Originally Posted by KJ

System 39 Gripen is a small fighter that were never designed for the airsuperiority role.
Having said that, they have performed well in Red Flag and other joint TRAINING exercises with NATO forces.
(I think the Chechz won some competition or other with theirs.)
There are currently 8 of the C/D version flying CAP,s over Lybia on request from NATO so they can´t be utterly useless.
KJ sends...

Well, I was faced with the task of defending the Scandinavian countries from an enemy whose idea of airsuperiotity was to strafe and bomb airfields on regular basis, my choise would be in favour of the JAS Gripen.

If I was the enemy with a main interest in bombing and strefing airfields, I would choose something completely different.

On the other hand, if I was the one to face JAS Gripen in the role I pictured, it would demand som creative thinking.

Technology changes so quickly that after a decade there are massive changes in the fighter aircraft, and for any comparison these threads should be broken up into at least ten year blocks

I am totally unsure if the Euro-fighter Typhoon would be the best choice as a fighter/interceptor for the RAF. There's something that I cannot put my finger on, I don't like the aircraft, but then again what do I know. It might turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread, only time will tell.

Many regarded the development of the Harrier as a complete waste of time and money, yet she proved herself time and time again. Its a pity that the supersonic version never left the drawing board.

I've always been a fan of F-22 Raptor!

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

I am totally unsure if the Euro-fighter Typhoon would be the best choice as a fighter/interceptor for the RAF. There's something that I cannot put my finger on, I don't like the aircraft, but then again what do I know. It might turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread, only time will tell.

What choice does the RAF have? None! The F-35 would not take care of all their aerial defense needs. I don't know how an fighter like the F-35 could possibly prevent an Su-27 from penetrating or deep probing the air defense of countries like Japan, and Israel (which have had this problem).

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Many regarded the development of the Harrier as a complete waste of time and money, yet she proved herself time and time again. Its a pity that the supersonic version never left the drawing board.

Politicians often are very short sighted. Congress was arguing over discontinuing the B-17 program because it was costly, one test aircraft crashed and, they saw no need to continue the program. Then in June 1937 a Tupolev ANT-25 made a non-stop flight from Moscow over the north pole to the military base near Vancouver, Washington after passing over Seattle! Then congress considered that the USAAF could probably need the Y1B-17 in development. So many examples like this. This also spurred the need for interceptors... the P-38, P-40, P-47, the F-4U Corsair, etc. Otherwise German bombers could bomb the USA much like the Tu-ANT-25 passed over American cities.
Many complain that about the cost of the F-22, it was congress that did not want the F-22 in the early 1980s, because the Israeli AF showed the F-15 and F-16s were doing so good in 1981-82. When the MiG-29 and later the Su-27 came out they were not able to dominate the skies. Congress also felt the Euro-canards would perform about as well as the upgraded F-15s and F-16s. Congress still saw no need for the F-22 to continue. Upgrading the F-15s and F-16s these people felt would be enough to keep the USAF the top air force. Then, President Clinton (near the end of his first term) told the USAF to stretch out the program by at least seven years and that the production run will be cut 'at least' in half! The end of President Clinton's first term is when the F-22 was originally supposed to become operational. All this stretching out of the program ate up money and damaged the overall program financially. If the F-22 became operational back in 1994-95, the the number of F-22s produced would have been a lot higher program cost would be radically lower.

Originally Posted by danielcrowe

I've always been a fan of F-22 Raptor!

Despite the administration and congress positions on the F-22 Raptor the fighter, there are millions of us who felt more F-22s should been produced.

As dog fighter the Typhoon is specially equipped for this with the canard wings at the front which makes it very unstable to fly with out fly by wire. Also it is equipped with the latest fire and forget missiles with range of over 50 miles and can take on a number of targets at once. The idea of dog fighting is becoming obsolete as the idea is to shoot down the enemy before it is any where near you.

Most, if not all, modern fighters are made unstable and can only be flown with FBW.

I am a bit sceptical with that dogfight issue. The US burned their fingers with that topic in the Vietnam war, that's why the Phantom got it's canon and the F-22 also has one.

In the latest Red Flag (I think it was Red Flag) exercise the F-22 was quite good versus the Eurofighter in dogfights. The latter was helpless in long distance fights against the F-22.

Do you guys think the YF-23 had been better choice than the F-22?

The yf-23 was less maneuverable than the yf-22 but it was stealthier and had bigger weapons bays, and I believe a slightly greater range, but the air force made their choice.

Originally Posted by HindStrike

The yf-23 was less maneuverable than the yf-22 but it was stealthier and had bigger weapons bays, and I believe a slightly greater range, but the air force made their choice.

One big factor was the loss of faith in Northrop and, the way the B-2 bomber progressed through the design and production process. If Northrop could not keep the B-2 bomber program anywhere near the cost or schedule, they probably would not be able to do it with YF-23. A valid concern!