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.
Originally posted by grunt2
look seekerof, again and again you repeat that "is classified" and "why not" "is classified" and "why not""is classified" and "why not""is classified" and "why not", again you can believe in your fairy tales, im just dot care
Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
Originally posted by Daedalus3
Originally posted by Harlequin
Its also similar to when the RAF downed the F-15`s using the Typhoon (in an exercise) it was over in a minute and the eagle drivers never stood a chance - and they were the upgraded ones!
Could we have some more data on this exercise??
I'm assuming you're talking AESA equipped F-15Cs?? Also equipped with the
AIM-120B/C/D..? (whatever is the latest..)
No, they we're F-15E's.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Apparently, you have no clue as to how supercruise enhances BVR, air-to-air missile ranges, detections, ECCM, ESM, etc.?
Originally posted by Seekerof
Just "several years"? Try 8-12 years behind.
Originally posted by Seekerof
I have presented, time and time again, along with a couple others, nothing but facts.
Originally posted by Simon666
Why is this remotely relevant? In exactly what way would knowing the top speed figure benefit anyone? The way I see it, you're just throwing in this argument in a childish I-know-more-than-you kind of fashion, even though I doubt whether you actually "know" the answer or can simply google it.
As far as my comprehension of the English language stretches, 8-12 years is "several years".
You have presented a lot of speculation and the few facts you did provide were about security clearances and that the information is in fact classified, in order to make it seems as if your speculation is supported by "facts" even though your facts either have no direct relation to the subject at hand or instead confirm that its top speed etcetera are not known and hence any speculation as to being much higher than the base figure is completely unwarranted.
Are you here to counter anything brought forth in this topic or here to replace grunt2?
Originally posted by Chemapeich
Now you would say... give us links please!! but I won't, I have just said my opinion that doesn't really count for anything
Originally posted by Simon666
Besides, even if you could, Russia doesn't have the money to build a competing design both China and India are not that advanced yet for some several years to come.
Originally posted by Daedalus3
What if they're all working together on this...secretly...
Originally posted by American Mad Man
For some reason, the prospect of India and China working together on what would be both nations best aircraft seems a bit farfetched.
field, I would like him to explain why the Raptor can not do this. I would also
said has even made me consider the idea that the Raptor could not obtain a speed of Mach 2 with afterburner and Mach 1.8 in supercruise.
but nothing he has said has even made me consider the idea that the Raptor could not obtain a speed of Mach 2 with afterburner and Mach 1.8 in supercruise.
Originally posted by grunt2
1)the plane isnt superfast, its supercruiser and supersonic lift
AMM, again you are again speculating
but nothing he has said has even made me consider the idea that the Raptor could not obtain a speed of Mach 2 with afterburner and Mach 1.8 in supercruise.
yes,yes, because is a national symbol
Originally posted by Zaphod58
The first aircraft to exceed Mach 1 in level flight without afterburners was the P.1 prototype of the English Electric Lightning, on August 4, 1954.
The F-22 isn't the first, but it's the first production fighter IIRC that is capable of supercruise.
Originally posted by nullster
For allot of reasons, this is probably the last big manned fighter project for an extreamly long time. If you look at the advances in UAV's in cost/performance. This could be the last large scale production.