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.

 

F/A-22 Drops First bombs x 9

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

as posted by Orca71
quote: The claims being made by the military and manufacturers about the advantages of the F-22's stealth capability in air-to-air combat suggest that even an F-117 with air-to-air missiles might be just as effective against 5 F-15s.


as posted by American Mad Man
No, that is completely wrong. Please, find me the link that says that, because I have never read that in my life. On top of that, the F-117 can not hold as many weapons as the Raptor, is less stealthy then the Raptor, is not as fast as the Raptor, and does not have the electronics of the Raptor.


Here is the link American Mad Man:
Five Eagles In Three Minutes

Those 5 F-15s were beat because of the abilities of the Raptor: the 'first to see, first to kill' avionics, maneuverability, and stealth.
As such, the F-117 is stealth alone, no fighter-type/like speed, very little maneuverability.
The F-117 would not have defeated 5 F-15s, even if equipped with air-to-air missiles. Furthermore, they [F-22 and F-117] are two distinct and different mission aircraft types.

Incidentally, the Raptor was visually spotted by one of those F-15s, just before he became toast. None of the F-15s were able to detect nor radar lock the Raptor. Hence Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche mentioning that the F-15s never "saw" [detected and locked] the Raptor. Four were hit [simulated] with AIM-120's, the other [the soon-to-be-splashed surviving F-15 which momentarily visually spotted the Raptor] was splashed under the Raptor's gun sight.





seekerof

[edit on 25-10-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Orca - I try and keep tabs on all the Unmanned arena...and I have not see one single concept of a A2A UCAV...let alone your rediculous claim that one could be in production by 2008.


As for UCAV formations...The only UCAVs are the X-45A's, and as for formations are concerned they have had a huge formation of 2 aircraft.
Its several years off before UCAV's become operational...and they will be bombing only.

and F/A-22 pilots talk to eachother...in constant communication...How is that not good cordination?
and you talk of the UCAV as if its a well know and years under its belt aircraft...Its Not.
The clostest thing we have to a UCAV today is the Predator...But its primary goal is recon.



[edit on 25-10-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
As for UCAV formations...The only UCAVs are the X-45A's, and as for formations are concerned they have had a huge formation of 2 aircraft.

and you talk of the UCAV as if its a well know and years under its belt aircraft...Its Not.
The clostest thing we have to a UCAV today is the Predator...But its primary goal is recon.[edit on 25-10-2005 by Murcielago]


They've recently flown 4-6 UAVs in a formation.

By the way, nice picture of a Predator B carrying a 500 lb Paveway laser-guided bomb.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Hey, I agree with you guys on this one!
(But not you, sorry orca)

It will take AT LEAST a decade to fully introduce and integrate a UCAV bomber force to replace many of todays manned assets, thats a BOMBER force. The UCAV just isn't suitable for A2A combat at the moment. Yes, its smaller lighter airframe is more stealthy and agile and there is no g limit from a human body to worry about but no amount of computers can yet replace the instincts , reactions and flexibility of a trained fighter pilot. A humans ability to rationalise and make immediate decisions influenced by events and unforseen need have not yet been replicated by any sort of AI, and a fully functioning AI would be a prerequisite for an A2A UCAV to be workable.

Now the F/A-22, it is hugely expensive, its true, but if that expense gives you total air superiority then it is worth it. Its not just about having the flashiest plane on the block or looking after your fighter pilots. It also ensures your bombers can go about their business unmolested.

It can also act as a sort of 'tier 2 deterrent'. What I mean by this is that any country who knows the US cannot use nuclear weapons against them (like Iraq knew for instance) will also now know for sure that their Air Force stands to be decimated too, the owning of MiG 29's against America's F-15's lent Saddam a facade of credibility to his air force with which he could delude himself that he could win. The F/A-22 removes this notion absolutely.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
American Mad Man, has the F-15 been up against every air-craft in the World?

NO.

Nobody knows how well they would do against the Chinese or the Russian's or even the European Military let alone anyone else. You can't just assume because they can beat an F-15 they can defeat everything. This sort of thinking is many peoples undoing.

Anyone...remember that ship. The one which couldn't be sunk? By icebergs...

Poor movie that made. :-)



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Always Trust_no1
On October 18th the F/A-22 dropped 9, 1000 pound JDAMS at Hill AFB Utah. Five Raptors carrying 2 bombs each hit their targets directly dead on and dropped even more the next day, one hit a truck so hard the truck bounced off the ground. It was the first ever deployment for the Raptors from Langley AFB Va. This just proves that the F-22 is the most advanced and will be the most feared Fighter in the skies. There is not much this aircraft can not do. The Raptor is truly the best out there.


Sorry, is it me or how on earth does this "prove that the F-22 is the most advanced fighter"? All it seems to say to me is that it can drop standard 1000lb munitions that loads and loads of previous generation aircraft have been able to drop. All this points out is that it can and it doesn't in anyway prove it is the best fighter. If anything all it states is that is can be a fighter/bomber. Anyway, ranting a little as I have to do
coursework



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Anyone...remember that ship. The one which couldn't be sunk? By icebergs...


Well I grant you that the F/A-22 would probably not survive if it hit an iceburg, if that's what you're trying to say
j/k

I think the test against the F-15, while not proof positive of what will happen against Russian aircraft or Chinese clones thereof, is a pretty good indicator that the F/A-22 will have a strong advantage, unless of course it goes up against a plane that has equipment the F-15 doesn't have- namely a radar and missiles which are not fooled by stealth.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Odium you don't have to physically go up against every aircraft to know that that your aircraft is superior to them. Are you telling me that the Raptor is not superior to a P-51 because it has not gone up against one?
And its not just my word, probably every military aircraft analyst will agree that as of right now, the Raptor is the best air superiority fighter in the world.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
American Mad Man, has the F-15 been up against every air-craft in the World?




OK, tell you what - you can take Russias front line fighter, I'll take the Raptor.

Care to wager which one would win every time?

Frankly, the Raptor is the best at every aspect of fighting right now. It is the most stealthy, it has the best avionics, it is the fastest, it is the most agile, etc etc etc.

Everyone agrees the Raptor is best, and again, that includes Europe and Russia. YOU (and a few other nobodies) are the only ones that think the Raptor is even challenged.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
American Mad Man, resulting to personnal insults already?

*Baiting Removed*

You can't say anything is for sure, until it is a set fact. You do not know what the Russian's are using, you do not know what the Raptor is capable of - in fact, I doubt more than 1% of this whole forum has a clue.

WestPoint23, to be honest, I agree it is amazing and a fantastic piece of kit, however we both know that every military claims this that and the other. It is the way they all work and it is something which will not change for a long time. Think of School kids and that is what it is, however I am sick of people claiming they know things as fact without any idea at all.

Nobody has seen the raptor up against a Russian SAM, so the idea that people can claim it'll be fine and there will be no problem whatsoever is a joke. If it was the case, Russia wouldn't be building them if they were so worthless. People also seem to forget the S-500 should be out by 2012 and that'll have been built with the raptor in mind.

Yet, nothing can beat it. You don't need to buy more than one, they are so poo hot they will win against everything. I wish I lived in this fantasy land and not in the real World.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Nobody has seen the raptor up against a Russian SAM, so the idea that people can claim it'll be fine and there will be no problem whatsoever is a joke. If it was the case, Russia wouldn't be building them if they were so worthless. People also seem to forget the S-500 should be out by 2012 and that'll have been built with the raptor in mind.



Odium, as you are asserting about the F-22 Raptor, the same can likewise be asserted about those vaunted so named Russian SAM systems, correct? When was the last time that an S-300 and S-400 shot anything worthwhile down? The same can be said for that soon to be in service S-500. As such, you are asserting about as much educated type conjecture as some of us Raptor fans are concerning the F-22 Raptor?

And concerning that educated type conjecture, bear in mind what you have said concerning the Raptor, but apply it to those so named ("it'll") Russian SAMs:


....so the idea that people can claim it'll be fine and there will be no problem whatsoever is a joke.

*shrugs*
Hell, for that matter, lets go ahead and apply that same educated conjecture type thinking and your arguments concerning the F-22 Raptor to those of the EF-2000 Typhoons, the Su-30MKIs, the Rafales, the Gripens, the Saegeh-80s, J-XXs, J-10s, MiG 1.42/44s, S-37/Su-47s, PAK-FAs, J-12s, etc, etc.
I mean gee, that would be only fair, right?

Incidentally, I am not down playing those alleged godly Russian SAMs or their godly inherent abilities, as you are seemingly doing concerning the Raptor, but I found it ironic that you could assertively insinuate what you have about the Raptor, while not assertively considering the same for those so named Russian SAM systems. Apparently, the US Air Force would not be making the investment in the Raptors that they are "if they were so worthless," correct?







seekerof

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Infidellic

Sorry, is it me or how on earth does this "prove that the F-22 is the most advanced fighter"? All it seems to say to me is that it can drop standard 1000lb munitions that loads and loads of previous generation aircraft have been able to drop. All this points out is that it can and it doesn't in anyway prove it is the best fighter. If anything all it states is that is can be a fighter/bomber. Anyway, ranting a little as I have to do
coursework


Listen to the Mad Man, yea what he said, which is what I was going to say. To top it off, previous generations of aircraft didn't do it at super cruise speeds either. As far as the best Fighter/Attack aircraft, just name one that even comes close to the technology of the F-22 and I'll eat my words! Well I know for a fact you can't because all the real stats for the Raptor are still classified, and will be for some time. Sorry


[edit on 26-10-2005 by Always Trust_no1]

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Always Trust_no1]

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Always Trust_no1]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Odium, If the Raptor isn't the best, then which aircraft could take it. I could go on spilling the facts and stats about the '22 but you'll just brush them off. Odium, you might have the fancy avatar and a billion ats points, but your posts so far have been so far from any sort of deductible reasoning. This aircraft owns every category, EVERY SINGLE ONE. Thrust, speed, turning, avionics, heat reduction, supercruise, 40g missile punch out at supersonic speeds, extreme rate of climb, stealth coating, RAM, radar, electronics, computers, etc etc etc. We have gone over the SAM issue in the sr-71 forum for ever, it the freaking SAM cannot track or engage the 22, then what the heck is it good for? Lockheed martin has truley developed the world's most advanced fighter. oh, and that wonderful quote you had about the computer being outdated, dude, that is borderline rediculous. They are 2 freaking supercomputers equivalent.

And we're not talking about your typical home computer with video card, sound card, and a pentium, these computers are designed, WAY, different.

Train



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
The U.S has S-300s, it got them through Croatia.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Actually, we had the S-300 before the Russians did. Intelgurl had a very intriguing post on it in March of this year, and it includes something that you won't always find in these "who's got the best stuff" or "who's using copies" debates- sources.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


My first inclination was to think that the Patriot missile system was perhaps a copy of the S-300, but I was surprised when the engineer I spoke to said that it was common knowledge in the missile industry that the S-300 was actually a copy of the Patriot.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
American Mad Man, resulting to personnal insults already?


Unless you are involved in the Raptor program, you like me are a nobody.


You can't say anything is for sure, until it is a set fact. You do not know what the Russian's are using, you do not know what the Raptor is capable of - in fact, I doubt more than 1% of this whole forum has a clue.


Funny, because Russia DOES know what it is using and Europe DOES know what they are using and yet THEY STILL AGREE THEIR STUFF ISN'T AS GOOD!

Say whatever you want, but EVERY MILITARY IN THE WHOLE BLOODY WORLD AGREES THE RAPTOR IS THE BEST!

What is so hard to understand about that?




Nobody has seen the raptor up against a Russian SAM, so the idea that people can claim it'll be fine and there will be no problem whatsoever is a joke. If it was the case, Russia wouldn't be building them if they were so worthless. People also seem to forget the S-500 should be out by 2012 and that'll have been built with the raptor in mind.

Yet, nothing can beat it. You don't need to buy more than one, they are so poo hot they will win against everything. I wish I lived in this fantasy land and not in the real World.


Actually, what you said is patently FALSE.

The US, believe it or not, DOES own MANY Russian systems, and thus would, could, and most likely HAS tested the Raptor against these systems.

I never said that the Raptor is invulnerable, I said it is by far the best fighter in the world, which it is. It would wipe the floor with any aircraft in service right now, and no military would dispute that.

Again, EVERY MILITARY AGREES! EVERYONE!



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
When have the Russian Military said that the Raptor is better than what they have?
When have the European Military?
When have the Chinese?

Nobody has a clue what they can do, so to pre-judge them and claim you are better without the knowledge will be the downful of the raptor like it has been so many other militaries.

Ignorance of another Nation and its capablity is not something the American Army should have and I doubt any of the pilots would think they are the "best" because they are not that foolish.

In fact, the amusing thing I find on these forums [and why I normally don't bother] is the fact a majority of you claim that the Russian Government can't do what they say they can but the American Goverment can do what they say. Yet you have no way to back one up over the other - since I have yet to see any high ranking Russian Military official on this site to explain their capability.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
AMM, it's not worth arguing with him, lets get back to the post

Anything he says, just ignore it.

Back to the main topic. About the bomb that was not released. I do not see that as a problem at all. I see that as a absolutely brillant system. The planes computers were able to determine that the bomb was faulty and therefore, instead of wasting a bomb, it refused to let it go. That is a great missile interface. But this obviously doesnt mean that the plane would not be able to release the bomb, Im sure there is a pilot over-ride anyways, and the pilot could have tried the manual release and guide-in. Anyways, I see it as a great article and great system.

Train



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Anything he says, just ignore it.


Ignore button is just below the Way Above Award, click it baby doll. :-)



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Actually DERA have said that the Raptor is better than several fighters, including Typhoon, Rafale and Flanker to name just three.

DERA is not American, it is Britsh. Britain is in Europe so thats one of your questions answered




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join