When it comes to contemporary air-to-air combat, few comparisons create as much controversy as the F-22 Raptor and Europe’s Eurofighter Typhoon. Both are stunning examples of engineering, the pinnacle of each respective country in terms of fighter technology. Just because the media will try to call it, the actuality is much more complex. Looking at their design, their mission priority, and how they perform in flight gives so much more depth.
These planes embody two distinctly different strategies in aerial warfare. The F-22, produced by Lockheed Martin and fielded in the late 1990s, was designed as a stealth air-superiority fighter. Its greatest asset is in attacking before the enemy has even realized its presence. With an airframe optimized for stealth, supercruise ability, thrust-vectoring engines, and cutting-edge avionics, the Raptor is designed for precision, first-strike predominance, and information warfare.
The Eurofighter Typhoon, however, had a different destiny. Going into service in 2003 following decades of multinational cooperation, the Typhoon maximizes speed, maneuverability, and adaptability. Its delta-canard wing and narrow profile give it remarkable sensitivity.
Although it doesn’t compete with the F-22 for full stealth, radar-absorbent paint and a relatively low radar cross-section provide it with robust capabilities as a fourth-generation fighter. Its P.I.R.A.T.E. infrared search and track (IRST) system can detect heat emissions from planes developed to hide.
Every plane excels in its own domain. The F-22’s thrust-vectoring enables the kind of sharp, stunning turns that leave onlookers agog. The Typhoon, on the other hand, has explosive acceleration and agile maneuvering thanks to its high thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading, making it a formidable opponent in close dogfighting.
A telling example came during the 2012 Red Flag exercise in Alaska, when German Typhoons engaged eight U.S. F-22s in visual-range combat. The German pilots spoke of instances where their Typhoons were able to out-turn the Raptors, with the quip that they had “Raptor salad for lunch.” Worth noting, however, was that the Typhoons flew light with no external fuel tanks or guns, while the Raptors carried fuel, constricting their agility—not exactly a representative real-world situation.
F-22 pilots did register simulated kills during the maneuvers, noting that these are training events, not necessarily perfect reflections of actual combat. One sure takeaway: thrust-vectoring, though potent, saps energy. Forcing too much in a turn leaves the Raptor susceptible to “energy fighters” like the Typhoon, which can sustain speed and follow through with an attack. A test pilot of the Eurofighter noted that being unable to out-turn a Typhoon leaves the door open for a close-in missile attack.
Even so, contemporary air combat does not often resort to dogfighting. Most combat occurs well before pilots are in visual proximity. That is where the F-22 excels. Its stealth, advanced radar, and long-range missiles enable it to attack enemies unseen. AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, with a range of approximately 75 kilometers, enable the Raptor to attack before enemies can respond.
The Typhoon’s IRST has a range for slower targets of over 100 kilometers under perfect conditions, but stealth fighters such as the F-22 are much more difficult to see with heat sensors. The Raptor’s radar can see aircraft at about 220 kilometers and engage at 180 kilometers—far beyond the Typhoon’s optimum envelope.
Training missions such as Red Flag and Arctic Defender have a double purpose. NATO flyers utilize these as chances to probe tactics, hone coordination, and adjust for evolving combat environments. 3rd Wing commander Col. Kevin Jamieson stresses that these exercises acclimate crews to high-risk missions where timing and teamwork can be the factors of success or failure.
In conclusion, the F-22 remains unmatched in stealth and long-range engagements, while the Eurofighter Typhoon proves its worth in close-quarters combat. The key takeaway: no fighter excels at everything. Air superiority depends on playing to a plane’s strengths while exploiting an opponent’s weaknesses.