What's better...Eurofighter or F-35?

On 15 October 1964 The Secretary of Defense directed that the Army Air Defense System for the 1970s (AADS-70s) program name be changed to Surface-to-Air Missile, Development (SAM-D). 1975 SAM-D successfully engaged a drone at the White Sands Missile Range. In 1976, it was renamed the PATRIOT Air Defense Missile System. The MIM-104 Patriot would combine several new technologies, including the phased array radar and track-via-missile guidance. Full-scale development of the system began in 1976 and it was deployed in 1984.

Patriot was used initially as an anti-aircraft system, but in 1988 it was upgraded to provide limited capability against tactical ballistic missiles (TBM) as PAC-1 (Patriot Advanced Capability-1).


The most recent upgrade, called PAC-3, is a nearly total system redesign, intended from the outset to engage and destroy tactical ballistic missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
 
I've seen news reports on tactical simulation tests of the Eurofighter that suggested it was comparable to the F-22 Raptor. I assume it'd do just as well if not better against the cheaper multi role F-35.
 
Pilots. It's very much a team game up there nowadays.

Yep, dogfights are thing of the past ...if they were much of thing even at the time. With long-range radar and radar-guided missiles, pilots don't even see the enemy before he's blown to smitherines ...he just sees the radar screen.

And it's even worse/better with the new satellite imagery that's a major part of the fighter/bombers made today.

As a matter of fact, why do we even need fighter/bombers these days? I can understand close-air support for ground troops, but ....fighter jets?

Baron Max
 
F-35; a cheap, STVL, stealth, ultra-manoeverable, super-sonic multirole ready to kick ass!
 
Back
Top