Few air combat matches in the modern era do so much to provoke debate as that between Europe’s Eurofighter Typhoon and the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 Raptor. Both are premier fighters, symbols of their countries’ technological aspirations. But whereas headlines tend to do one up as superior to the other, reality is in a more detailed, honest examination of how each aircraft was constructed, what they are meant to accomplish, and how they have fared in the air.
Fundamentally, the Raptor and the Typhoon are products of fundamentally different military thought. Lockheed Martin’s F-22, introduced in the late ’90s, was designed as an air dominance fighter that just happened to be stealthy. It wasn’t only designed to beat the competition—it was designed to be invisible until it was too late. Equipped with its stealth shape, supercruise performance, thrust-vectoring engines, and advanced avionics, the Raptor was a response to an age focused on information warfare and first-strike power.
The Eurofighter Typhoon went another way. Entering production service in 2003 after decades of multinational design, the Typhoon was built around speed, agility, and versatility. Its canard-delta wing design and light airframe make it a phenomenally responsive fighter. Though it doesn’t have the complete stealth capabilities of the F-22, the Typhoon is coated with radar-absorbent materials and possesses a generally small radar signature for a fourth-generation fighter. Its trump card? The P.I.R.A.T.E. infrared search and track (IRST) system, which allows it to penetrate enemy heat signatures, even from low-observable aircraft.
Performance-wise, both aircraft are astounding, but better in their respective respects. The F-22’s thrust-vectoring enables breathtaking air stunts and tight turns. The Typhoon, on the other hand, has a high thrust-to-weight ratio and reduced wing loading, which facilitates swift acceleration and quick changes of direction in dogfighting.
One of the most discussed engagements between the two aircraft occurred during the 2012 Red Flag exercise in Alaska. Eight German Typhons engaged U.S. F-22s in several within-visual-range (WVR) combat. Maj. Marc Gruene, one of the German pilots participating in the exercises, said the Typhoons were able to turn inside the Raptors in some of the dogfights, eliciting the classic observation that they’d enjoyed “Raptor salad for lunch.” Naturally, context is important—Typhoons flew neat (no external fuel tanks or missiles), whereas the Raptors had fuel tanks on board that compromised their maneuverability, something which wouldn’t occur in actual combat.
All the same, American pilots responded that video of the exercise also demonstrated several F-22 kills. The reality, as is so frequently the case, is more nuanced. Training environments are replete with limitations—rules of engagement, safety considerations, and differences in equipment, dating back to real-world combat, perfectly.
But the exercises did prove to identify one major weakness of the Raptor: its thrust-vectoring, although strong, can result in airspeed loss. If a pilot fails to end the engagement in a hurry, that loss of energy can turn the F-22 into a sitting duck for energy fighters such as the Typhoon, which can stay on energy and re-attack from strength. As one of the Eurofighter test pilots described, if you attempt to out-turn a Typhoon and fail immediately, it will remain on your tail with its entire complement of close-range missiles.
But contemporary air-to-air combat is seldom fought in close-flying dogfights. Most of the time, the war is won or lost before fighters come close enough to see each other. That’s where the F-22 excels. Through its stealth technology and potent radar, the Raptor can intercept and attack targets from afar, often without ever being detected. Its AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles are effective for about 75 kilometers, and with them, it gains the power to attack before the enemy even realizes it’s there.
The Typhoon’s IRST system provides long-range detection of subsonic targets, with effective ranges of over 100 kilometers under perfect conditions. Yet stealth aircraft such as the Raptor are more difficult to detect using heat sensors, and the F-22’s sophisticated electronic warfare package makes it that much more difficult to target. Meanwhile, the Raptor’s radar can detect enemy aircraft at about 220 kilometers and fire missiles from about 180 kilometers—well beyond the Typhoon’s optimal engagement range.
Though these technical details matter, exercises like Red Flag or Arctic Defender are not solely demonstrations of superiority. They’re training exercises. NATO pilots utilize them to exchange tactics, coordinate strategies, and adjust to continually evolving battlefield conditions. As Col. Kevin Jamieson, commander of the 3rd Wing, observed, these exercises are instrumental in preparing for high-pressure scenarios where flawless coordination among allied air forces can spell the difference.
Although the F-22 continues to be unbeaten in stealth and beyond visual range combat performance, the Eurofighter Typhoon has emerged as a nimble, versatile, and capable equal in close combat. The competition between the planes is indicative of a wider pattern in air-to-air combat: one plane cannot excel in every situation. Success is determined by how successfully pilots exploit their aircraft’s advantages while taking advantage of their adversary’s vulnerabilities.
More related images you may be interested in:
