Accepting what’s in the article as correct, that Typhoons were having success against the F-22 by gettting them into a knifefight, it raises a couple of interesting points/questions.

-The F-22, even with TVC, was not as good as anticipated in close. Was it showing all of its cards?

-What does this mean for the F-35 that is no where near a agile as the F-22?

Article Here:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/f-22-germans/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Wired%3A+Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

There’s also this: http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon-raptor/ and later on: http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/23/f-22-raptor-kill-markings/ :diablo:

Yep, it really makes me think they are seriously considering equiping them as standard.

Mr f-35pwiii , while I read your posts carefully , I don ‘t have a lot of interest in what you say . Sorry .

And that’s your problem, it’s ironic that you say to be open minded when you should take a look in the mirror if you wanted the definition of narrow minded. I could just as easily express my thoughts in a balanced way, but what I wouldn’t want to do is ram it down your throat as you do. Let’s just agree to disagree.

f-35pwiii :

No , not on everything . He forget to add wing loading in his equation and that change turning performances . You can also check the wing area : 45.7 square meter for the Rafale , 51.2 for the Typhoon . Check also the wing angle .
At high altitude and at high speed , the Typhoon has the edge . I have NEVER said the opposite .
Now , lower you go , better the Rafale performs . At medium altitude , subsonic , the Rafale gets the edge . If you go even lower and slower , the Rafale ‘s edge is increasing . Rafale pilots fighting Typhoons reported it .
Cola also said that the Rafale display is less demanding than Typhoon ‘s and he is wrong . The Typhoon ‘s pilots tried and they keep trying to do the “Square Dance” made by the Rafale but the result is not very convincing .

To make it short , the Square dance goes like this :
-start stabilized @ 380 Knt , inverted barrel then hard opposite 90deg turn , acceleration .
Repeat 4 times to make a square with a end speed of no less than 400 Knt .

from 2:13 to 2:40 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKfeSYFZSsM&feature=related

The Typhoon can ‘t turn tight enough and can ‘t recover from the inverted barrel fast enough . The French pilots said that the reason is twofold :
-1) Typhoon ‘s nose doesn ‘t “follow the aircraft” , it is “wobbling” , because of the long coupled canard . How can I explain that … Well , let ‘s take a chicken on a barbecue with the spike going through its a$$ right up its throat . It is spinning right and correctly over the fire (doing nice barrels) . Set up the spike wrong , and it ‘s gonna turn like a unbalanced potato . Do you get it ? Check any video of the Typhoon doing barrels and you ‘ll see what the French pilots are talking about .
-2) Rafale ‘s FCS is better .

TMor :

No Thomas , we aren ‘t going round in circles . Some posters are trying to push things forward by reminding others of some known facts to avoid confusion and mistakes . What am I trying to say ? I am trying to say that the long coupled canard design is a mistake . The Eurofighter Team discarded the enormous Dassault ‘s knowledge on the matter and went on their own for a design they didn ‘t master . They made the mistake to think that forward placed canards provide more authority when they actually don ‘t , unless someone is flying real high where the air density is lower . The other problem with long coupled canard is to manage to nose “wobbling” with the FCS , which is close to impossible (even for Dassault) . The nose instability is just too great .

The Typhoon design shows a real emphasis on high altitude flight characteristics at the expense of … everything else .

Seahawk :

I said half a generation ahead .
The M2000 is 4th gen , the Typhoon 4.2 and the Rafale 4.7 (F-22 is the 5th gen benchmark) . I know that ‘s a bit silly but I need a rating to make things clearer . 😎

Cheers .

I’m not going to look at most of your post as it’s meaningless BS, but, could you give me a pdf or two to explain/compare the merits of the different wing loadings at altitudes and speeds?
Thanks,

Either chaff or flare dispensers.

Some times the truth does sunk in. In it like if you order a menu at the restaurant. Would you rather have the best French chef prepare it or a team of Italian, German, Spanish and British cooks?

The team, as they would provide a wider variety of expertise, experience and knowledge. They would each contribute their own specialty to the dish, coming together to make an excellent well thought of dish! :dev2:

Shiv :

Exactly ! Bangs for Bucks is what matter and the Rafale does a lot more (than the Typhoon) for a bit less money .

“Deal ! Where do I sign ?”

The Typhoon is a ground based M2000 on steroîds with good multirole capabilities (like the M2000) while the Rafale is a carrier capable omnirole fighter . If we forget for a moment the avionics and look at other features , like aerodynamics , anti-corrosion/salt materials , airframe robustness , low speed handling , fuel management , range , weapon load , available armory , the Rafale is ahead . What counts is to hit the enemy hard and to come back alive .
If you can get that for a decent amount of money , you sign the deal .

Cheers .

LOL And you wonder why people call you delusional, and down right biased. It’s a shame you know a tiny bit about the Tiffie, but anything else regarding aerodynamic and EW you know quite simply nothing and base your opinions/assumptions on heresay. But it’s fine you can live in your own world;shared by no other person.