriptive in our evaluations. We describe this marvel of technology with such mundane, techno-geekish descriptions as "very responsive", "has good damping", or "matches predictions", when what we really mean is "This baby flies like a dream."

The ringer that this aircraft has been put through would make most rational pilots cringe. We have done full aft stick split-s maneuvers, starting at over Mach 2, to seen if flying qualities and structural loads were ok. They were, so we did it again with a weapon bay door open. Then we did again while firing a missile. Oh, please… stop the madness!

Well, actually, the airplane did not seem too concerned at all about the crazy maneuvering it was forced to endure. While at 60° angle of attack, cycling controls to maximize horsepower extraction, and banging the throttles from idle to AB, most pilots would run away screaming that it's just wrong to treat an airplane that way. But the engines never coughed and the airplane flew benignly on. The zero speed tailslides, and the aircraft simply flops down and smoothly recovers. During high-g maneuvering and abruptly throw in full ailerons, and the airplane consistently gives you the best roll rate available, without going out of control or over stressing parts of the structure. There is some pretty cosmic stuff the flight controls are doing to make all that happen

Even more impressive to me, I have had a glimpse of what the future of air combat holds, seeing how this exceptional airframe will be mated to an avionics suite that will provide the pilot an unprecedented amount of information. I think of this airplane as a flying antenna, soaking information all around it. A major part of the capability of this airplane comes from sensor fusion. Sensor Fusion is one of those key phrases associated with the Raptor. It yields a capability that is a leap in avionics technology. So…Sensor Fusion….what's up with that?

"90% of the game is half mental."

Allow me a brief semi-technical excursion. The concept of sensor fusion is usually simplistically defined as taking target information from multiple sensors and fusing - i.e. filtering, evaluating, and combining - that information to present to the pilot a very intuitive display of a highly defined target. As the name implies, target information is received from the individual sensors, develops track files, and then fuses that track information. It evaluates the kinematic and identification data from the sensor reports and determines if multiple targets are present or if the sensors are seeing the same target. The sensors are typically divided among 3 major subsystems: thee radar, the Electronic Warfare suite, and the Communication, Navigation, and Identification suite. The integration of the various components of the avionics suite only begins with a fused track. Then some real brain power takes over. Mission software, without any further actions by the pilot, evaluates the position, maneuvering, and threat potential of the target and decides how accurately the target should be tracked, how frequently the track should be updated, and if another sensor should be used to better track or identify the target. The sensors are then re-tasked to get further information on that target, and the entire closed-loop process continues. In other words, it is not just target information that is fused, but rather the sensors themselves that are fused. It becomes transparent to the pilot what the various sensors are doing - they simply go about their business of autonomously collecting the best target information available.

So, what does all this mean to the pilot?

"You can observe a lot by watching."

A key point is buried in this discussion. The entire closed-loop process of detecting, evaluating, updating tracks is performed automatically. The pilot no longer spends time adjusting his radar controls, then looking at his radar display, and then repeating the process with his EW controls and displays. Sensor fusion operates continuously, requiring no pilot action in order to develop an intuitive God's-eye view of the airspace. The end result is that the pilot is presented a tremendous amount of information with very low workload. As we like to say, the avionics suite allows the pilot to be a tactician, not a sensor operator or data analyst. Or, in pilot-speak, it saves me lots of brain cells for the really complex stuff back in the office, like trying to comprehend Travel Manager software. The information is presented to the pilot on a glass cockpit, consisting of three 6" x 6" and one 8" x 8"color displays, with symbols that are shaped and color-coded according to their identification as friendly, enemy, or unknown targets.

Well, how does the F-22 avionics perform their magic of seeing everybody, closely watching the important guys, and occasionally updating the unimportant guys? (Sort of like the intriguing thermos bottle mystery: Keeps the hot things hot, and the cold things cold, but… how do it know?).

Most of the magic takes place via massive parallel processing in the Common Integrated Processors, of CIPs. These are racks that contain multiple modules, many with dual 32-bit microprocessors. The processing may be optimized for signal processing, data manipulation, or other functions, with data shuffled around on various data busses. The massive amount of processing gives us a lot of amazing capability, but it also can be a nightmare making all the 0's and 1's talk to each other. Throw in the vibrations and temperatures associated with slipping the surly bonds, and you have a local area network that would make even Bill Gates sleepless in Seattle.

So given all that technical background, how have avionics flights gone?

"It was hard to have a conversation - there were too many people talking."

Yogi must have been trying to do flight test in the Atlanta Center airspace when he said that. On our early avionics flights from Marietta, GA, I launched into what must have been prime time for Delta Airlines. Ground delays had been caused by airframe and avionics problems, most of which had been seen before. It is interesting to note that the line between airframe and avionics problems blurs a bit with the F-22. The avionics must properly talk to various subsystem controllers to keep everything running smoothly. (ie the good news…the F-22 is highly integrated. But the bad news is…the F-22 is highly integrated.)

In any case, those early flights identified numerous issues that have been resolved over the years. Since that time, we have thoroughly evaluated all the sensors and the software that integrates all their information. We have proven some amazing systems, such as the Inflight Data Link, that allows us to silently communicate with the other members of our formation. They could be miles away, unseen and unheard, yet each pilot will know the exact position, fuel state, weapons info, and targeting information, all without speaking a word over the secure voice channel. Pretty powerful capability when heading into harm's way.

Looking ahead, I get very excited about matching this outstanding air vehicle to a powerful integrated avionics suite. I have a coffee cup on my desk that I got as a souvenir at the Farnborough Airshow in 1988. I had a chance to get a demo of some early helmet mounted cuing systems, and got the coffee cup which says "I flew the future". Well, looking at this leap in technology represented by the Raptor, it compels me to put a positive spin on another of Yogi's observations as it relates to air combat:

"The future ain't what it used to be."

It'll show you what I mean about hte avionics suite That Inflight Data Link is also pretty amazing, too; if you think about it, it's even more detailed than Freespace 2's wingman monitor

[Janos]

It's cheaper too, ain't it?

well too bad typhoon is a multirole platform whereas F-22 is primarly designed as a air superiority fighter and seeing how even older US F-15s still regularly beat our airforces in exercises (WHERE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ARTIFICIALLY HANDICAPPED) then I would argue that actually yes, Raptor is a much better air-to-air asset than Typhoon or Rafale or pretty much anything else.

Also people seem to be all too quick to forget that the entire point of military is to prevent threats - that includes both current and future threads. Air-to-air combat might be irrelevant now, but it's not completely impossible that in 20 years such scenario could be accurate or, even worse, hot. The amount of R&D the big military projects take can be insanely expensive, but it also takes time - no one can just design and build and have a good modern airplane force in 2 years, much less in 1 month.

 

[Unknown Target]

I will say it again - the Raptor is multirole capable - it's not just an intercepter, hence F/A-22.
From the website:

This aircraft combines stealth design with the supersonic, highly maneuverable, dual-engine, long-range requirements of an air-to-air fighter and will have an inherent air-to-ground capability. The F-22A’s integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability that will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the next 40 years.

[Janos]

I will say it again - the Raptor is multirole capable - it's not just an intercepter, hence F/A-22.
From the website:

This aircraft combines stealth design with the supersonic, highly maneuverable, dual-engine, long-range requirements of an air-to-air fighter and will have an inherent air-to-ground capability. The F-22A’s integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability that will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the next 40 years.

Well that doesn't really change the fact that it is by far designed as a air superiority craft and that's what air force wants it to be - every fighter has inherent air-to-ground ability.
F-15 was designed as a air sup fighter, and F-15E is a strike bomber - but still F-15 was the best air-to-air platform until Raptor got operational. For CAS and multirole the JSF will be the weapon of choice, not F-22.

[Black Wolf]

Hmm, having read the article more closely, it's almost as if the US is expecting a conflict with China

Of course they do. Everyone expects there'll be a war with
China before long, and there will be. It might not be an out and out war, but at the very least it'll be a war by proxy, much like Korea and Vietnam were for the Soviets.

The world can't support two benign superpowers for any length of time - it hasn't been able to since the end of WW2, and I doubt it ever will be able to again.

[aldo_14]

I'd suggest the proxy will be Taiwan.

[StratComm]

Nah, Taiwan would be a direct confrontation.  To be a proxy, there would have to be two sides that aren's named "China" and "The United States" but have each side supported by one of the superpowers.  With Taiwan, one side of the war would be "China" whether or not the US got directly involved.

[vyper]

I'd go with the Typhoon... she has good breeding: http://www.eurofighter.com/Evolution/EAP/

[Janos]

I'd go with the Typhoon... she has good breeding: http://www.eurofighter.com/Evolution/EAP/

DIFFERENT. ROLE. Do you speak it?

That being said, flexible small multiuse aircrafts have proven their usefulness over and over again, whereas dedicated air superiority and interceptor airplanes are becoming more insignificant - right now, right here, and that doesn't say that things will be that way in the future. F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripne, JSF - they are all really versatile and so a much more sensible choice for countries that don't posses practically (or artificially) endless resources. USA can have it's squadrons of Airsup because it can afford it and it's interests are much different than, say, Britain's or France's, not even to speak of smaller countries.

You can stack AIM-9s under a Gripen and shoot down Nazi Commie MiGs that come out from the rising sun, screaming Commmunism Liberal Gay Revolution and bombing children. You can shoot them down. You can stick AIM-9s into a weapon bay of F-22 and see it shoot down much more bad guys, propably while taking less casualties.
You can also stack a bunch of cluster munitions into a weapon bay and bomb the Kidkrusher Mammoth NOD Tanks into smoking, hellish, infernal oblivion. Or you could take a Gripen and do it - cheaper and more flexible.

But as soon as these horrible enemies of humanity stand up and send their own Raptors into fight, then it suddenly looks really dire for you Gripens. Jack of all trades, master of none. This is just what US is doing right now - maintaining a technological edge. It may be ridiculously (note that it is spelled correctly!) expensive and not useful in short term, but hey, those Chinese are crafty. They plot and plan. One day there will be shooting! Or something - preparing for future.

I bet as soon as Vulcans come here as ambassadeurs of peace, we will immediately start to draw plans and construct structures that allow us to bomb those elf-eared subhumans into their respective heavens - it's a proven concept.

[vyper]

Oh, I meant within that specific area of combat that the Raptor is designed for.

[an0n]

Japan vs North Korea....

[yubyub]

I'd say the most likely proxy-war would be Israel v Iran.  Everyone I know in the US military thinks that will happen in 2 years or less.  China will support Iran, US and possibly EU will support Israel.  Russia will stay out of it and lick its wounds.  (Economically it can't handle a war of any size).

My 2 cents

[aldo_14]

I'd say the most likely proxy-war would be Israel v Iran. Everyone I know in the US military thinks that will happen in 2 years or less. China will support Iran, US and possibly EU will support Israel. Russia will stay out of it and lick its wounds. (Economically it can't handle a war of any size).

My 2 cents

That would entail, for a proper war, the states dividing the 2 becoming involved as well.

I'm  not sure either the US or China would want a war in that region, due to their needs for oil and the repercussions such a war would cause across the entire area.  Although I wouldn't be surprised if Africa was to become the site for such a proxy war; I believe China has made quite a few economic deals for oil access in that continent.

[Rictor]

Japan vs North Korea....

You mean one of the world's most technologically advanced nations versus fifty-year old Soviet technology? North Korea's main strength is in numbers and defensive infrastructure, which they have had half a entury to build up. An air war is a forgone conclusion, even with Japan's current (though changing) pacifist stance. They have the money, and Uncle Sam would sell to them in a heart beat.

What's the unit cost on the Raptor anyway? I've heard around 130 million, can anyone confirm this? I think the Typhoon is somewhere in that neighborhood too. Which is what, three or four times the cost of an Su-30? Yeah, that cost efficiency for ya.

[Jetmech Jr.]

I think the Typhoon is somewhere in that neighborhood too. Which is what, three or four times the cost of an Su-30? Yeah, that cost efficiency for ya.

It is when your expensive planes (F-22A) can achieve a 10-1 kill ratio against those cheaper (in this case, Su-35).

[NGTM-1R]

Thing is...the British and American aviation industries were not ready or prepared for WWII.  They finally got their acts together about 1943 or 1944.  War wasn't particularly expected...on the whole (specific people and leaders sure but not the overall society/industry).  So while I'm an advocate of not fighting wars of helping people and of solving problems through diplomacy and peacekeeping when necessary, I'm also fairly adamant about making sure that if you need to go to war...then you are ready to do so.

Patently false. Consider: The specifications to which the F6F Hellcat and P-38 Lightning were built were issued in 1937-1938. (So was that to which the P-40 was built, actually.) The Hurricane and the Spitfire were up and ready to go by the beginning of the war, in large numbers. The Brits were, at the very least, ready to go when the war started.

The problem in the US was not the aircraft industry, but rather the US Congress, which was unwilling to give out the funding for the necessary buildup until the war actually started. (Fortunately export contracts to Europe helped cover some of the gap.) Even so, the next-generation aircraft were reaching front-line units by late 1942 and saw serious action in early 1943.

[Rictor]

I think the Typhoon is somewhere in that neighborhood too. Which is what, three or four times the cost of an Su-30? Yeah, that cost efficiency for ya.

It is when your expensive planes (F-22A) can achieve a 10-1 kill ratio against those cheaper (in this case, Su-35).

Are you're reffering to this? I wouldn't say that it has that much of an advantage, not in the real world anyway. The Su-30MKI, built for the Indian Airforce has all the 5th generation bells and whistles, and can be considered to be in the same class as the F-22 and Typhoon, even being superior in some respects.

Anyway, as I said, the likelyhood of these planes ever actually encountering each other on the battlefield is very remote.

[Unknown Target]

The Su-30 is not equal to the F-22 in any way. The F-22 can pull maneuvers and treat it's engines in ways that the Su-30 could only dream of. Granted, the two are both very advanced, but the F-22's avionics is next generation, beyond all other aircraft on the planet; the Su-30 simply isn't capable of the sensor integration that the F-22 has.