It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Best of the Best....Air superiority Fighters

page: 37
2
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
puneet is right, I have yet to see a credible argument as well.

Shattered OUT...




posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
ghostbr55.im not going to start a post war.by the way how did you get the info of raptor mach2.43?im not writing everything that i want to write.supercruise speed wich i have says 1.5 and arfterburner1.8.by the way how old are you?then ill tell you a secret.(ofcourseeveryone will see it what are you nuts)

so before you start a post war.get details.(wich i am doing now.)



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I don't know Kilco, the YF-22 changed dramatically, it actually started too look more like the YF-23 in the end.

The YF-23 was a very good design, but both the YF-22 and YF-23 IMO carried the same amount or risk. They just went with what was more flexible for future upgrades and what cost cheaper at the time.

Shattered OUT...


The changes to the YF-22 weren't that significant. They relaxed LE wing sweep for improved low speed handing [so if that was a concern with the YF-22, imagine what it must have been like with the YF-23]. They also resculpted the nose, improving on the original concept in both LO and lateral stability I think. The engine intakes may have been moved forward slightly as well, I'm not sure about that. I had a nice piccie showning the differences, but seem to have lost it


From what I had gathered from air power journal many moons ago, the YF-23 represented a much greater technical challenge than the YF-22, such things impact alot on maintainability in the field etc. For what its worth I think the USAF made the right choice.





Originally posted by GhosTBR55
Phsyco

okay hold up >>>>> F-22A Max Speed is 2.42 mach


Where'd you pull that from?

I could make a suggestion, but it might get me in trouble with the moderators.

If your going to insist others do not make definitive statements without any evidence of logic or source, perhaps you'd be better served by checking your own posts first



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by phsyco
supercruise speed which i have says 1.5 and arfterburner1.8.


Phsyco, it has been well established that the F-22 [and the YF-22] were both able to travel much in excess of those speeds stated.

Under military thrust, the F-22 is capable of Mach 1.7 or thereabouts, and under afterburner, I guess the far side of Mach 2 [but under Mach 2.4].



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Okay first off puneetsg yur not his mom so dont start blasting on me He can talk for himself.

puneetsg "Dont start nothing wont be nothing".

1. His link leads to a SU-35 . HAS nothing to do wit what he posted.

2. I dont leave "External sources" at the end of my posts because id expect that everyone here knows the common knowledge, i know most people in this forum are very knowledable about A/C.
If i said a F-22 has better avionics than a F-15 i dont need to prove that! Its obvious.
But when someone like Phsyco says a F-22A can only reach mach 1.8 thats RIDICULUS. You know what? he always spits false info all the time. I wouldnt expect someone 13 to have anything but imganation.

3. Here you want proof of a F-22A hitting Mach 2.42

en.wikipedia.org...

go to the bottom and read > a pilot named Paul Metz claimed 2.42

so there, dont blast me like im not knowledable. Why does someone like Westpoint share the same view but then i gotta hear the other end from you noobies.

phsyco theres no post war between us. Seriously!


Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
What does speed have to do with the plane performing well? The plane doesn't need to go at Mach 6 to launch a missile, the speed it goes at is pretty much the speed it should go at, there's a reason those 35,000 lb thrust class engines don't send it faster.

Shattered OUT...


See what i mean, read this. He said what does speed have to do with performin well? OMFG and you have the credit of being knowledgable.

Speed has a large role in BVR engagements, An AIM-120C shot off at Mach 2.4 will have increased range, more energy to manuv (more accurate) and generally faster than a missle being shoot off at anything lower. The faster you go the better for that AIM-120C.

You dont belieave that? Ask Westpoint maybe he will take some time to clarify.














[edit on 22-9-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
5th Gen

1. F-22A
2. F-35
3. Typhoon
4. Raf
5. F-15

Including all factors (BVR, WVR, AWACS, ETC)

1. Typhoon
2. F-15
3. Raf
4. SU-35
5. F/A-18E
(This is not including the F-22A or F-35)

Oldies - Including all factors (BVR, WVR, AWACS, ETC)

1. F-15
2. SU-35
3. F/A-18E
4. SU-27
5. F-16AM



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
OMG!!! Ghost just quoted Wikipedia!! but that can't be, I mean a bunch of people on the internet basically made that article!! So how can we at all trust it??

yeah Ghost, don't quote from sources you put down, you just look bad.

And that Mach 2.43 figure really can't be, the airframe of the F-22A would be stressed too much. I would gander that the maximum airspeed would be Mach 2.2 despite the engines being stronger than that, but the airframe it self does have it's limits. You can't always trust Wikipedia, many times I've cross-referenced Wikipedia and found it's information to be unreliable and false. So cross-reference with other sources, such as globalsecurity, FAS, any .mil or .gov site which is the official site for those branches or services.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
OMG!!! Ghost just quoted Wikipedia!! but that can't be, I mean a bunch of people on the internet basically made that article!! So how can we at all trust it??


Regardless of what he quotes if anyone here thinks that the Raptor is not a Mach 2 class aircraft then they need to stop posting nonsense. What's next? Saying the Raptors max operational ceiling is 50K Ft.



Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
And that Mach 2.43 figure really can't be, the airframe of the F-22A would be stressed too much.


Source for this info? Surely you are not going to put someone down for linking to Wiki and then say something like this?

Now for my personal take, given the conditions, load and altitude I'd say the F-22 can supercruise anywhere from Mach 1.5-1.8 and can go on burner to circa Mach 2.4

_____________________________

And as for speed and altitude, well, if offers both offensives and defensive advantages, though I only listed the offensive ones below.

The Raptors ability to supercruise at high mach and at high altitude means that any missile or bomb it drops will have their max range increased. Normal aircraft are going to be cruising at subsonic speeds and flying around 30-35K ft. The Raptor cruises at a MINIMUM at Mach 1.5 and at 50K ft. This not only gives it a better view of the airspace and allows it to take advantage of it's look/shoot down capabilities but it give missiles like the AMRAAM a 30-50% increase in range and it allows it to drop JDAM's and (in the future) SDB's from stand off distances.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
OMG!!! Ghost just quoted Wikipedia!! but that can't be, I mean a bunch of people on the internet basically made that article!! So how can we at all trust it??

yeah Ghost, don't quote from sources you put down, you just look bad.

And that Mach 2.43 figure really can't be, the airframe of the F-22A would be stressed too much. I would gander that the maximum airspeed would be Mach 2.2 despite the engines being stronger than that, but the airframe it self does have it's limits. You can't always trust Wikipedia, many times I've cross-referenced Wikipedia and found it's information to be unreliable and false. So cross-reference with other sources, such as globalsecurity, FAS, any .mil or .gov site which is the official site for those branches or services.

Shattered OUT...


Nice way to defend yourself. Let me laugh real quick for future refrences HAHAHAHAHA okay. Wiki is written by aot of people yes, but if you think people who group up from harvard are dumb LOL. Read wiki info, its probably one of the most realible info > compare it to Globalsecurity.org > same level of knowledge.

Also relax and realize that i never put down wikipedia as a bad souce, find a quote and prove that.

If the knowledge they write isnt real, false or unrealiable they cleary state it before u read it.

Its all about your prefrence.

FYI heres another website > his whole convo

www.ausairpower.net...

If everyone made bull Sh@t like u, where would this forum be?

Your a character Shatter


Thx west




[edit on 22-9-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
No ghost, you see you're the one that bashed me for using wiki as a source a while ago, which is one of the reasons I stopped posting here for a while, because you're no more than a little child, I wasn't defending myself, I had nothing to defend, but it's apparant that all you know is how to rant.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
No ghost, you see you're the one that bashed me for using wiki as a source a while ago, which is one of the reasons I stopped posting here for a while, because you're no more than a little child, I wasn't defending myself, I had nothing to defend, but it's apparant that all you know is how to rant.

Shattered OUT...


I am very knowledgeable of all A/C wether u think so or not.

Back to the forum

5th Gen

1. F-22A
2. F-35
3. Typhoon
4. Raf
5. F-15

Including all factors (BVR, WVR, AWACS, ETC)

1. Typhoon
2. F-15
3. Raf
4. SU-35
5. F/A-18E
(This is not including the F-22A or F-35)

Oldies - Including all factors (BVR, WVR, AWACS, ETC)

1. F-15
2. SU-35
3. F/A-18E
4. SU-27
5. F-16AM



ANY OPINIONS????



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Yeah, IMO you are ranking the Rafale too high on the list and the F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet too low. I would switch their positions.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
EDIT: Never Mind

[edit on 22-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
ghostbr55.your the reason why another post war has started.and me being 13 has nothing to do with my knowlege of planes.come to think of it how can you prove that the raptor flies at 2.43(mach) and dont bring that up about a piolet saying it.
i even yelled at intelgurl for that.why do you praise the raptor.cause your an american! dont care post the true infomation. you have a weirder imagination than i do(if i ever had one!)

this will get me into trouble .



[edit on 23-9-2006 by phsyco]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
Okay first off puneetsg yur not his mom so dont start blasting on me He can talk for himself.

If i said a F-22 has better avionics than a F-15 i dont need to prove that! Its obvious.
But when someone like Phsyco says a F-22A can only reach mach 1.8 thats RIDICULUS. You know what? he always spits false info all the time. I wouldnt expect someone 13 to have anything but imganation.

3. Here you want proof of a F-22A hitting Mach 2.42

phsyco theres no post war between us. Seriously!




[edit on 22-9-2006 by GhosTBR55]

your getting others involved in this too.nothing so far but if you continue it there will be a major post war.and if i had an imagination.dont you think i would have SPIT that out.why is it that when you say it its obvious and no one else.
(especially me)
so still im going to hold back what im going to say.i have said it. then i edited them without them.(dont worry they aint hte word you use)besides itll lose me my respect too.(yeah how many do i have0.1%)i would be in that rank in front of you i suppose.seriously no post war between us still.sorry if any offense was carried out


[edit on 23-9-2006 by phsyco]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
still i would say lets not argue around here.specailly you ghost. and by the way still no post war.peace???



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55


I am very knowledgeable of all A/C wether u think so or not.




Any more sunshine you need blown .....?


Back to the topic at hand..



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
I am very knowledgeable of all A/C wether u think so or not.


There is a saying over here.... self-praise is no recommendation.


Anyway wikipedia is no source at all, some 10 year old kid [heck, could have been one of the kids that seem to frequent this forum from time to time] could have stuck that up.


I think I made a guesstimate of the F-22s Vmax from its planform before, its in one of the other threads on it. Mach 2.3 or so IIRC.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55

I am very knowledgeable of all A/C wether u think so or not.


You're credibility is going down the toilet faster than an unwanted pregnancy on prom night.


Back to the forum

5th Gen

1. F-22A
2. F-35
3. Typhoon
4. Raf
5. F-15


The F-35 isn't even out yet and there are three different variants that do different things, and only the F-22A and F-35 are 5th generation aircraft. Really the only plane that sticks out in that list is the F-35, as it leans more towards the strike mission than air superiority mission. I still can't gander as to why the F-15 is still on the list when there are so many other aircraft out there. The F-15 is a fine bird, but I just think that there are better choices out there for the slot.

So how can you be so sure of your lists when 1)None of those aircraft have ever faced each other in real combat 2)Half of those aircraft if not most have never even seen real combat. And 3)Are you adding those in simply to level of technology? I think you are, do you know each and every aircrafts true capability first-hand? Have you worked on every one of them, flown every one of them, have you ever even flown a plane to begin to understand what manueverability means?

Shattered OUT...

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I'll just add this. Dozer, the F-22 pilot that is frquently on another board said that the Raptor is a Mach 2 class airplane. He said that it means that the Raptor is actually a bit faster than that. However, he says that they rarely are up to those speeeds as it's supercruise speed is not that much slower than it's top speed.

I'd put the estimated top speed at Mach 2.3 and the supercruise at Mach 1.8.

[edit on 23-9-2006 by JFrazier]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join