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.

 

If the F-22 wasnt supposed to dogfight why was is it so maneuverable?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I have a question. Around the boards there have been many talks of how the F-22 would get the crap blown out of it in a dogfight, but this poses a problem for me. If the F-22 was only designed to be a BVR fighter as many have said, then why was it made to be so maneuverable and why is there a badass gatling gun incorporated into the design? It is one of the most highly maneuverable aircraft in the world, so was that just for kicks and giggles, or could it be an effective dogfighter?




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
I have a question. Around the boards there have been many talks of how the F-22 would get the crap blown out of it in a dogfight, but this poses a problem for me. If the F-22 was only designed to be a BVR fighter as many have said, then why was it made to be so maneuverable and why is there a badass gatling gun incorporated into the design? It is one of the most highly maneuverable aircraft in the world, so was that just for kicks and giggles, or could it be an effective dogfighter?


+1 Im wondering the same as well. Also why would you develop such an outrageously expensive/advanced fighter and not incorporate the ability to win in any heated dogfight? I thought we learned a lesson in Nam as to why it is important to have an aircraft that can dogfight. Bullets are not as easily Jammed as missles can be. IMO.
For the $$$ this aircraft should be able to do the job of 2 or 3 F-15's and come out on top 9 out of ten times.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
It was supposed to be a BVR interceptor, and no doubt about it, it does it well. But it would be a supreme mistake to completely negate dogfighting abilities. If an enemy aircraft should happen to sneak within range the F-22 would be smoked even more painfully than it already would be.

BTW There aren't many aircraft that can really outmaneuver the F-22 save for the Su-37, Su-47 and newer Russian aircraft. Maybe a few others, but Russia really gives the Raptor a run for its (oh so huge amount of) money.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
The F-4 didnt have a gun on it. And as a result it was owned in any fight that it couldnt use missiles effectivly. Which was most in Vietnam due to the very small area of conflict. Since then every USAF fighter has a gun, even thought most will never be used, they still include them.

And the F-22, designed specifically to kill BVR, can still turn like a banshee and it too, has a gun. Just in case.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
As they said, the PRIMARY mission is BVR. However, it would be a HUGE mistake to assume that you are ALWAYS going to be able to STAY BVR. If you're going to build a fighter, you have to assume that it's going to get into a dogfight. And if you assume it's going to get into a dogfight, you build it to WIN said dogfight, so you make it super manuverable.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Truttseeker,

>>
I have a question. Around the boards there have been many talks of how the F-22 would get the crap blown out of it in a dogfight, but this poses a problem for me. If the F-22 was only designed to be a BVR fighter as many have said, then why was it made to be so maneuverable and why is there a badass gatling gun incorporated into the design? It is one of the most highly maneuverable aircraft in the world, so was that just for kicks and giggles, or could it be an effective dogfighter?
>>

The Air Force is made up of little boys in love with doing little boy things like 'wheelies' and 'mongo mode' sillyness. By retaining competence in this ONE area, they continue the myth that they 'have to be there' for all others.

That said, you need to remember a key difference in the way you should look at a fight:

Maneuverability.
Especially ENERGY maneuverability is about fps as a function of the ability to sustain a high G environment for X-seconds until you either beat the guy around the circle. Or achieve the breakaway from an F or A pole collision vector. And at supersonic speeds, this EM factor is not merely a function of how much wing area and how much thrust trust. But also _structural hardening_ of the airframe to withstanding the heightened Q+G effects. Thus, if a jet has the aeros and structural investment to sustain a 9G turn at Mach 1.5 and 35K, it likely will have the ability to be a good one or two circle platform at .76 and 15,000ft.

Agility.
Also defined as the ability to 'twist around and shoot your own bleep off, under perfect control'. This is where you need a really well /balanced/ airframe with a good FLCS and powerful thrust vector component. Large wing areas and overall high mass on the airframe (the structural hardening thing coming back ot haunt you) do NOT contribute to this as you inevitably hit a point where, to keep the airframe moving in one direction /after/ you have 'supermanned' (high AOA) it requires all the juice that the tails and the TVC can give you. While changing /back/ from that maneuver state to another is about overcoming the inertia in as well as aerodrag (giant wing barndoored into the airflow) so that you fight a game of losing returns between control effectors being able to shift the jets nosepoint and roll index and the jet losing forward velocity on it's flight vector.

THIS is why, an F-15 with nominally an 18-20dps turn rate can be out wangdoodled by an F-5E with about 11dps. Because the little jet can flip it's velocity vector around it's longitudinal axis so damn quick that it inevitably is able to force the Rodan out of the fight plane and once it's nose goes off, reverse and reverse again to deny the shot /while it's buddy/ comes up on the Albinos hindquarters and 'gets a kodak moment'.

ARGUMENT:
You wanna know what? NONE OF IT MATTERS.

1. 90% of aircraft are downed by surface to air fire.
And nobody pauses to consider how 'useful' this supermaneverability/agility quotient is vs. a Mach 5 telephone pole arching through the blue with a 200lb warhead. Because they _instinctively_ realize that if you throw a handgrenade into a fishbowl, no matter what kind of Bruce Lee move the goldfish does, it's toast.
Which is why STEALTH (not just a design or material but _way of fighting_ that refuses to flatplane the airframe and show multiple aspect 'glints' to radar) is more important.

2. SHOULD YOU ever come to a visual merge and junior have his nose or his IRST in the right place, the SRM is going to win the fight. Because while they may only have 20-30lbs of warhead, they have hyperagility beyond ANY fighters ability to achieve. Allied to a seeker that is simply no longer fooled by flares or maneuver. Thus 'maneuverability or agility' (around the circle or wheelie the nose) only matters if you are able to convert behind your target from such an angle as to basically deny visual/EO acquisition (i.e. to deny the shot altogether). And here too, the speed of Supercruise plus the wing area of a sustained smash machine, beats the hyper agile jet, the same way a cueball going twice as fast as any of the numbered ones is more apt to hit than be struck from behind.

CONCLUSION:
We have the technology now to totally dominate the BVR fight. We can see them launch from the airfield or roadbase, we can use JEM and 2DISAR to map their resonant shape and engine harmonics and if they emit, we can thumbprint their voice, data and radar signals within a single scan.

Furhtermore, with standoff weapons like GBU-39 and AGM-154 and AGM-158, we don't have to muddy the waters with flow-of-traffic over a target area but can instead FORCE the threat to come to us.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR DOGFIGHTING, _THERE NEVER REALLY WAS_.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
VType,

>>
+1 Im wondering the same as well. Also why would you develop such an outrageously expensive/advanced fighter and not incorporate the ability to win in any heated dogfight?
>>

Winning ANY dogfight means installing a WANDA or VIPER TADIRCM (Tactical Aircraft Directed Infrared Countermeasures i.e. laser optics killer) turret, front and back, top and bottom. And as soon as you do, someone else will put on on their jets (the Russians are already more than halfway their with their laser ranger IRST). At which point the guy who wins is the guy who DOES NOT WAIT to shine his coherent flashlight on a 5" seeker aperture.

But rather points it at the 10-15ft long COCKPIT, 10 miles further back. And oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the precocious, precious, presumptuous fighter pilots when they come back with 'dazzled' vision, forever after reduced to 20:60 if not retinal-burned worse.

Now, if you want to be sensible, then the only 'dogfight' you will win is the won which you can afford to take multiple losses GETTING TO. Through a steel rain of BVR longspears (_X6_ AIM-120 _X2_ AIM-9X). This means that you are now fighting Stalin's way which is namely to run the enemy out of bullets by sending your men in to catch them with their teeth. It also means that you need to be able to _deny_ the threat the ability to retreat. i.e. If they fire 12 times and you have large enough inventory (driven by brave but stupid instead of cowardly and stupid fighter jocks) to keep on coming; you now have to run them down as they high step away at perhaps 1,000knots. Which means you need Mach 3+ closure to beat their Mach 1.5. Ever hear of a Mach 3 dogfighter? _I_ _Wonder_ _Why_.

>>
I thought we learned a lesson in Nam as to why it is important to have an aircraft that can dogfight.
>>

Bullhockey. The only lessons learned in Vietnam were that if you fail to bomb the enemy /whereever/ they are, they will not take such brutal attrition as to become shocky and submissive. It doesn't matter -how- you kill them (the first two 'serious' air to air kills were by AIM-7D start at about 14nm) only that you keep on coming until you 'overlap' their sortie:combat turn window and obliterate them where they sit on the their bloody airfields.

Then you give them a choice between removal from the record of human history and absolute surrender.

We knew this but thanks to 'another moron for President' and his ROE and target-selection process from hell. We fought the way the enemy fought best: desultorily.

>>
Bullets are not as easily Jammed as missles can be. IMO.
>>

You go dig up Colonel Tomb's ghost and three of his best pals and rob a Chino of some MiG-17s with all the glory of their unboosted, unharmonized controls and 20 minute sortie window. And I'll have 4 50 year old 'period' USAF fighter pukes pile into a pair of F-4D with 'Missiles Only'.

And given MY RULES OF ENGAGMENT. You'll die like a dog before you pull the trigger once. And probably the guy riding route on your wingtip. And the other two will bail and run like yiping dogs as they nearly /always/ did when their tactical leadership got vaporized.

And then the 8 F-105s will roll up their base as they come in on finals.

Vietnam taught NOTHING of how real wars are fought. Because it is logged in the history books as a loss rather than 3 wins and a Forfeit for lack of interest in honoring a promise to a nation that called us Ally.

>>
For the $$$ this aircraft should be able to do the job of 2 or 3 F-15's and come out on top 9 out of ten times.
>>

It does. The problem is that it also does at least five things which an F-15 does not:

1. It makes a 700nm sortie radius in 3.5hrs and 1 tanking, there and back.
2. It carries bombs in the air to air configuration without compromise to basic supercruise performance.
3. It uses LO to achieve 'battlespace dominance' (kill you whether you want to play or not) whereas the F-15 is an 'air superiority' platform (are you game to make a fight of it? If not, I'll just sit around doing nothing). Chiefly because it can slingbomb using GBU-39 from 60-80nm out without having to penetrate local target airspace.
4. It has the basics of netcentric warfare, down to the missiles. Which specifically means that I can fire from X and guide from Y, even if X and Y are separated by 50nm and X from the threat aircraft 40 more. This last being KEY to avoiding dogfighting because effectively 'A Pole' (weapon autonomy from the _parent_ airframe) no longer matters.
5. It probably is working towards an independent DEAD capability, either with an unacknowledged AMRAAM secondary mode. Or with a black world missile akin to HSARM/AARGM.

The Eagle is a system of systems enabler. Yet because of this, it is entirely vulnerable to S2A fires whenever it is NOT accompanied by the other 'synergistic elements' (F-16CJ.50d, EA-6B, some kind of Bomber). Thus the F-22 should be seen as a replacement for SEVERAL aircraft, not just one.

Even as the fools who claim price games should have their noses rubbed in the 276 billion dollar Deficiency Act FRAUD which is the JSF program. Did we WAKE UP and pull our heads from arears, we would realize that the F-22 could be purchased to full inventory buy of 380 jets for about 90-100 billion dollars. Even accounting for the increase back to a 60 airframe per year useful production rate it would not be more than 120.

The fantasy is that the U.S. Air Services are doing this 'for your good'. They exist as the worlds most powerful union SOLELY FOR THEIR OWN GAIN.

That is why the Raptor is badmouthed. That is why the UCAV will never fly. They are a collective Jimmy Hoffa syndrome polluting our nation's defense.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Darkpr0,

>>
It was supposed to be a BVR interceptor, and no doubt about it, it does it well.
>>

Interception is a defensive mission, the original function of the ATF program was to create an airframe that could penetrate over Poland and the Byelorussian republics to kill off SUAWACS (what eventuated as the A-50) as well as to break up raids building to mass before they could border crash into the NATO HAWK belt and free fire zones.

This makes the F-22 an OFFENSIVE counter air platform in it's roots. To which it should be further noted that the Raptor can kill surface threats as well because stealth is a great deal more all-aspect effective than originally announced.

Neither precision strike (DEAD) nor OCA are defensive in nature. And only the F-22 can manage a 700nm radius in under 4hrs.

>>
But it would be a supreme mistake to completely negate dogfighting abilities.
>>

If you dogfight, you become a missile magnet, not only from other A2A operators hawking the fight. But also from 20-60nm ranged SAM systems. Dogfighting is for _fools_. From whose lives they will soon be parted.

Not least of this fact of life being that if you want to be the worlds top squirrel cage expert you need a jet which can beat the dominant threat. And that threat is NOT airframe based but agile-missile'd in the 50-60G category and 6-8nm range as an ISRM. ALL of which will 'outfly' /any/ airframe, when launched within parameters.

Thus you'd either better be so small that nobody literally sees you to shoot. So cheap that it doesn't matter how many of you are shot down. Or equipped with a TADIRCM to kill the inbound threat 'on the fly'. Either way, you don't need a turn and burn airframe. Only one which can force the OTHER GUY to shoot so that you can kill him and his missile with the remainder of your own formation.

>>
If an enemy aircraft should happen to sneak within range the F-22 would be smoked even more painfully than it already would be.
>>

That is going to depend a lot on the F-22's fuel state and other missions. It is foolhardy in the extreme to only have 2 MRM onboard when bombing. Because the difference between a 40-60nm AIM-120D and a 2-4nm AIM-9X is such that there IS NO 'tactical overlap' between Fox 3 "Honor the shot or die!" and Fox 2 "Now that your E-depleted and I can can close to parameters of my choosing".

As such, it is up to the AWACS or another F-22 section playing watch tower to make absolutely sure that the Raptor never closes past the point of decision at which it's first kills are or are not going to win the fight (force the enemy to retreat).

This is _particularly_ necessary so long as fight numbers remain low (2-6 aircraft up, at most). Because you can always bomb an alternate. And if you have heavy-gas, you should USE IT, to wait for the bad guys to get tired of dying at range and go home.

>>
BTW There aren't many aircraft that can really outmaneuver the F-22 save for the Su-37, Su-47 and newer Russian aircraft. Maybe a few others, but Russia really gives the Raptor a run for its (oh so huge amount of) money.
>>

First off, the Su-37 is not a service airframe and can only be given a 'Su/khoi' designator as a function of being part of a numbered FSD fleet based on the previously series numbered Su-35.

Secondly the Su-47 is only an experimental prototype and so, by virtue of their own nomenclature rules should only be called the S.37 as in 'Swept Wing, Concept #37'.

What DOES exist is the S-300PMU2 and S-400, both of which invalidate our entire conventional force structure.

Just as the PAC-3 ERINT and SM.2 BlkIV also do.

An F-22 can survive an S-300/400 environment. Neither an Su-37 nor an S.37 could manage to do so against the U.S. equivalents.

Lastly, IT ALL DEPENDS ON GAS. If you come into a fight heavy with gas and try to exceed the limiters on EITHER jet, you will overstress the airframe. Even in Mongo Mode, you will probably lose because you are carrying upwards of 20,000lbs of fuel in a 30-50,000lb airframe.

Even in jets which nominally can dump their external fuel, all pilots are taught a slow and a fast fight depending on fuel state. And all Aggressors learn to respond to that 'implied preference' with counters of their own.

The difference being that with HOBS weapons and advanced HMDS, most fights are won or lost well ahead of the 3-9 line. And thus you'd damn well better get not only the first shot but the /only/ shot. Or you will be pyrhhic'd anyway.

No jet, heavy or light, agile or maneuverable, fast or slow, is better than an F-22 at controlling the parameters of INTERCEPT by which you drive the radar or the offboard SAD behind the enemies velocity vector and then put up the periscope to torpedo his ass.

Until you stop worshiping pilots as more than aerial assassins with a federal license to stalk /and/ snipe, you will never understand the most fundamental principles of Air to Air combat. One of the first being that if you are past the Acquisition, Closure phase without preattriting the enemy to a totally defensive state, then the MANEUVER phase is a mistake going in. One from which Extension and Disengagement is increasingly problematic.


KPl.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by ch1466]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
And BANG, BANG, BANG; Like a raptor mother goose and her UCAVs chicks to a Chicom picnic, CH performs his craft. One WATS for you my verbose av-junkie! LOL



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Dogfighting is for _fools_.


Well, then you have met the fool. To the best of my knowledge an F-22 can carry 3 AA missiles or 3 bombs in each of its 2 side bays. If you have 4 Raptors in a flight and each is carrying 3 missiles and 3 bombs (for whatever mission) and for whatever reason, they miss or do not kill all the enemies things are gonna start hurting if they completely ignore dogfighting.

Now while the Su-47 and the Su-37 may only be prototypes, it is plausible that the concepts put into these aircraft could be integrated into a different, manufactured aircraft. And it won't be by the Americans. They haven't even named one of their "oh so mighty" new aircraft.


Originally posted by ch1466
90% of aircraft are downed by surface to air fire.


Then why not equip the Raptor with some anti-SAM warfare? Shrikes? HARMs maybe? The fact is that all this hoo-ha you've just spouted about the Raptor's mighty A2A capabilities was just rendered meaningless by that statement. At least guns do have A2G use as is well shown by the A10A Thunderbolt II. And while this may not be so related to dogfighting you have shown complete ignorance of the fact that the Raptor cannot support AGMs like Mavericks. AGM's being used againt ground targets? Naw, couldn't be.


Originally posted by ch1466
Thus the F-22 should be seen as a replacement for SEVERAL aircraft, not just one.


Which ones? I suppose you would rather have an army of F-22's than specialized aircraft that are made specifically to do their jobs and do so well. And indeed we have seen similar arguments with the F-35. It's new, it's the most high tech, so this means it will beat anything. It's like a game of rock paper scissors-and dynamite beats everything.


Originally posted by ch1466
And that threat is NOT airframe based but agile-missile'd in the 50-60G category


Originally posted by ch1466
Because while they may only have 20-30lbs of warhead, they have hyperagility beyond ANY fighters ability to achieve


Oh, we'll never outmaneuver 'em. Better just give up right now.
So the enemy will never outmaneuver an AMRAAM or an SRM, but the Raptor is totally impervious to such things? Ain't a missile in the world that can give a Raptor a run for its money? I don't buy that. If missiles were all that and a bucket of chicken wings as you have so meticulously described we wouldn't have airplanes-we would have interception missiles that can do the job ever so much better.


Originally posted by ch1466
No jet, heavy or light, agile or maneuverable, fast or slow, is better than an F-22 at controlling the parameters of INTERCEPT by which you drive the radar or the offboard SAD behind the enemies velocity vector and then put up the periscope to torpedo his ass.


I am sorry to have to say this so bluntly but it is necessary.

The F-22 is not the best at everything.
It is not right now.
It never was.
It never will be.

If you fail to see this then you have completely and utterly failed. You have failed to see that the F-22 is not almighty. You have failed to understand that the US is not invincible. And ultimately you have failed to deny ignorance.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
people think the USAF picked the wrong fighter...but everything you people have mentioned here is the exact reason the Black Widow II lost.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
The F-22 is not the best at everything.
It is not right now.
It never was.
It never will be.

While you were typing the above quoted mention out in all your absolutist ways, you DID or DO have an aircraft or aircraft in mind that is/are currently better than the F-22 Raptor? "Best" is always relative to perspective, as such, when you get the time to back up your absolutist rhetoric, how about list those aircraft that are currently better than the F-22 Raptor in "everything" or in simply one aspect as a fighter of the F-22 class, k?

You might want to RE-READ what ch1466 wrote and comprehend it versus spouting unbacked rhetoric because you did not like, agree, or comprehend what he mentioned?


Originally posted by ch1466
No jet, heavy or light, agile or maneuverable, fast or slow, is better than an F-22 at controlling the parameters of INTERCEPT by which you drive the radar or the offboard SAD behind the enemies velocity vector and then put up the periscope to torpedo his ass.





Originally posted by Darkpr0
If you fail to see this then you have completely and utterly failed. You have failed to see that the F-22 is not almighty. You have failed to understand that the US is not invincible. And ultimately you have failed to deny ignorance.

I do not think that ch1466 or anyone else was or has eluded to the F-22 Raptor as being "almighty" or that the US or USAF is "invincible." More rhetoric. In failing to back your rhetoric, which is that which you gave, you yourself "have failed to deny ignorance".

Personally, ch1466 school'd you, per se', and in your heat flash to fire back, you have simply resorted to spouting unbacked rhetoric. Furthermore, "PLAUSIBLE" is far different from ACTUAL, and the F-22 is an ACTUAL in production aircraft, not a "PLAUSIBLE" Russian or anyone else's prototype or concept...







seekerof

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Well as said it's pretty stupid expect not to have fight ina dog-fight... The plane has to be ready for everything... I can tons of scenarios where dog-fighting is the only possibility...



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Personally, ch1466 school'd you, per se', and in your heat flash to fire back, you have simply resorted to spouting unbacked rhetoric. Furthermore, "PLAUSIBLE" is far different from ACTUAL, and the F-22 is an ACTUAL in production aircraft, not a "PLAUSIBLE" Russian or anyone else's prototype or concept...
seekerof

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Seekerof]


Yeah he got pwnd and does not want to admit it, so he just fipped out. It is sad really. He did not even bother checking Lockheed's website for the wep. config of the 22. If he did he would have known that the 22 is not able to store A2S munitions in their side bays. All A2S weps are in the center-line. Additionaly the side-bays carry 2 AAM not three.
Lockheed F-22 Weapons Load

BTW did not know it had a 60 degree/sec. sustained roll rate.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by Imperium Americana]

[edit on 6-6-2006 by Imperium Americana]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0 Well, then you have met the fool. To the best of my knowledge an F-22 can carry 3 AA missiles or 3 bombs in each of its 2 side bays. If you have 4 Raptors in a flight and each is carrying 3 missiles and 3 bombs (for whatever mission) and for whatever reason, they miss or do not kill all the enemies things are gonna start hurting if they completely ignore dogfighting.

Now while the Su-47 and the Su-37 may only be prototypes, it is plausible that the concepts put into these aircraft could be integrated into a different, manufactured aircraft. And it won't be by the Americans. They haven't even named one of their "oh so mighty" new aircraft.
The AMRAAM has a high sucess rate and while the JDAMS only miss if you put thr wrong coordinates in. With it's stealth and MACH 1.7 Supercruise it can engage and disengage at will.

If we put an F/A-22A into a strike-recce scenario, we have an aircraft penetrating
supersonic at 50,000 ft, with all aspect stealth capability, and similar or identical
payloads of smart munitions. The F/A-22A will kinematically defeat most threats, yet
its stealth and radar warning system will hide it from nearly all opposing systems.
With a longer ranging radar and supercruise, the F/A-22A can perform radar terrain
mapping at twice the rate of the JSF, in reconnaissance roles – an electro-optical
recce sensor payload repeats this effect. The US Air Force aim to use the F/A-22A
as an ”information gatherer” compared to the JSF, to be used mostly as an
”information consumer".
No differently, the Defensive Counter-Air scenario fails to explore the reality of a
future regional environment with evolved Sukhoi fighters supported by AEW&C and
support jamming aircraft, and equipped with a complex mix of long range missiles.
If we put an F/A-22A into this scenario, it kinematically defeats nearly all opponents,
and with all aspect stealth and supercruise can engage and disengage at will.

www.ausairpower.net...


Then why not equip the Raptor with some anti-SAM warfare? Shrikes? HARMs maybe? The fact is that all this hoo-ha you've just spouted about the Raptor's mighty A2A capabilities was just rendered meaningless by that statement. At least guns do have A2G use as is well shown by the A10A Thunderbolt II. And while this may not be so related to dogfighting you have shown complete ignorance of the fact that the Raptor cannot support AGMs like Mavericks. AGM's being used againt ground targets? Naw, couldn't be.
Wrong yet again the Raptor is a great anti sam fighter.
www.ausairpower.net...
www.f22-raptor.com...

THE UPGRADED F/A-22 air-to-ground capability will produce a stealth aircraft able to "defeat modern surface-to-air missiles" like the SA-20 or S-400 family and to track and attack moving targets, he said. It also will be a key to cruise missile defense because with super-cruise speed it can position itself for both a "first and second shot," Roche revealed, which is difficult "because a cruise missile can come from any direction."
www.aviationnow.com... ew%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2F03224wna.xml

Link might be too long copy n paste in adress bar in case of problems.
It will be equipped with many good glide bombs. JSOW for example had great sucess in SEAD operations throughout Iraq.


Which ones? I suppose you would rather have an army of F-22's than specialized aircraft that are made specifically to do their jobs and do so well. And indeed we have seen similar arguments with the F-35. It's new, it's the most high tech, so this means it will beat anything. It's like a game of rock paper scissors-and dynamite beats everything.
F117,F15C and F15E.


Oh, we'll never outmaneuver 'em. Better just give up right now. So the enemy will never outmaneuver an AMRAAM or an SRM, but the Raptor is totally impervious to such things? Ain't a missile in the world that can give a Raptor a run for its money? I don't buy that. If missiles were all that and a bucket of chicken wings as you have so meticulously described we wouldn't have airplanes-we would have interception missiles that can do the job ever so much better.
Totally senseless comment there. Yous till need a delivery platform. Plus you are thinking of semi active seeker A2A missiles weh you think of them missing not the one's with active seekers.


I am sorry to have to say this so bluntly but it is necessary.

The F-22 is not the best at everything.
It is not right now.
It never was.
It never will be.

If you fail to see this then you have completely and utterly failed. You have failed to see that the F-22 is not almighty. You have failed to understand that the US is not invincible. And ultimately you have failed to deny ignorance.
It's the best air superiority fighter with all spect stealth,Mach 1.7 Supercruise,the most advanced avionics,Most advanced radar etc......... Why should it be the best in every category as long as it does good in all categories.

CH1466 as Seekeroff said schooled you. You respnded with cignorant comments that have no basis in fact or anything else for that matter except ignorance.





Just wanted to post a pic.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Well, this is my first post on here, so be kind to the newbie.

Much as I hate to admit it, ch1466 is pretty spot on with what the F/A22 can do. The problem here is not to do with the aircraft. The problem is what it is allowed to do.

Since WWII, it is rare that a conflict has been fought without Rules of Engagement, imposed on the combatants for political expediency. In Korea, it was no flying North of the Yalu River, in Vietnam, I believe it was Visual Identification (correct me if I'm wrong). ROEs never have anything to do with military imperatives.

Yet, short of a large-scale war, ROEs are something the miltary will always have to live with. Which is why dogfighting was built into the Raptor's design. Because the politicians might make it necessary, and the military might be forced to make it work.

G



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by truttseekerIf the F-22 wasnt supposed to dogfight why was is it so maneuverable?


Quite simple really:


"No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy." -Helmuth von Moltke



Flexibility is always an advantage, something to fall back on if plan A doesn't work, the F-22 has got a plan B, unlike the early F-4s for instance.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
First off, I'm gonna apologize for my earlier post. That was one of the final blows in what I very seriously consider the worst day ever in my life. A long story of absolutely everything going as wrong as is inhumanly possible. I apologize to the members, the mods, the admins, and particularly to you, ch1466, for my harsh words.



Originally posted by kilcoo316
Flexibility is always an advantage, something to fall back on if plan A doesn't work, the F-22 has got a plan B, unlike the early F-4s for instance.


Just because I am apoligizing for being stupid doesn't mean I can't make whats left of a point
. I guess my entire point that I tried to make was that until the Raptor has a record that absolutely smacks down all other aircraft, you cannot tell me it is the best and expect me to believe you. This means real, live combat. Not practice engagements. Real wartime sorties. Show me a kill tally of the best aircraft of the world, and then show me the Raptor's record. If the Raptor's sortie success rate is significantly better than any other aircraft, you cansay "The Raptor is the best AA plane out there" and I will say "You're exactly right.". Until you can prove without a doubt that the Raptor is superior, not by giving us statistics and information but with real combat proof, then I am not able to believe you.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Fighter technology has evolved much from WWI and WWII: jet engines, radars and long range missiles, then thrust vectoring, high off boresight missiles & helmet mounted sights, and stealth. If you use a stealth fighter against previous generation jets, it can shoot BVR missiles without getting seen; air dominance.

What if you have two stealth jets going after each other (F-22 vs Suhoi T-50 or Chengdu J-20) ? You go back almost to WWI and WWII tactics. Stealth cancels all this years of development in radars and long range missiles. No one can find the adversary with radar. With RWR you might, but if it's an LPI radar, or it's turned off? You use IRST systems? They have less range than radars, and stealth planes have a lower IR signature than previous fighters. So if two stealth jets can find each other in the skies, they will have to dogfight.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
The are so maneuverable because in 15.............20............? years, they will be retro-fitted with AI tech and take on the task of mid 21st century wild weasel / close support platform.

Lets hope they make it that far anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join