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.

 

Russia to launch new F/A-22 competetor

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Recent air-to-air combat simulations against a US acquired/obtained Su-27, had the Raptor defeating it so handly and easily, that it would be better compared to a seal hunter clubbing baby seals



Cabral has better recall of his fifth, sixth, and seventh flights, during which he flew his Raptor against another in a Basic Fighter Maneuvers exercise. (The second aircraft simulated a Russian Sukhoi Su-27.)

www.airandspacemagazine.com...


It wasn't a su-27 but one simulating a su-27




posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


Unproven meaning that it has not been in actual combat?
Unproven meaning that it has not gone against modern ECM's such as the Eurofighter's DASS or the Rafale's SPECTRA?


seekerof

[edit on 27-9-2005 by Seekerof]


both

see i am in no way saying that thje raptor is not as good as they say. hell it is the best aircarft being serially produced currently.

but my only bone of contention is with the fact that, it is simply not possible for the raptor to swepp rthe floor with every other aircraft out there like many claim it will.

this is because, in all the simulations run by the US and even the British for tht matter, they cannot accurately predict the tactics and methods that the enemy might employ (here i am talking about a well trained, capable airforce)

granted the raptor will win a majority of times, but then not always. and this is where numbers start becoming important, dont u think so



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
why cann't it win all the time? from stats that ive heard here before the F-15 kill ratio is crazy something like (number of planes) to no losses. if the 15 can do it I have no doubt about the 22's.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
why cann't it win all the time? from stats that ive heard here before the F-15 kill ratio is crazy something like (number of planes) to no losses. if the 15 can do it I have no doubt about the 22's.


again statistics can be very misleading. the kill ratio of the F-15 is so good because it has never flown against wht one might call a 'modern, well trained air-force' eg. say france or isreal or india

again here i could point to the cope-india exercises (i know i am going to get berated for this) where the f-15s lost to the IAF over 90% (mind u the IAF was not flying with its top of the line Su-30MKIs) of the time in 'dog-fights'. it was mutually agreed to have no BVR engagements. And no, neither side had AWACS (the AWACS was a simulated one with each side taking turns to try and defend it against aggressors) But again tht is just a stat.

But coming back to the Cope-India Exercise, the most important thing the US learned from this was that their assesment of the capabilities of other air-forces is flawed (hence their training too) they greatly underestimate wht the others can do (they had said tht they should revise their training routines, but i dont know if they have done so), hence all simulations run by the americans (and the british for tht matter) are fundamentally flawed as they cannot accurately predict wht the other air-force is capable of.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Points on the thread:

1. The F/A-22 is undoubtedly the best aircraft in production at the minute, and the 'kill rates' against current aircraft are very believable.

2. To say that will always be the case is blindly arrogant. People here are saying Russia cannot build a competitor, they cannot afford to. Fact is it isn't only Russia thats looking for a F-22ski - China and India need them too, so whats to stop partial R&D funding.

It has been posted in the thread that Suhkoi have approached EADS and/or Dassault for technological partnerships, surely that strengthens Russian designs considerably as their historical weakness has been cockpit ergonomics (avionics). Someone said earlier about computing power... How long ago was the F-22's CPU designed? OK, so its a vector processor (being a Cray), but the advantages of this over multicore pure processors are not that marked for floating point ops (in my own experience) - since these are commerically available the designs can be copied to an extent. Even if the -22 CPU was designed 5 years ago (which is doubtful), that makes it equivalent to a Pentium I or II...

As for stealth working... I see claims of "nothing invisible below 2GHz" and low-freq radars able to see everything to a resolution of 30-50m... OK, I understand with a resonance effect a low freq radar may be able to detect stealthy aircraft quite easily.

So 3 questions need to be asked:

a - Is the new 'Russian' aircraft going to try and be as stealthly as possible because there is no counter?

b - Is it going to try and be stealthy only to HF radars as used on most SAM/aircraft radars?

c - Is it not going to bother with extensive stealth at all?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg

Originally posted by Canada_EH
why cann't it win all the time? from stats that ive heard here before the F-15 kill ratio is crazy something like (number of planes) to no losses. if the 15 can do it I have no doubt about the 22's.

it was mutually agreed to have no BVR engagements. And no, neither side had AWACS (the AWACS was a simulated one with each side taking turns to try and defend it against aggressors) But again tht is just a stat.


If you think the US is going to go into aircombat with those rules in real warfare you got problems. Now i will give you the fact that tose stats can help when it comes to air to air digfights where you can hardly ever get a shot off at BVR.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by puneetsg
again statistics can be very misleading. the kill ratio of the F-15 is so good because it has never flown against wht one might call a 'modern, well trained air-force' eg. say france or isreal or india

again here i could point to the cope-india exercises (i know i am going to get berated for this) where the f-15s lost to the IAF over 90% (mind u the IAF was not flying with its top of the line Su-30MKIs) of the time in 'dog-fights'. it was mutually agreed to have no BVR engagements. And no, neither side had AWACS (the AWACS was a simulated one with each side taking turns to try and defend it against aggressors) But again tht is just a stat.

But coming back to the Cope-India Exercise, the most important thing the US learned from this was that their assesment of the capabilities of other air-forces is flawed (hence their training too) they greatly underestimate wht the others can do (they had said tht they should revise their training routines, but i dont know if they have done so), hence all simulations run by the americans (and the british for tht matter) are fundamentally flawed as they cannot accurately predict wht the other air-force is capable of.


Here I am to berate you


Seriously, your theory is a good one, but you destroyed your credability by using the Cope-India Exercise as an example. The USAF was NOT allowed to use any of it's top of the line stuff nor was it allowed to use the full range of it's weapons, while India WAS allowed to use simulated long range missles.

At this point of time, the Raptor will win virtually every time it is challanged. Other aircraft simply won't know it is even there while the Raptor will have tracked, targeted and fired on it's target. It isn't even fair.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Here I am to berate you


Seriously, your theory is a good one, but you destroyed your credability by using the Cope-India Exercise as an example. The USAF was NOT allowed to use any of it's top of the line stuff nor was it allowed to use the full range of it's weapons, while India WAS allowed to use simulated long range missles.

At this point of time, the Raptor will win virtually every time it is challanged. Other aircraft simply won't know it is even there while the Raptor will have tracked, targeted and fired on it's target. It isn't even fair.


Hmm,

The thing that bugs me at the minute, is the imagined superiority of the USAF/F-22 combo.

To be frank, yes I agree that the F/A-22 is the current leading fighter in any airforces order of battle, I agree that it has many advanced features and nice little bonus options stealth, tinted window etc. I agree that the USAF are the most funded airforce in the world. That is where I stop agreeing.

Being the biggest and baddest guy on the block, does NOT make you the best kid on the block. The russians were kicked out of Afghanistan by tribes men, the US had MAJOR problems with the Viet Cong in Vietnam, Iraq is a great example of how low cost options e.g. car bombs pipe bombs can take out targets without too much risk to the terrorist, how do you combat that? The US are throwing their money into developing technologies for it and they still haven't developed an effective counter.

The F/A-22 is in my opinion is a "Paper Tiger", I use that term at the minute as all of the 'combat' or tactical information we have is all guess work and theories, some of them educated, some of them just plane crazy.

I agree that the aircraft is technically sound, but this is where the problems start.

I frankly don't believe that the USAF are the best in aircrew training, Israel the UK and Sweden I believe are at the top level 3 overall in crew selection and training. I rate USN aircrews better than even the USAF. Yes, there are some fine fliers in the USAF, but they depend TOO MUCH on their technology not their flying skills.

They have had AWACs support in EVERY conflict from Korea, frankly they depend on this system and I believe it leaves room to be exploited, they basically in my opinion nearly adopted a Soviet style "Controller" fixed attitude. The pilots I frankly believe that they are great at carving circles in the sky and launching at drones but much else? Not sure. Not to mention GPS, if you could shoot down a few GPS sats in orbit, you could basically send the US military back to the stone age in terms of weapon delivery, strikes etc. I wonder how a F/A-22 Operator could handle trying to navigate in that flashy cockpit.

The weakpoint in the USAF/F-22 combo is the pilot. The F-22 may be the best in the world but if you don't crew it right, with the right people or for that matter don't employ tactics that give it the advantage, you will lose what ever advantages you started with. In the end its Man vs Man not machine vs machine because no matter how good that plane is, if the other man in the Mig, Su, Eurofighter etc is smarter, the raptor will be shoot down. Its that simple.

IF you where able to have one Eurofighter and one Raptor without pilots fight each other on their own merits, I am sure the raptor would win, but put a well trained pilot in the Raptor and a USAF "Top Dog" pilot, the outcome would not be as easy nor is it as sure.

Nice quote for you F-22 Fans:
"If we were to believe the manufactors of every anti aircraft missile, we would have shot down all the aircraft in the world... twice."

- Phil



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
The thing that bugs me at the minute, is the imagined superiority of the USAF/F-22 combo.


How is it imagined? The USAF is unanimously agreed on as the most powerfull airforce in the world. It is clearly the case, and the Raptor is clearly the very best fighter aircraft ever produced.



Being the biggest and baddest guy on the block, does NOT make you the best kid on the block. The russians were kicked out of Afghanistan by tribes men, the US had MAJOR problems with the Viet Cong in Vietnam, Iraq is a great example of how low cost options e.g. car bombs pipe bombs can take out targets without too much risk to the terrorist, how do you combat that? The US are throwing their money into developing technologies for it and they still haven't developed an effective counter.


Those are all TERRIBLE analogies - they are all GROUND conflicts for christ sakes. Air combat and ground combat are MUCH different. Technology can be negated and combated MUCH more easily on the ground then in the air.



The F/A-22 is in my opinion is a "Paper Tiger", I use that term at the minute as all of the 'combat' or tactical information we have is all guess work and theories, some of them educated, some of them just plane crazy.


LOL! Yeah, OK. Listen, all of the aircrafts electronics, engines, airframes, weapons, and stealth features have all been tested. They all work. The Raptor has been in literally THOUSANDS of practice exercises against F-15's... The Raptor has proven to be able to fire it's missles, it has done so MANY times. The missles have been proven IN COMBAT to be effective. The Raptors stealth has been tested both in labs and in real world exercises.



I frankly don't believe that the USAF are the best in aircrew training, Israel the UK and Sweden I believe are at the top level 3 overall in crew selection and training. I rate USN aircrews better than even the USAF. Yes, there are some fine fliers in the USAF, but they depend TOO MUCH on their technology not their flying skills.


I would agree with Isreal - IMO they are the finest pilot for pilot. But realize that USAF pilots get THE MOST AIR TIME of any pilots in the world. They have the most experience flying, and it's a proven fact. Yes, the USAF is dependent on their technology BUT SO IS EVERY OTHER AIRFORCE.

As much as you can talk about dogfighting, it is infinitely more likely that long or medium range missles will be used, and NO ONE can match the US in that department. Our radars are too good, we have too many AWACS, and our missles are just to damn acurate.


They have had AWACs support in EVERY conflict from Korea, frankly they depend on this system and I believe it leaves room to be exploited, they basically in my opinion nearly adopted a Soviet style "Controller" fixed attitude. The pilots I frankly believe that they are great at carving circles in the sky and launching at drones but much else? Not sure. Not to mention GPS, if you could shoot down a few GPS sats in orbit, you could basically send the US military back to the stone age in terms of weapon delivery, strikes etc. I wonder how a F/A-22 Operator could handle trying to navigate in that flashy cockpit.


Yes, the USAF relies on AWACS. So does every other half decent airforce. The difference is the US has so many more then anyone else.

Good at carving circles in the sky and not much else?


Yeah, OK. Tell that to my Cousins husband. I'm not sure if he'd try to convince you otherwise or just laugh in your face.

As for your GPS comment, if you really believe that, you are naive. The USAF has a lot of replacement sats for one thing.


The weakpoint in the USAF/F-22 combo is the pilot. The F-22 may be the best in the world but if you don't crew it right, with the right people or for that matter don't employ tactics that give it the advantage, you will lose what ever advantages you started with. In the end its Man vs Man not machine vs machine because no matter how good that plane is, if the other man in the Mig, Su, Eurofighter etc is smarter, the raptor will be shoot down. Its that simple.


Yeah - I guess all that flight time, the most advanced training facilities in the world, etc etc mean nothing. USAF pilots suck just because.


BTW - it's not man vs man - it's man and his machine vs man and his machine. Clearly the US wins half of that argument, and because the USAF is the largest in the world, with the most training resources in the world, and the largest pilot pool to draw from, it is fair to assume that any supposed advantage the enemy might enjoy in pilot skill (which frankly, I don't agree with) is very marginal and easily compinsated for by the overwhelming superiority of USAF technological superiority.

It's like putting the #1 and #2 race car drivers in the world head to head, and giving the #1 guy a BMW while giving the #2 guy an Enzo Ferrari.


IF you where able to have one Eurofighter and one Raptor without pilots fight each other on their own merits, I am sure the raptor would win, but put a well trained pilot in the Raptor and a USAF "Top Dog" pilot, the outcome would not be as easy nor is it as sure.


You are wrong in this assertion, and not IMO, but the opinion of USAF pilots themselves. The Raptor enjoys such a large advantage due mostly to it's complete LO design that current aircraft are simply overwhelmed even when severly outnumbering the Raptor.



Nice quote for you F-22 Fans:
"If we were to believe the manufactors of every anti aircraft missile, we would have shot down all the aircraft in the world... twice."

- Phil


I have a nice quote for you too - check the sig.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Here I am to berate you


Seriously, your theory is a good one, but you destroyed your credability by using the Cope-India Exercise as an example. The USAF was NOT allowed to use any of it's top of the line stuff nor was it allowed to use the full range of it's weapons, while India WAS allowed to use simulated long range missles.


here you are mistaken. the BVR restrictions applied to both sides. neither the USAF or the IAF had any advantage there.

furthermore, even though the F-15s in the exercise dint have the new AESA radars (a major grudge of all the denouncers of the COPE-India exercises) the slotted-array radars that they did have on them still otclassed the N-001 radars carried by the Su-30ks by a generation. Only the Mig-21 Bisons with the new Kopyo-M were a technological equivalent of the F-15s, but even they did not have as much range. So you can throw out the supposed first sight advantage that the IAF apparently had.

lets see wht else. yes numerical advantage. well it dint exist! true more IAF pilots took part in the exercise but the missions flown had set numbers (missions with 12v4, 8v4 and even 6v4 were documented) with each side taking turns to be the aggressor and defender.

wht else. ahh the much touted grey-market upgrades on the 21s. i dont know why the americans were so suprised. it is all available information. the IAF had gone in for major upgrades to their existing 21. The Bisons are the most advanced 21s anywhere in the world, with latest french, isreali avionics, indian software, composites and computers, and even latest russian missle techn and radars but then they are still 21s and not a match for F-15s (as most ppl think)

lastly the point of IAF Aces flying against mediocre USAF pilots is bull, because the IAF does not have any ACE squadrons. all squadrons are mixed with experinced and younber pilots.

so the USAF took major blows in COPE-India not because they were disadvantaged but because, they underestimated the IAF. their Red-Flag training leaves a lot to be desired. They assume air-superiority, but then that is not always the case.

similarly with the raptor. true the raptor is the best aircraft out there, but then they are totally disregarding the human factor. the point is that unless you put the raptor in real-life situations (not exercises against F-15s but against competing aircraft, like the Sukhois and the Migs) or you can accurately predict the tactics that will be used by the enemy, all simulations, all exercises amount to nothing!

on a side note, i read somewhere that the IAF will get to see the F-22 in action in future COPE-India exercises. that will be a true test of the aircarft, and i think it will come out on top. but again my point is that all tall claims have to be realed in until such a day arises



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
If you think the US is going to go into aircombat with those rules in real warfare you got problems. Now i will give you the fact that tose stats can help when it comes to air to air digfights where you can hardly ever get a shot off at BVR.



but thts exactly the pont. in an even match, the US lost 90% of the time.

so say we up the advantage for the US several times, by bringing in the Raptor. Still you mean to tell me that not even a few raptors will be lost in a2a?


[edit on 9/30/2005 by puneetsg]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
hey AMM, whts with the 'baby seals' man. why do u wanna club them all the time. i would have thought that they are rather cute creatures, and itd be a shame to kill them like tht



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316


So 3 questions need to be asked:

a - Is the new 'Russian' aircraft going to try and be as stealthly as possible because there is no counter?

b - Is it going to try and be stealthy only to HF radars as used on most SAM/aircraft radars?

c - Is it not going to bother with extensive stealth at all?


according to me the best bet for russia (and india and china for tht matter) is to go for stealth against HF radars. it makes no sense to spend all that money getting as stealthy as possible, because u never know when a counter for stealth will be developed.

IMO even the raptor is designed to be stealthy to HF radars and not "as stealhty as possible" the americans are smart. granted they have run over budget, but still the concept was to the least possible required to give the a/c an edge over rivals for several years.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   


How is it imagined? The USAF is unanimously agreed on as the most powerfull airforce in the world. It is clearly the case, and the Raptor is clearly the very best fighter aircraft ever produced.


I dare say that the Soviet Army was at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan, viewed as the most powerful army in the world and again they were forced out. Thier advanced technology was combated with terrain and home made explosives, ambushes and captured weaponary.

These examples are important for a simple reason, the soviets thought that they could sweep the floor of the less advanced enemy and were rudely shocked when it wasn't as easy as they thought. The USAF just might get a rude shock if they decide to attack an advanced airforce, F/A-22 or not.

Your right, it is easier to a degree to combat technology on the ground, but aircombat is very much the same in tactics, ambushes, flanking movements, assaults etc, the fact is that if you can't directly attack the target one to one you go for some thing you can kill.



LOL! Yeah, OK. Listen, all of the aircrafts electronics, engines, airframes, weapons, and stealth features have all been tested. They all work. The Raptor has been in literally THOUSANDS of practice exercises against F-15's... The Raptor has proven to be able to fire it's missles, it has done so MANY times. The missles have been proven IN COMBAT to be effective. The Raptors stealth has been tested both in labs and in real world exercises.


So, you've seen the manufacture information and data on the tests? Uh huh, I have to say that I would have difficultity believeing it. Your right they have all been tested and I am sure they have been tested well, but its where you say they work. Congrats on testing them F-15s, to me that doesn't anything, the F-15 isn't in the league of the Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale or for that matter the latest SU aircraft, so training against your own makes for nice data, it isn't as effective as a training tool because the pilots have all been through the same courses, training and culture, you would have a rough idea what they are going to do. Thats why most Armies try to train with foriegn nations, the British train with the Germans, Noweigans, Spainish, Polish etc, they learn from those exercises because the other nations have different tactics and ideas on solving problems.

The Battle of Britain is a good example, the Germans believed that their aircraft were far more advanced than anything the British had, they sent their fighters to some low conflict enivorments to blood them and their pilots, the germans lost, because they believed their own hype about themselfs and were out smarted.

As for the missiles etc When was the last time the USAF launched missiles at a trained airforce and conventual war eniviroment? Vietnam? Sure they launched missiles in Gulf War 1 either at helicopters or in two incidents 2 migs doing a runner to Iran. That proves they can hit a plane moving in a straight line, hitting a target that never was well trained nor for that matter in a plane that should be flying.

Until the F/A-22 goes up against an airforce, with good training, the F/A-22 will just be a paper tiger, the same goes for the Eurofighter, J-10, Gripen and Rafale, they look amazing on paper with all thier wee combat tested munitions but time will tell, if they can all work together.



I would agree with Isreal - IMO they are the finest pilot for pilot. But realize that USAF pilots get THE MOST AIR TIME of any pilots in the world. They have the most experience flying, and it's a proven fact. Yes, the USAF is dependent on their technology BUT SO IS EVERY OTHER AIRFORCE.

As much as you can talk about dogfighting, it is infinitely more likely that long or medium range missles will be used, and NO ONE can match the US in that department. Our radars are too good, we have too many AWACS, and our missles are just to damn acurate.


You know I made a few checks into your aircrew time for your pilots, in total, yeah your right the USAF have more airtime available for your crews than any other airforce, but when you start to look in to the proportion of USAF Numbers and then the European nation numbers, there isn't much of a different. Yes, these days all pilots and airforces depend on technology, I can't deny that, its the fact that when compaired to the RAF, the USAF's PIC navigation courses are a joke, the RAF still teach their Navigatiors navigation with rulers and stopwatches, not to mention some pretty advanced navigation training for RAF pilots.

Missiles, hmm, yeah thats a sound theory, I won't fault you on that. I personally believe that while Missile technology has been advancing there is the same amount of jamming and ECM technology being invested in countering them. I wouldn't be so sure of no one being able to counter the Americans in Missile technology, the UK, France and Russian all have missiles that are the same or better. Yeah you got great radar and missiles but a WW1 rifle can still kill you if you screw up.

I would be careful about those AWAC comments, you think any airforce is stupid? If there was a conflict with a well trained airforce, those AWAC aircraft are going to be one hell of an important Target.



Yes, the USAF relies on AWACS. So does every other half decent airforce. The difference is the US has so many more then anyone else.

Good at carving circles in the sky and not much else?

Yeah, OK. Tell that to my Cousins husband. I'm not sure if he'd try to convince you otherwise or just laugh in your face.

As for your GPS comment, if you really believe that, you are naive. The USAF has a lot of replacement sats for one thing.


Yes, like you said every have decent airforce uses AWAC's support, the thing is they don't DEPEND on it to the same degree as the americans, they know that those powerful radars can easily be degraded or shutdown if the enemy really wants to.

What else do your fighter pilots do? They Carve nice big ovals in the sky, that may change when more and more F/A-22s are produced but untill then, thats what your fighter pilots do. Ask your Cousins husband and ask him when those fighter pilots really had to do their job?


Navie you say? Thats interesting, you didn't reply to my statement either, the US does depend on GPS TOO much for tactical information for strikes and weapon delievry, do me a favour, tell me how many smart weapons and Cruise missiles have intergrated INS [Internal Navigation System]. The answer would be very close to 0. Yeah they have replacements, if you believe that the USAF would risk the replacement GPS sats if there was a chance of them being shot down, they aren't built in a week lad, they take months and months, not to mention the launch systems, do some reading on that American Mad Man.



Yeah - I guess all that flight time, the most advanced training facilities in the world, etc etc mean nothing. USAF pilots suck just because.

BTW - it's not man vs man - it's man and his machine vs man and his machine. Clearly the US wins half of that argument, and because the USAF is the largest in the world, with the most training resources in the world, and the largest pilot pool to draw from, it is fair to assume that any supposed advantage the enemy might enjoy in pilot skill (which frankly, I don't agree with) is very marginal and easily compinsated for by the overwhelming superiority of USAF technological superiority.

It's like putting the #1 and #2 race car drivers in the world head to head, and giving the #1 guy a BMW while giving the #2 guy an Enzo Ferrari.


Yeah training, every airforce in the world has classes rooms, most of them even have aircraft to train with
Yes the US have simulators, so does nearly every well trained airforce in the world.

I still believe its Pilot vs Pilot, if you were to put two drivers in those cars, they can easily lose out if they don't know how to use it, don't know the track, weather conditions etc. USAF technological superiority, again I question that, any one who have half a brain know how to combat that so called superiority.



You are wrong in this assertion, and not IMO, but the opinion of USAF pilots themselves. The Raptor enjoys such a large advantage due mostly to it's complete LO design that current aircraft are simply overwhelmed even when severly outnumbering the Raptor.


Bull.

Yes the Raptor has the LO feature, congrats, but there are ways of reducing that advantage to zero if you use some support features and some smart tactics, Stealth is NOT a sodding sheild that will protect you from all the scarey stuff in the world, its a small advantage nothing more, it can be countered if you use your head.



"I know first hand from flying the Raptor against other aircraft, and other aircraft against the Raptor, that the Raptor killing other aircraft is like clubbing baby seals...It's just so easy." - Raptor Pilot


Nice. I remember a similar quote

"Those tommies won't see what kills them, we are faster and better trained than those shop keepers turned pilots"

That was a german pilot talking about his Me 109 against the RAF. Sounds fimilar American Mad Man Huh


- Phil

[edit on 30-9-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
As for the exercise with the F-15s vs. the Indian SU-30s, what that showed wasn't the lack of piloting skills, or performance of the F-15, but rather how effective helmet mounted sights and high off-boresite close range missiles are. I suspect that the results would have been different had the USAF had those sights and the AIM-9X, at their disposal.

Now, getting to the F-22 vs. whatever- I think a lot of you are missing the point of what exactly this aircraft brings to the table, and what the value of stealth is.
Stealth isn't necessarily to make an aircraft entirely undectectable, but rather degrade an enemies ability to detect(giving him less reaction time to respond), and make it more difficult to lock on with targeting radar. Now add supercruise, and reaction time is even less for an enemy. Add the sensor fusion/low probability of intercept radar so the F-22 pilot knows when and where an enemy is(and at what range he can be detected), so he can stay far enough away to pick and choose his time to engage(or avoid the threat altogether). This situational awareness allows a flight of F-22s to operate over larger areas lessening the likelihood that a wingman would be seen(data links and passive info sharing and detection). Now add the fact that the aerodynamic performance alone makes engaging an F-22 difficult(even if it had no stealth)- no non-supercruise fighter can keep up for long as they'll have to use afterburners, so the F-22 can engage and disengage at will. In close combat, the F-22 can outmaneuver anything flying(so in the event that you do get close enough to dogfight, you won't be able to match it's performance), and combine that with helmet mounted sites and AIM-9X, and that addresses any weakness in that arena.
As for BVR, because the F-22 is supercruising at high altitude, its missiles will benefit from increased range over a slower and lower aircraft(as well as the C-7 and D model AIM120s have a pretty long range as is). The threat aircraft won't know they've been targeted, and if they do realize there's a missile inbound it'll most likely be too late to react. I'm sure there are other capabilities as well do to the nature of the AESA radar (EW, ECM, electronic attack, etc... that are unknown), creating additional difficulties for an enemy. So what does this add up to?

Ability to engage(multiple targets simultaneously first without being detected)
Ability to avoid threat radars through situational awareness
Ability to outrun/outmanuever threats

These things aren't just a little better than what's out there. They are orders of magnitude better.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
The last point doesn't quite click..
the concept of 'outrunning' sort of becomes a moot point with HMS and missile capability, esp within WVR.
Can the F-22 yaw/pitch/roll sharper than its other highly manueverable opponents?
Sharp enough that it falls outside the target cones(HMS enhanced) of highly capable TVC fighters?
Obviously this is of little concern due to the BVR stealth and situational awareness the F-22 enjoys, but in WVR its not much more advanced than the best TVC platforms and off-boresight missiles out there..



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Your post was spot on except for the WVR performance of the Raptor. The F-22 might enjoy some advantages in WVR (acceleration and climb rate as well as sustained G's and instantaneous turn rate) but its maneuverability can likely be matched by the latest TVC platforms, however it will still out maneuver most other aircraft. But even then you even up in a WVR fight with HMS and HOB missiles, it does not offer the F-22 as much advantage as BVR does so it's not its fight.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Its ability to supercruise allows it to disengage from a WVR fight though at will(other planes would have to resort to afterburners which would cause them to run out of gas pretty quick), returning its BVR advantages. Additionally because of its stealth, the F-22 pilot will in almost all cases have the element of surprise. Its enemies still need to be able to lock onto it to engage, and if its stealth doesn't prevent that, its AESA has pretty significant ECM capabilities.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Hey American Madman if you are in the Whatsoever School of Business..

How can you say that China and Russia is poorer than the USA?
What's your argumentation? Because their currency is not as "strong" as the US-Dollar?

Sounds like some useless Education around there. ;]

Btw: All of this general bragging where almost no one uses factual information is sooooooooo booring. *yawn*

I miss the really nice Weapon-Technology discussions from iskander and the like.

But nvm.. just keep going with the non-factual genital-size comparison.

Guess Americans are "very" modest people.....



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I'm not sure if the relative economies are being called into question, but here's a good site to check out.
www.econstats.com...

Without using classified data on weapon's capabilities, everything is speculation.
Everything I've mentioned is factual in as far as public domain info is capable of.



new topics




 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join