One of the few up-to-date air-to-air comparisons that stir a lot of debate is the F-22 Raptor versus the Eurofighter Typhoon from Europe. They are both leading-edge fighters, embodying their respective nations’ most advanced technology. However, the reality is not as simple as the media trying to tell us which one is better. After comparing each aircraft’s design, operational focus, and high-altitude performance, a lot more detail comes out.
Essentially, these planes speak to very different philosophies regarding how to engage in combat. Lockheed Martin’s F-22, which was introduced late in the 1990s, was designed as an air-superiority fighter built with stealth in mind. It wasn’t about scoring points against the opposition—it was about being unseen until it counted. With its stealthy airframe, supercruise ability, thrust-vectoring engines, and leading-edge avionics, the Raptor represents a first-strike, information-driven approach to thinking about modern aerial warfare.
The Eurofighter Typhoon, in contrast, followed a different path. Entering service operation in 2003 after decades of multinational co-development, the Typhoon is all about speed, maneuverability, and multi-role capability. Its delta-canard wing and narrow structure make it extremely responsive. Not as stealthy in all ways as the F-22, it uses radar-absorbent paints and has a relatively low radar cross-section for a fourth-generation fighter. One of the standout features of the Raptor is its P.I.R.A.T.E. infrared search and track (IRST) system, which can detect heat signatures—yes, even those of planes designed to be low-observable.
Performance-wise, each aircraft performs best in its niche. The F-22’s thrust-vectoring allows for stunning maneuvers and razor-sharp turns. The Typhoon’s high thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading allow for rapid acceleration and sharp directional maneuverability, which make it a close-range dogfight killer.
One of the strongest instances was during 2012’s Red Flag exercise in Alaska. German Typhoons were pitted against eight U.S. F-22s in visual-range combat. Maj. Marc Gruene, a German fighter pilot, reported that Typhoons were able to turn around the Raptors on certain instances; they themselves joked that they had “Raptor salad for lunch.” Context is key, however—Typhoons flew light, no external fuel tanks or guns, while Raptors had tanks that reduced their maneuverability, an improbable scenario during real combat.
The F-22s were also said to have registered some kills by U.S. pilots, further showing the complexity of such exercises. Training battles have procedures, safety limitations, and equipment differences that make them not precisely replicate real-world outcomes.
Nevertheless, one of the lessons was: the Raptor’s thrust-vectoring, while potent, can bleed energy. If a pilot pushes too hard in a turn, the F-22 can be vulnerable to “energy fighters” such as the Typhoon, which can carry on speed and re-engage successfully. As one test pilot for the Eurofighter described, not out-turning a Typhoon sets it up to launch a counterattack using its close-range missiles.
All the same, modern air combat is not very much about dogfighting. All the action is long before aircraft are within visual distance. That is the F-22’s advantage. With stealth and cutting-edge radar, it can track and hit from a long distance, sometimes undetected. Equipped with AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles, effective to a range of 75 kilometers, the Raptor can strike before adversaries have time to know it’s there.
The Typhoon’s IRST can detect subsonic targets at over 100 kilometers in ideal circumstances. However, stealth fighters such as the F-22 are far harder to spot using heat seekers, and its advanced electronic warfare package makes it even harder to tag. Conversely, the Raptor’s radar can detect aircraft at around 220 kilometers and engage from 180 kilometers—well beyond the Typhoon’s optimal range.
Technicalities aside, exercises like Red Flag or Arctic Defender serve a number of purposes. NATO pilots utilize them to experiment with tactics, share strategies, and adapt to evolving combat scenarios. According to Col. Kevin Jamieson, commander of the 3rd Wing, exercises of this nature train pilots for high-threat missions where synchronized coordination can be the difference between success and failure.
Finally, the F-22 remains peerless in stealth and beyond-visual-range fighting, while the Eurofighter Typhoon has established itself as a capable and helpful rival in close-in combat. The message is clear: no aircraft can excel at everything. Air supremacy truly comes from maximizing the strengths of an aircraft while exploiting the weaknesses of the adversary.