No. The F-22 has both a slight (very slight) edge in sustained turn rate and a somewhat large advantage when low and slow due to thrust vectoring. The Eurofighter can mostly hang with the F-22 in one flight regime. In others it is inferior. Thus the quotes from Red Flag where the Eurofighter did shoot down the F-22 on several ocassions. "As soon as you get to the merge … the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22”. The problem for most planes would be getting to the merge. Also the F-22 does not pay a drag penalty when combat loaded and the Eurofighter does. This greatly inhibits performance for the Eurofighter, but not the Raptor. One of the least talked about advantages of the fifth-generation planes is them not paying a drag penalty for carrying weapons. It is a huge advantage. When loaded the Eurofighter is a whole lot closer to the F-35 in performance than it is to the F-22. In Red Flag events often the F-22 is handi-capped (no BVR) and the opposing forces usually have clean configurations and sometimes even half fuel. They are not therefore not accurate representations of how it would go down in real life, but rather a way of getting in real-world practice. I would expect in real life an F-22 would see the Eurofighter first, launch its' missiles and if successful the Eurofighter would go down in flames and if not successful the F-22 would disengage and head for home. Getting into a turning fight with a plane that is stealthy is not wise or necessary (not the best use of your platforms strengths). So the answer is generally, "No, the Eurofighter can't outmaneuver the F-22". There is a reason why when an F-22 is shot down in exercises that it makes the news. The F-22 is still the Gold standard for fighter aircraft and will be into the future. That does not make the Eurofighter garbage, but it is being compared to a plane that had a massive fortune invested in R&D.
@@wadopotato33 The stealthy planes do pay for the lack of "drag penalty" by a more limited weapons loadout. The F-35 only has 4 internal hardpoints, after which it pays the same drag penalty as the Typhoon. It can also only mount 10 weapons at most, compard to the Typhoon's 13. This may not sound like much, but at maximum loadout, it means there is essentially one more plane for every three F-35s. The F-35's (and F-22's) main selling point is their stealth, which also means that when you start using the external hardpoints, you're giving up far more than just drag. That all said, the F-22 is still a superior machine and although it only thrust vectors in one plane, rather than 3D thrust vectoring that the Russians have, that in itself is a great bonus which other fighters would need to match for maneuverability. Not to mention the sophisticated radar on a stealth platform with capable BVR missiles. Indeed, the F-22 only carries two short range missiles as normal, as opposed to six BVR ones, showing again clearly the doctrinal focus on engaging the enemy at long range. What is *not* said, however, is that the F-22's main advantage truly lies in BVR combat. If the opposition *also* has stealth planes which the F-22 would have trouble engaging at long distances, then it could get into a lot of trouble with its very limited short-range missile armament.
@@whitescar2 So you have a plane than can never be stealthy like the Typhoon. Can never even be used in an area with Active aerial denial systems in place and you somehow think that that is superior to a plane that can be used EVERYWHERE? The F-35 is the best of both worlds. It can be used in the opening days of any conflict and when the anti-area denial systems are downgraded they can carry missiles on hardpoints. Not rocket science here, bud. The F-35 is a superior plane in almost every way. It can't dogfight in visual range with a Typhoon, but would still have an excellent shot at taking out a Typhoon anyway because it would see the Typhoon first. I can end this in one statement. The next generation plane the UK is building (the Tempest), is it going to be more like an F-35 or a Typhoon? Will it carry its' weapons internally? You know the answer already and you are just being stubborn if you can't figure out that the F-35 and stealthy planes that function like it aren't the future. Pilots of the F-22 have said many times that if they have to engage an enemy in close then something has gone horrible wrong. The stealth aspect in a dogfight is a massive advantage. They train for WVR digfighting, but in a real fight they would try and launch long-range missiles and if they didn't work they would disengage and try again from long range. Why give up your biggest advantage? The F-22 is the stealthiest plane around for now. Even the Su-57 isn't even close. There are no fighter planes on planet earth nearly as stealthy as the F-22. It is rumored to be 0.0001 M2. The Su-57 is rumored to be 0.5 M2. In other words, the RCS of the Su-57 is still 5000 times bigger. That will make a difference in range and detection. Also the RCS of the SU-57 and the Swedish Saab Grippen are about the same. Did the Russians even built a 5th generation plane? I say, no. They certainly didn't built an all-aspect 5 th generation plane like the US did. Fact. But now you know why the F-22 was cancelled. Other countries are still too far behind when it comes to stealth aircraft and the US F-22 had no Raison d'etre.
The F-35 can surely win in air-to-air combat against the Typhoon, or disengage if it cannot, and that is a great advantage. However, air-to-air combat is a very limited part of any modern fighter's expected combat performance. It is probably the *least* important part, when you look at what fighter planes are actually doing around the world. Even the most deadly F-22 is not shooting down Syrian Sukhois, but dropping bombs, and when you get within those ranges, the F-35's stealth is no longer of any great benefit. Indeed, the F-22 has not been credited with a single air-to-air kill since its inception, but it still costs 75% more to operate than a 4th gen fighter that can the exact same tasks, indeed the F-16s often *do* fly the same missions as the F-22. The only area of operations where the F-22/F-35 have a demonstrable edge is in the field of intelligence gathering, but I'd call into question whether you'd really want to make the recon planes your country's main airforce, or if you maybe wouldn't buy some stealthy drones for that purpose? Consider also that for countries that aren't the US, the cost of operating a particular jet is extremely important. If the same budget allows for operation of two wings of Typhoons vs one wing of F-35s, the choice to go with the superior air-to-air platform isn't as cut-and-dry as you make it sound. Having more planes which are more robust and able to operate from lower infrastructure, such as motorways or damaged airfields, and have planes available both on wider fronts and at all times (because some planes are on mission, others on stand-by, and others being repaired, rearmed, refueled, etc.) is an intrinsic advantage that a defender would greatly appreciate. As an attack platform, the F-35 is thus superior. But as the choice of fighter for a defense force (which was the thought behind the Typhoon), its stealth does not bring as much to the table. In conclusion, I have no doubt the F-35 could pull off precisely the sort of BVR attack you described. But that is one very specific and limited scenario. Will future planes be developed along the lines of stealth and BVR combat? Most certainly so, but that does not invalidate the need and indeed requirement for affordable and robust weapons platforms that can keep going into a more drawn out engagement, be it on the side of the attacker (if you're looking at countries like the US or UK, or to an extent Israel) or the defender (basically everyone else). Still, I do believe that the real future of airforces is in drones and unmanned aerial vehicles. Which can also be seen in the UK's proposed Tempest design, and the US Navy's prototypes. I recommend looking at Binkov's scenario analysis of the F-35 vs Su-35. The Su-35 is not too dissimilar to the Typhoon, especially showing the way attacking F-35s would fare against a defending force of 4th gen aircraft. th-cam.com/video/xjS8j2PWtK4/w-d-xo.html
@@whitescar2 What you said is correct. And the Typhoon will be used in the same manner as the F-22 anyway in a high-low mix with F-35's. And the Typhoon is an excellent plane. No doubt about that, but you also had better hope that the Typhoon is never asked to go against a First-world military on day one of a bombing campaign. You are correct that the world has a place for such plane. I find the SAAB Gripen to be such a plane. But these are not perfect for offensive war, but are rather effective for defensive war. Meaning that the right plane for the US is the F-35 and the right plane for Sweden may very well be the Gripen. Need and intent are everything.
Valitetettavasti kyllä surkein vaihtoehto HX-hankkeessa... Vanha, kallis, ja tulevaisuudessa ei todenn. Tule mitään päivityksiä... On kyllä nätti, sen voi sanoa
![[UNCUT] ที่นี่ที่แรก ปู - หาญส์ พูดถึงมหากาพย์หนี้สิ้น I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 10 ก.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KDNA9DZ0p4U/mqdefault.jpg)
![คุณอาเรียโต๊ะข้างๆ พูดรัสเซียหวานใส่ซะหัวใจจะวาย ตอนที่ 2 [ซับไทย] 【Ani-One Thailand】](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kbbfYakMY8k/mqdefault.jpg)
Going vertical immediately after take off, then straight into a loop-the-loop, all without leaving the boundary of the aerodrome. Incredible!
The Typhoon is a lovely airplane.
Ein sehr guter Pilot und gut gefilmt! Danke.
Great vid thanks guys :)
My all-time favourite aircraft. First Time I saw one the loud sound scared the crap out of me.
Beautiful plane.
One of the best planed ever.
4:54 Some great moves...
The french are keeping a very high bright of air manouvers, appreciate your work......
Yahya Mahjoub the French?
Actually Britoins!
It's the RAF. 🇬🇧
جالبه........فعلا باید در فکر هزینه و کار باشی
Hamid Golpasandi ???
Looks very powerfull and agile. Heard it can out manouver most of the current fighters. Even F22?
No. The F-22 has both a slight (very slight) edge in sustained turn rate and a somewhat large advantage when low and slow due to thrust vectoring. The Eurofighter can mostly hang with the F-22 in one flight regime. In others it is inferior. Thus the quotes from Red Flag where the Eurofighter did shoot down the F-22 on several ocassions. "As soon as you get to the merge … the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22”. The problem for most planes would be getting to the merge. Also the F-22 does not pay a drag penalty when combat loaded and the Eurofighter does. This greatly inhibits performance for the Eurofighter, but not the Raptor. One of the least talked about advantages of the fifth-generation planes is them not paying a drag penalty for carrying weapons. It is a huge advantage. When loaded the Eurofighter is a whole lot closer to the F-35 in performance than it is to the F-22. In Red Flag events often the F-22 is handi-capped (no BVR) and the opposing forces usually have clean configurations and sometimes even half fuel. They are not therefore not accurate representations of how it would go down in real life, but rather a way of getting in real-world practice. I would expect in real life an F-22 would see the Eurofighter first, launch its' missiles and if successful the Eurofighter would go down in flames and if not successful the F-22 would disengage and head for home. Getting into a turning fight with a plane that is stealthy is not wise or necessary (not the best use of your platforms strengths).
So the answer is generally, "No, the Eurofighter can't outmaneuver the F-22". There is a reason why when an F-22 is shot down in exercises that it makes the news. The F-22 is still the Gold standard for fighter aircraft and will be into the future. That does not make the Eurofighter garbage, but it is being compared to a plane that had a massive fortune invested in R&D.
@@wadopotato33 The stealthy planes do pay for the lack of "drag penalty" by a more limited weapons loadout. The F-35 only has 4 internal hardpoints, after which it pays the same drag penalty as the Typhoon. It can also only mount 10 weapons at most, compard to the Typhoon's 13. This may not sound like much, but at maximum loadout, it means there is essentially one more plane for every three F-35s. The F-35's (and F-22's) main selling point is their stealth, which also means that when you start using the external hardpoints, you're giving up far more than just drag.
That all said, the F-22 is still a superior machine and although it only thrust vectors in one plane, rather than 3D thrust vectoring that the Russians have, that in itself is a great bonus which other fighters would need to match for maneuverability. Not to mention the sophisticated radar on a stealth platform with capable BVR missiles. Indeed, the F-22 only carries two short range missiles as normal, as opposed to six BVR ones, showing again clearly the doctrinal focus on engaging the enemy at long range.
What is *not* said, however, is that the F-22's main advantage truly lies in BVR combat. If the opposition *also* has stealth planes which the F-22 would have trouble engaging at long distances, then it could get into a lot of trouble with its very limited short-range missile armament.
@@whitescar2 So you have a plane than can never be stealthy like the Typhoon. Can never even be used in an area with Active aerial denial systems in place and you somehow think that that is superior to a plane that can be used EVERYWHERE?
The F-35 is the best of both worlds. It can be used in the opening days of any conflict and when the anti-area denial systems are downgraded they can carry missiles on hardpoints. Not rocket science here, bud. The F-35 is a superior plane in almost every way. It can't dogfight in visual range with a Typhoon, but would still have an excellent shot at taking out a Typhoon anyway because it would see the Typhoon first.
I can end this in one statement. The next generation plane the UK is building (the Tempest), is it going to be more like an F-35 or a Typhoon? Will it carry its' weapons internally? You know the answer already and you are just being stubborn if you can't figure out that the F-35 and stealthy planes that function like it aren't the future.
Pilots of the F-22 have said many times that if they have to engage an enemy in close then something has gone horrible wrong. The stealth aspect in a dogfight is a massive advantage. They train for WVR digfighting, but in a real fight they would try and launch long-range missiles and if they didn't work they would disengage and try again from long range. Why give up your biggest advantage? The F-22 is the stealthiest plane around for now. Even the Su-57 isn't even close. There are no fighter planes on planet earth nearly as stealthy as the F-22. It is rumored to be 0.0001 M2. The Su-57 is rumored to be 0.5 M2. In other words, the RCS of the Su-57 is still 5000 times bigger. That will make a difference in range and detection.
Also the RCS of the SU-57 and the Swedish Saab Grippen are about the same. Did the Russians even built a 5th generation plane? I say, no. They certainly didn't built an all-aspect 5 th generation plane like the US did. Fact. But now you know why the F-22 was cancelled. Other countries are still too far behind when it comes to stealth aircraft and the US F-22 had no Raison d'etre.
The F-35 can surely win in air-to-air combat against the Typhoon, or disengage if it cannot, and that is a great advantage. However, air-to-air combat is a very limited part of any modern fighter's expected combat performance. It is probably the *least* important part, when you look at what fighter planes are actually doing around the world. Even the most deadly F-22 is not shooting down Syrian Sukhois, but dropping bombs, and when you get within those ranges, the F-35's stealth is no longer of any great benefit. Indeed, the F-22 has not been credited with a single air-to-air kill since its inception, but it still costs 75% more to operate than a 4th gen fighter that can the exact same tasks, indeed the F-16s often *do* fly the same missions as the F-22.
The only area of operations where the F-22/F-35 have a demonstrable edge is in the field of intelligence gathering, but I'd call into question whether you'd really want to make the recon planes your country's main airforce, or if you maybe wouldn't buy some stealthy drones for that purpose?
Consider also that for countries that aren't the US, the cost of operating a particular jet is extremely important. If the same budget allows for operation of two wings of Typhoons vs one wing of F-35s, the choice to go with the superior air-to-air platform isn't as cut-and-dry as you make it sound. Having more planes which are more robust and able to operate from lower infrastructure, such as motorways or damaged airfields, and have planes available both on wider fronts and at all times (because some planes are on mission, others on stand-by, and others being repaired, rearmed, refueled, etc.) is an intrinsic advantage that a defender would greatly appreciate.
As an attack platform, the F-35 is thus superior. But as the choice of fighter for a defense force (which was the thought behind the Typhoon), its stealth does not bring as much to the table.
In conclusion, I have no doubt the F-35 could pull off precisely the sort of BVR attack you described. But that is one very specific and limited scenario. Will future planes be developed along the lines of stealth and BVR combat? Most certainly so, but that does not invalidate the need and indeed requirement for affordable and robust weapons platforms that can keep going into a more drawn out engagement, be it on the side of the attacker (if you're looking at countries like the US or UK, or to an extent Israel) or the defender (basically everyone else).
Still, I do believe that the real future of airforces is in drones and unmanned aerial vehicles. Which can also be seen in the UK's proposed Tempest design, and the US Navy's prototypes.
I recommend looking at Binkov's scenario analysis of the F-35 vs Su-35. The Su-35 is not too dissimilar to the Typhoon, especially showing the way attacking F-35s would fare against a defending force of 4th gen aircraft.
th-cam.com/video/xjS8j2PWtK4/w-d-xo.html
@@whitescar2 What you said is correct. And the Typhoon will be used in the same manner as the F-22 anyway in a high-low mix with F-35's.
And the Typhoon is an excellent plane. No doubt about that, but you also had better hope that the Typhoon is never asked to go against a First-world military on day one of a bombing campaign. You are correct that the world has a place for such plane. I find the SAAB Gripen to be such a plane. But these are not perfect for offensive war, but are rather effective for defensive war.
Meaning that the right plane for the US is the F-35 and the right plane for Sweden may very well be the Gripen.
Need and intent are everything.
🇫🇮🇪🇬777
sonic boom
Valitetettavasti kyllä surkein vaihtoehto HX-hankkeessa... Vanha, kallis, ja tulevaisuudessa ei todenn. Tule mitään päivityksiä... On kyllä nätti, sen voi sanoa
Luuleeko Kauppi, että näitä ostettaisiin käytettyinä 90-luvun elektroniikalla varustettuina?
Vai valitettavasti... olet täysin väärässä