Sukhoi PAK FA (Russian Fifth-generation fighter)

Originally posted by Darkpr0
By some feat of chance, things have changed just a tad in the 60+ years since WWII. With things like the Raptor, the Rafale, and Eurofighter going on at the moment you no longer get to see where your opponent is, and how much metal is flying through the air at you. With the Raptor's latest tests as evidence, you get a missile warning. Just a missile warning. No convenient dots on the horizon representing aircraft coming to kill you. This is the idea of BVR combat.

You get a missile warning when your aircraft can recognize the given signals of the radars that is tracking you and providing fire control data. If not you are unlikely to know what hit you.

We've seen how well F-15s and F-16s in Red Flag were capable of blasting F-22s out of the air when they knew something was coming, let alone when they didn't.

I am not sure why people put so much trust in red flag exercises that are entirely scripted and based on horrendously bad 'assumptions' about what the enemy can and can not do.

Do you think a Su-27 that has no idea what is coming is likely to be able to properly locate, track, and fire upon a Raptor?

Well the Su-27 will be receiving data from the hundreds of ground tracking stations so it will probably always know where the F-22's are. Given it's superior speed it can avoid being surprised often or at all.

The obvious answer is: possibly, but not likely. Even with pilots that are aces in the Su-27, the airframe itself limits its usefulness against the F-22.

How so?

It's like drag racing a GT-40 against a Model T. Even if the driver of the GT has never touched a 40, and even if the driver of the Model T has been driving it ably since it was first put out of the factory, the technology contained by the 40 gives it such a disproportionate advantage that the older piece's chances of winning are diminished significantly.

Given the two machines operates in complete vacuums without the support structures that bother were designed to function within. People always wonder why the monkey model version the USSR exported normally did not measure up but i have come to realise that they should never have and yet they strangely did given the right pilots and employment...

Now while this is a bit of exaggeration, we have to recognize that if the advantages the Raptor currently has (as well as other aircraft used by countries that do have the capability to wage war on Russia) put the Russians at a nasty disadvantage until they can come up with their own counters.

They already have the S-300 varieties that are more than able to handle the F-22 and given that the F-22 will always be tracked by ground stations the areas ahead of large concentrations of them can always be cleared if fighting them still seems too risky. F-22's can no more penetrate modern air defenses than anything else can so they can always just retreat into their air defense umbrella and regroup for further strikes on any SEAD/DEAD strike packages.

So were the US to declare war on Russia with the Raptor on its side, the advantages given would put an incredibly dent in Russian forces, trained or not.

Possibly but my money is not the the American side while i continue to hope that we never get to find out.

Ace pilots are very ideal to have, I'm not trying to convince you that they're not, I'm simply saying that getting rid of the current avionics disadvantages and producing an aircraft superior to a great deal of others is a good idea, and just takes place over training pilots in current rigs which are quickly becoming out of date.

It's never a bad idea to have very well trained pilots but we all know that it was not enough to save the Germans...

Stellar

Why is it that whenever someone talks about how to beat an F-22 they always include ground radars and SAMS? Why are the Raptors always the first aircraft in no matter what? I can tell you something that a lot of people JUST DONT GET! THE F-22 is an AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. IT IS MEANT TO KILL AIRCRAFT. I think that it is UNBELIEVABLY unfair to talk about how to beat an F-22 and use ground radars in an argument. That is a whole other universe.



1. We dont even know the top speed of the Raptor, we can only speculate within probably .5mach. So "superior speed" is not a fair argument either, due to the fact that both aircraft's speeds are - and for 50 years will be - completely classified.

Now that were being speculative and including ground radars and other such not-air-to-air things:

2. Why is it that whenever people talk about America vs Russia, they always assume its America attempting to invade Russia and gain air-superiority over the Russian landmass? It would probably be in europe, and getting Russia's roxorz air defense to cover europe is an incredibly difficult task.

3. Even if Russia managed to move its air defense, keeping its aircraft under the SAM-UMBRELLA would be CRIPPLING to its air force. Syria tried that a while back....it didnt work out too well.

4. SEAD and wild weasels are the first in, not the raptors.

5. Why is it that everyone thinks that there will some how magically be a radar umbrella right below a stealth aircraft? While newer radars may be able to detect and track a stealth aircraft over a cluster of radars maybe hundreds, tracking one on the edge of a SAM umbrella is much harder. What kind of stupid commander would fly an air-superiority mission there? Its suicide. And it wont happen. You JUST...DONT FLY FIGHTERS ABOVE A CLUSTER OF GOOD AIR DEFENSES!! it doesnt happen unless the air force commander is smoking SOMETHING wierd. Thats a great way to loose half a billion dollars in one sortie.

6. So now that were giving Russia the advantage of hundreds of ground radars that just pop up under US fighters, I think I'll throw in some PATRIOT systems. So now the F-22s have some ground radars on their side, coupled with their own far superior radar to the one in the Su-27.

7. Excersises are very accurate. First of all, the F-15 is similar to the Su-27 in overall performance. The pilots also have ten times the flight hours of Su pilots, more often, they have better simulators, more resitance to G-forces...in my opinion, if the F-15s with 1,000 hour pilots cant touch the F-22 the Su-27s with 50 hour pilots dont have a chance in hell, even with hundreds of invisible ground radars that can track stealth aircraft.

8. If America tries to get air superiority over the russian homeland they will have a hard time. If Russia tries to get air superiority over America they will have a hard time. If the two air forces meet over common battleground such as europe, they RuAF IS going to lose. America has numbers and quality. The F-15s are a check for basically anything Russia can dish out save for the Su-35s of which Russia has a ground total of 11.

9. The F-22 has LPI radar...its designed specifically so the enemy WONT get a radar warning.

[edit on 1-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]

[edit on 1-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]

[edit on 1-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Why is it that whenever someone talks about how to beat an F-22 they always include ground radars and SAMS?

Well i suppose it's due to the reality that one attempts to gain air superiority over such things? What's the point of a air superiority fighter that can not survive over the battle space it's supposed to gain superiority in? The F-22 is not required to win wars against the type of third world country the US has been attacking the last few decades so why build it when it can be shown that it is simply not good enough to operate over the type of defenses that it's supposed to defeat or at least negate?

Why are the Raptors always the first aircraft in no matter what? I can tell you something that a lot of people JUST DONT GET! THE F-22 is an AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER. IT IS MEANT TO KILL AIRCRAFT.

Aircraft are meant to bomb people on the ground who are trying to kill your people on the ground ( i can't make it simpler than that) and figthers are basically there to ensure that your bombers are not prevented from doing their jobs. Any aircraft thus must be one that can at least survive ( or at least be deployed in sufficient numbers to flood the defenses) in and over the FEBA and if it can not do that it is quite useless. The

I think that it is UNBELIEVABLY unfair to talk about how to beat an F-22 and use ground radars in an argument. That is a whole other universe.

There are only a few countries with sufficient forces to require the USA to operate fighters such as the F-22 and they both have ground radars which the F-22 will have to operate over if it is to take part at all. At this time there is no way to make a stealth plane that can escape detection by both low frequency ground radars and high frequency fighter one's and that is assuming that one is only using the forward quarter of the F-22 which is obviously entirely unrealistic if the F-22 is to penetrate hostile airspace with fighters and radars on all sides.

1. We dont even know the top speed of the Raptor, we can only speculate within probably .5mach. So "superior speed" is not a fair argument either, due to the fact that both aircraft's speeds are - and for 50 years will be - completely classified.

We don't know it's top speed but we know it's not going to be able to catch either a Su-27, Mig-29, Mig-31, or even a Mig-23 if their intent on running away... We know that both the Su-27 and Mig-31 can go further, faster and stay their for longer and frankly we know that you have to be quite daft to operate one F-22 instead of four or five Mig-31/Su-27's in the vain belief that 'they wont see me'.

Now that were being speculative and including ground radars and other such not-air-to-air things:

This this is not a video game where you can choose which factors you wish to consider. The intelligent folk among us consider the planes specifications in terms of what, how and where it were claimed it could fight.

2. Why is it that whenever people talk about America vs Russia, they always assume its America attempting to invade Russia and gain air-superiority over the Russian landmass?

Because that is a more likely scenario and basically because modern air defense are VERY mobile and will always be present near the forward edge of battle.

It would probably be in europe, and getting Russia's roxorz air defense to cover europe is an incredibly difficult task.

The Russians have ballistic weaponry to destroy airfields and strategic targets so their planes are likely to operate over their air defense and not far beyond. The same can obviously be said for the USAF but then the surface to air force levels are not comparable in either effectiveness or scale.

3. Even if Russia managed to move its air defense, keeping its aircraft under the SAM-UMBRELLA would be CRIPPLING to its air force. Syria tried that a while back....it didnt work out too well.

Why would it be crippling? They are not as reliant on air support as the US so they really do not need to fight in enemy air space as the USAF might be forced to. What dis Syria try and when?

[quote[ 4. SEAD and wild weasels are the first in, not the raptors.

Which is kind of pointless as the SEAD/DEAD aircraft needs protection; why else does the F-22 exist?

5. Why is it that everyone thinks that there will some how magically be a radar umbrella right below a stealth aircraft? While newer radars may be able to detect and track a stealth aircraft over a cluster of radars maybe hundreds, tracking one on the edge of a SAM umbrella is much harder.

Actually radars from the 60's tracks modern stealth aircraft and they always have for obvious reasons. Why do you think stealth aircraft are so hard to track and how , if that is the case, did the Serbs manage to target two F-117's accurately enough to write them off?

What kind of stupid commander would fly an air-superiority mission there? Its suicide. And it wont happen. You JUST...DONT FLY FIGHTERS ABOVE A CLUSTER OF GOOD AIR DEFENSES!!

Then how are you going to protect your strike aircraft from enemy aircraft if they attempt to attack those air defenses?

it doesnt happen unless the air force commander is smoking SOMETHING wierd. Thats a great way to loose half a billion dollars in one sortie.

I think your missing the point; air superiority is hat you gain when you can successfully prevent the enemy air force from attacking your bomber aircraft. Flying around mindlessly securing airspace where there is nothing to protect is entirely pointless.

6. So now that were giving Russia the advantage of hundreds of ground radars that just pop up under US fighters, I think I'll throw in some PATRIOT systems. So now the F-22s have some ground radars on their side, coupled with their own far superior radar to the one in the Su-27.

There really is no magic involved here as a modern Russian, Chinese air defense regiment does in fact deploy dozens of tracking, fire control and early warning radars which will be around and do have the capacity to data link into very large mutually supporting complexes. The US armed forces deploys very few patriot batteries so neither the force concentrations or efficiency is comparable.

7. Excersises are very accurate. First of all, the F-15 is similar to the Su-27 in overall performance.

The Su-27 is in fact superior in most regards and you can once again get almost two for the price of one.

The pilots also have ten times the flight hours of Su pilots,

Not true.

more often, they have better simulators,

True.

more resitance to G-forces...in my opinion,

Whatever use this is in BVR combat...

if the F-15s with 1,000 hour pilots cant touch the F-22

If you set up the training in ways that prevents the F-15 pilots from performing anywhere near what their planes or experience and training allows for.... How do you think the fiasco that was the Korean and Vietnam wars happened?

the Su-27s with 50 hour pilots dont have a chance in hell, even with hundreds of invisible ground radars that can track stealth aircraft.

Just like the Vietnamese and North Korean pilots didn't not so long ago. I am sure some people are learning from history but i rarely notice them here!

8. If America tries to get air superiority over the russian homeland they will have a hard time. If Russia tries to get air superiority over America they will have a hard time. If the two air forces meet over common battleground such as europe, they RuAF IS going to lose.

In a full scale war the USAF will in my opinion simply lose in their own skies or European skies and certainly Russian skies. The Russians simply have too many advantageous in too many fields for the conclusions to be any different but i must admit that i am now looking far beyond their air forces or even air defenses...

America has numbers and quality.

So does the Russians...

The F-15s are a check for basically anything Russia can dish out save for the Su-35s of which Russia has a ground total of 11.

Anything upwards of the Mig-23 and Su-27 can take on the F-15 and i don't know why anyone would argue to the contrary.

9. The F-22 has LPI radar...its designed specifically so the enemy WONT get a radar warning.

Low PROBABILITY of intercept and once again we( including you) should ask who's deciding what counts as low probability and under what circumstances.

Stellar

Valid points however:

Well SEAD/DEAD aircraft dont strike deep into the heart of defenses, they start at the edge and work their way in, blowing things up as they go. Fighter escort would come along without having to cross into extremely dangerous airspace.

While russian aircraft might be able to outrun the F-22, they cant outrun an AMRAAM, with the increased range of the AIM-120D, the AMRAAM would be fired before the hostile aircraft were in firing range of the attack aircraft, and they could keep going, fire, get blown up and hope their missiles find their targets, or they can turn back before the AMRAAMs get to them.

I do not believe for a second that RuAF would triumph against USAF in neutral skies. It is in fact America that has more advantages, such as a fleet of AWACS and tanker support aircraft.

What help are G-forces in BVR? How about evading missiles? Although these missiles can usually pull over 12G, USAF pilots are trained to make a missile waste its energy, and bring it down to a level where it can be evaded at 9G, which usually involves climbing 10,000 feet, descending again, than climbing again over and over. Rocket fuel doesnt last that long and neither does momentum.

The MiG-23 is in no way a match for the F-15, in any aspect. The F-15 could take on as many MiG-23s in BVR as it has missiles. Radar, weapons, flight characteristics....MiG-23 is a helluva stretch.

Now for the F-15 vs the Su-27...hmmm lets look at the facts.

-The F-15 has a thrust/weight ratio of about 1.25:1, the Su is more like 1:1.
-The F-15 has a top speed of Mach 2.5 while the Su is about mach 2.35.
-The F-15 has a range of 3,450m, the Su-27 has a range of 2,485m
-The F-15 has an AESA radar, the Su-27 has a flash dance radar.
-The F-15 has JHMCS and the Su-27 does not.
-The F-15 has a maximum altitude or 65,000 and the Su? 60,000.

Yeah, I see how the Su-27 has better performance in all areas. OOh!! It can do teh cobra at 20 knots!!. That doesnt sh1t matter if the aircraft is limited to pulling 9.5Gs just like the F-15, and I'd like to see some idiot try a cobra at 300 knots.

Vietnam huh? Do you realize that Vietnam resulted in the catastrophic destruction of the communist air force? The F-4 had a 10:1 kill ratio over the MiGs.

So over neutral ground, you say that the RuAF will triumph because they have "too many advantages"? GIVE ME ONE. The US has more aircraft. The F-22s will probably take out four times their own numbers in enemy aircraft, the F-15s ARE a check for most anything RuAF has in BVR, AESA and AIM-120D cover that area as well as the F-22. USAF has many more AWACS. USAF has many more tankers...it doesnt even need airfields in the immediate area with KC-135s flying around WITH fighter escort.

Top that off with hundreds of F-35s flying around...what advantage does the RuAF have over USAF? The USAF has more F-16s and F-15s than RuAF has Su-27s and MiG-29s.

Even if 10 times was an exagguration, the USAF pilots DO get much more training than RuAF pilots...thats a fact.

I am also sticking firmly to my belief that RED FLAG is an accurate portrayal of an air war. Despite bluefor having an AWACS aircraft, redfor has high performance SAMS on its side and other such things. The fact that the F-15s cant get a lock on the F-22s at any range says something.

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Valid points however:

Well SEAD/DEAD aircraft dont strike deep into the heart of defenses, they start at the edge and work their way in, blowing things up as they go. Fighter escort would come along without having to cross into extremely dangerous airspace.

While russian aircraft might be able to outrun the F-22, they cant outrun an AMRAAM, with the increased range of the AIM-120D, the AMRAAM would be fired before the hostile aircraft were in firing range of the attack aircraft, and they could keep going, fire, get blown up and hope their missiles find their targets, or they can turn back before the AMRAAMs get to them.

I do not believe for a second that RuAF would triumph against USAF in neutral skies. It is in fact America that has more advantages, such as a fleet of AWACS and tanker support aircraft.

What help are G-forces in BVR? How about evading missiles? Although these missiles can usually pull over 12G, USAF pilots are trained to make a missile waste its energy, and bring it down to a level where it can be evaded at 9G, which usually involves climbing 10,000 feet, descending again, than climbing again over and over. Rocket fuel doesnt last that long and neither does momentum.

The MiG-23 is in no way a match for the F-15, in any aspect. The F-15 could take on as many MiG-23s in BVR as it has missiles. Radar, weapons, flight characteristics....MiG-23 is a helluva stretch.

Now for the F-15 vs the Su-27...hmmm lets look at the facts.

-The F-15 has a thrust/weight ratio of about 1.25:1, the Su is more like 1:1.
-The F-15 has a top speed of Mach 2.5 while the Su is about mach 2.35.
-The F-15 has a range of 3,450m, the Su-27 has a range of 2,485m
-The F-15 has an AESA radar, the Su-27 has a flash dance radar.
-The F-15 has JHMCS and the Su-27 does not.
-The F-15 has a maximum altitude or 65,000 and the Su? 60,000.

Yeah, I see how the Su-27 has better performance in all areas. OOh!! It can do teh cobra at 20 knots!!. That doesnt sh1t matter if the aircraft is limited to pulling 9.5Gs just like the F-15, and I'd like to see some idiot try a cobra at 300 knots.

Vietnam huh? Do you realize that Vietnam resulted in the catastrophic destruction of the communist air force? The F-4 had a 10:1 kill ratio over the MiGs.

So over neutral ground, you say that the RuAF will triumph because they have "too many advantages"? GIVE ME ONE. The US has more aircraft. The F-22s will probably take out four times their own numbers in enemy aircraft, the F-15s ARE a check for most anything RuAF has in BVR, AESA and AIM-120D cover that area as well as the F-22. USAF has many more AWACS. USAF has many more tankers...it doesnt even need airfields in the immediate area with KC-135s flying around WITH fighter escort.

Top that off with hundreds of F-35s flying around...what advantage does the RuAF have over USAF? The USAF has more F-16s and F-15s than RuAF has Su-27s and MiG-29s.

Even if 10 times was an exagguration, the USAF pilots DO get much more training than RuAF pilots...thats a fact.

I am also sticking firmly to my belief that RED FLAG is an accurate portrayal of an air war. Despite bluefor having an AWACS aircraft, redfor has high performance SAMS on its side and other such things. The fact that the F-15s cant get a lock on the F-22s at any range says something.

Yes the F-4 had the advantage, but thats because U.S. Airforce had Numbers, over the Vietnamies, the U.S. Pilot's training is not better than the Russians, look at the Korean war, U.S. claimed to have shot down, 10:1 MiG-15's VVS said it was 335 VVS MiG-15 and 235 Chinese/Korean MiG-15's downed to 1806+ F-80/84/86's and B-29's, then in 1977 U.S. in the Aviation Encyclopedia U.S. claimed 2000 MiG's downed in Korean war, after the Cold war, U.S.A. was force to addmit only 345 MiG's were lost, which means U.S.A. does tell MAJOR LIES, not just little ones, in order to "LOOK" better www.aeronautics.ru...

Why do people insist that "the F-15 has AESA" as if it is standard kit?

It does not. A very small number do and how many more, if any, get it is currently the subject of debate in the USA.


[edit on 3-7-2007 by waynos]

stellarx, what the hell are you talking about. First of all, if you are talking about a large war between the U.S. and China or Russia, you say the F-22 has to bomb targets on the ground to protect the troops. Do you really think we'd have many, if any, troops in China or Russia in a massive war like that. If the F-22 can barely get in, how the hell do you expect a large, slow transport or ship to get soldiers on the ground. A war like that would most likely be fought in the sea and air, not the ground like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, you say the F-22 isn't fast enought to catch SU-27's, Mig-31's, or even Mig-29's. That is total bull#. The only one I can see having a chance is the Mig-31. The F-22, as stated by pilots, can at the minimum supercruise at Mach 1.8. The top speed is upwards of 1600 mph, as stated by Paul Metz, a test pilot. Those other fighters have to consistantly be in afterburner to maintain that speed, which uses up tons of fuel. No, I am almost positive a F-22 can catch anything in the air today. Oh yeah, it also has a little thing called stealth.

waynos is right about AESA - the debate is buy more raptors or give the eagles AESA - you won`t get both. And before you get rid of the Flanker so quickly based on arm chair general assumptions - ask the Indians what they did with Bison`s (MiG-21) against the `vaunted` eagle.

YASKY I really dont want to be rude that that is just about the biggest load of crap I have ever seen posted in this forum.

345 CONFIRMED kills...there is also such a thing as probables, which means the gun camera records the enemy aircraft blowing up but it doesnt record a parachute.

Give me a source for the 1800 F-86s shot down claim...if you can prove to me that a fifth of those were shot down I will become a communist.

As for vietnam...NVAAF had its fair share of MiG-21s, agile and fast aircraft. 10:1 kill ratio...no thats not numbers at all, in fact many times the NVAAF completely outnumbered the USAF.

And yes, USAF training IS MUCH better, longer, and has more flight hours than RuAF training.

And as for vietnam...I suggest you look up the relitive numbers of aircraft. And than, I suggest you look at the K/D ratio between F-4s and MiG-21s....USAF pilots were amazing in that war, they would masquarade as F-105s and than when the MiG-21s came up, they went down just as quick. They were helpless, flailing pilots and they got shot down, very very quickly.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by BlackWidow23]

the k/d ratio was aweful until they put a gun on the phantom - that and the sparrow gained its reputation for being crap in that war (had to be ripple fired to have a chance of hitting)

Originally posted by StellarX
In a full scale war the USAF will in my opinion simply lose in their own skies or European skies and certainly Russian skies.

Umm... just how is the US going to loose "in their own skie(s)"? More importantly how are the Russians going to launch a massive, sustained and successful air campaign over the CONUS? They simply cannot, let alone 'win'. As for the European theater, a combined NATO force operating over NATO member states will be very hard to beat...

Originally posted by waynos
It does not. A very small number do and how many more, if any, get it is currently the subject of debate in the USA.

It is not the subject of debate, currently there are 18 "Golden Eagles" and the plans are to equip another 178 F-15C's (notice I said nothing of the 224 F-15E's which will likely get the (v)4 as well) with the (V)3 AESA radar and other critical systems.

A good read for all... (Source)
Future Fighter Force (AFA Magazine)

Originally posted by Harlequin
waynos is right about AESA - the debate is buy more raptors or give the eagles AESA - you won`t get both.

Once again there is no debate and the money for the 183 Raptor's has already been allocated for. If the USAF were to get approval to extend the Raptor production line then it may become an issue. However currently the two programs are separate and both as just as vital.

Originally posted by Harlequin
And before you get rid of the Flanker so quickly based on arm chair general assumptions - ask the Indians what they did with Bison`s (MiG-21) against the `vaunted` eagle.

Oh please, you can also set up a training exercise where P-51's beat F-22's, means little in the real world. You know full well both sides wanted that outcome and agreed to the parameters which would ensure it.

Originally posted by bdn12
stellarx, what the hell are you talking about.

Reality as i see it and as i am quite sure i can prove it to be.

First of all, if you are talking about a large war between the U.S. and China or Russia, you say the F-22 has to bomb targets on the ground to protect the troops.

Please read what i typed as that is something i never said or could claim having read the large stacks of books i have.

Do you really think we'd have many, if any, troops in China or Russia in a massive war like that.

Well the Russians and Chinese will likely be working together but i am not 100% sure where this battle will happen but only that it seems quite inevitable. Why do you think the US has so many hundreds of bases all around the world if not to defend them with ground reinforcements when the time comes?

As of 2005, the United States occupied over 700 military bases in over 36 countries worldwide.[5] Some of the largest contingents are:
Germany 64,319
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 33,453
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 29,086
Italy 10,449
United Kingdom 10,331

en.wikipedia.org...

If the F-22 can barely get in, how the hell do you expect a large, slow transport or ship to get soldiers on the ground.

I did not claim that the F-22 could not fly ANYWHERE in the world but simply that it will have as hard a time as anything else to penetrate, or operate within range of , modern Russian type air defenses. You will find pictures of Us soldiers entering commercial US aircraft with guns in their hands on their way to Europe so stop attacking the straw men.

A war like that would most likely be fought in the sea and air, not the ground like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure but i think even wars that involves nuclear, laser and EM weapons are eventually, or right from the start, involve men on the ground that must be supported by whatever means possible.

Also, you say the F-22 isn't fast enought to catch SU-27's, Mig-31's, or even Mig-29's. That is total bull#.

It's true but if you refuse to read 'stuff' there is not much i can do to convince you.

The only one I can see having a chance is the Mig-31. The F-22, as stated by pilots, can at the minimum supercruise at Mach 1.8. The top speed is upwards of 1600 mph, as stated by Paul Metz, a test pilot.

I did not manage to track down that quote so maybe you can provide me with that source, or any other for that matter, that indicates that the F-22 can do very nearly Mach 3.

Those other fighters have to consistantly be in afterburner to maintain that speed, which uses up tons of fuel.

The F-22 can only super cruise( mach 1.7 ) for a few hundred Km's if it is to manage a range of anything close to 1500 Km and that's with drop tanks and no stealth at all. Sorry.....

No, I am almost positive a F-22 can catch anything in the air today.

This is not a question of 'belief' but one of 'facts' and while i am not sure what the Raptors top speed is i know it is unlikely to ever operate at Mach 2 speeds without breaking all the warranties.

Oh yeah, it also has a little thing called stealth.

A little thing that i do not believe will enable it to survive far longer than it would without...

Stellar

Originally posted by bdn12
stellarx, what the hell are you talking about.

Reality as i see it and as i am quite sure i can prove it to be.

First of all, if you are talking about a large war between the U.S. and China or Russia, you say the F-22 has to bomb targets on the ground to protect the troops.

Please read what i typed as that is something i never said or could claim having read the large stacks of books i have.

Do you really think we'd have many, if any, troops in China or Russia in a massive war like that.

Well the Russians and Chinese will likely be working together but i am not 100% sure where this battle will happen but only that it seems quite inevitable. Why do you think the US has so many hundreds of bases all around the world if not to defend them with ground reinforcements when the time comes?

As of 2005, the United States occupied over 700 military bases in over 36 countries worldwide.[5] Some of the largest contingents are:
Germany 64,319
Japan (United States Forces Japan) 33,453
South Korea (United States Forces Korea) 29,086
Italy 10,449
United Kingdom 10,331

en.wikipedia.org...

If the F-22 can barely get in, how the hell do you expect a large, slow transport or ship to get soldiers on the ground.

I did not claim that the F-22 could not fly ANYWHERE in the world but simply that it will have as hard a time as anything else to penetrate, or operate within range of , modern Russian type air defenses. You will find pictures of Us soldiers entering commercial US aircraft with guns in their hands on their way to Europe so stop attacking the straw men.

A war like that would most likely be fought in the sea and air, not the ground like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sure but i think even wars that involves nuclear, laser and EM weapons are eventually, or right from the start, involve men on the ground that must be supported by whatever means possible.

Also, you say the F-22 isn't fast enought to catch SU-27's, Mig-31's, or even Mig-29's. That is total bull#.

It's true but if you refuse to read 'stuff' there is not much i can do to convince you.

The only one I can see having a chance is the Mig-31. The F-22, as stated by pilots, can at the minimum supercruise at Mach 1.8. The top speed is upwards of 1600 mph, as stated by Paul Metz, a test pilot.

I did not manage to track down that quote so maybe you can provide me with that source, or any other for that matter, that indicates that the F-22 can do very nearly Mach 3.

Those other fighters have to consistantly be in afterburner to maintain that speed, which uses up tons of fuel.

The F-22 can only super cruise( mach 1.7 ) for a few hundred Km's if it is to manage a range of anything close to 1500 Km and that's with drop tanks and no stealth at all. Sorry.....

No, I am almost positive a F-22 can catch anything in the air today.

This is not a question of 'belief' but one of 'facts' and while i am not sure what the Raptors top speed is i know it is unlikely to ever operate at Mach 2 speeds without breaking all the warranties.

Oh yeah, it also has a little thing called stealth.

A little thing that i do not believe will enable it to survive far longer than it would without...

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

If the F-22 can barely get in, how the hell do you expect a large, slow transport or ship to get soldiers on the ground.

I did not claim that the F-22 could not fly ANYWHERE in the world but simply that it will have as hard a time as anything else to penetrate, or operate within range of , modern Russian type air defenses.

To me this seems to be a main thread of yours and I wonder what modern defenses your talking about? Did the Russians have a thread in the cold war with their 100 plus stations all around the USSR yeah maybe but as with anything there are holes to exploite.

The proper way to use stealth and for what it was designed was to reduce return over distance. effectivelly it creates holes in a radar belt by being harder (no impossible to detect in comparison to a "norm" aircraft. If the station could detect a norm plane at 500km it will only be able to pick up the 22 at 250km. and if this station is in a belt of radars that are spaced 1000km apart the 22 now has a hole 500km wide that it can fly undetected.

The above principle is how stealth should be deplyed and well if its not the goverment got in the way again. bottom line I disagree the F-22 will have a easier time then anything else to penetrate enemy airspace.

What do you mean ONLY mach 1.7 supercruise? Ok, fine. It has a reduction in range, that is true. But that reduction is a helluva lot less than other aircraft cruising at mach 1.5+ on half afterburner and chugging fuel.

Originally posted by StellarX
It's true but if you refuse to read 'stuff' there is not much i can do to convince you.

Stellar, please provide me with the sources regarding the top speed of any Flanker variant while fully loaded with external weapons, pods and or tanks. And please also cite the source for the time it take a Flanker to burn half it's fuel load while using afterburners and carrying external weapons. You should know that the F-22 has no problem reaching or sustaining it's top speed (as well as alt - accel stats). Both in mil (supercruise) and afterburner with a full payload of weapons and fuel since there is no drag increase (internal). The same cannot be said for the F-15 or Su-27...

Originally posted by StellarX
I did not manage to track down that quote so maybe you can provide me with that source, or any other for that matter, that indicates that the F-22 can do very nearly Mach 3.

The F-22's top speed is limited by it's ability to sustain heat build up. From pilot commentary the F-22 is capable of safely handling speeds over Mach 2 but there eventually does come a point where the airframe (ie. canopy first) will start to give. The F119's have more than enough thrust (and can withstand more pressure and heat) to literally "break" the aircraft by accelerating it to critical speeds. Pilots have also commented on the difference between what they are willing to do in peacetime vs. war time. And last but not least the F-22 has no electronic speed limitations built into it.

Originally posted by StellarX
The F-22 can only super cruise( mach 1.7 ) for a few hundred Km's if it is to manage a range of anything close to 1500 Km and that's with drop tanks and no stealth at all. Sorry....

Source? Neither you no I know the top speed or range or duration in super cruise of the F-22. However again from pilot comments I have come to the conclusion that the Raptor can supercruise very close to Mach 2. And that is can also perform an entire mission in supercruise mode, meaning more than just "a few hundred Km's..." With drop tanks the F-22 can very well go a long distance, as was demonstrated by it’s recent trip to the Pacific. Further more you should know that an F-22 can drop both it's tanks and pylons retaining all VLO characteristics instantly if it so chooses. So using tank fuel to just get to the fight seems like an interesting idea.

Originally posted by StellarX
This is not a question of 'belief' but one of 'facts' and while i am not sure what the Raptors top speed is i know it is unlikely to ever operate at Mach 2 speeds without breaking all the warranties.

Source? I can quote pilots saying it is a "Mach 2 class aircraft"...

Man stellarx, I love how you are trying to make the F-22 seem like some ordinary fighter with no speed and stealth that doesn't matter. Oh yeah, I of course already knew the U.S. has troops in many countries, but of course not ones like Russia or China. What I am saying is that in such a large scale war, the reality is that barely any, IF any, troops would be on the enemies soil because it would be way too risky and there would be virtually no way to get in. These troops are in Japan and Korea to train their military and of course have Forward Operating Bases(FOB). They have these in case of a war so they don't need to lug aircraft halfway across the world(you will notice most of the foreign bases are either navy or air force and many of the army ones are for training. This isn't including guerilla wars like Iraq or Afghanistan.) Also, here are some sources on the F-22 and the "unbeatable" Sukhoi's and Mig's.:
www.f22-raptor.com... amazing- meets or exceeds every requirement

www.af.mil... -all they say is mach 2 class-could mean anything

www.sukhoi.org... mach 2.35 with NO external stores

www.migavia.ru... max speed of 3000 km/h-no mach 3, sorry

www.lockheedmartin.com... -had to include that. notice that almost everything is either "class" or "+".

Don't get too hyped about about that speed with Mig-25/31. Remember, we built the two fastest manned jets and they both cruised at mach 3, no stupid strip the thing down to barebone and see how fast it can go for a few minutes without blowing up, - the XB-70 and SR-71

westy, re AESA and the F-15, yes that is the plan, quite right. However as far as the last reports I read go the funding for that plan is not yet certain (and such things are always subject to change). However it does not change my point that promoting the F-15 over certain rivals because 'it has AESA' is disingenuous, or at least premature. An AESA radar in the sales ledger wont detect anything.

I also noticed up the thread that a perceived advantage America holds is the availability of AWACS and tankers, which implies that Russia and China do not. But they do too so it is more of a level playing field than people imagine on that score too.

I also noticed the comment that an LPI radar will give no warning (if the same person made these claims I'm not having a go, I just wanted to answer these specifics). Firstly LPI denotes 'Low Probability of Intercept', like stealth, it does not mean invisible. An LPI radar will most certainly ping the RWR of the target plane, what it does do however is make it very much harder to target the Raptor from its own returns. Again, harder, not impossible, otherwise it would be an MII radar (Magically Invisible and Invulnerable)

Originally posted by Canada_EH
To me this seems to be a main thread of yours and I wonder what modern defenses your talking about? Did the Russians have a thread in the cold war with their 100 plus stations all around the USSR yeah maybe but as with anything there are holes to exploite.

The S-300 varieties and all the medium and short range systems that supports it as well as some numbers of direct energy weapon bases...

Current Soviet air surveillance radar deployments include more than 7,000 radars of various types located at about 1,200 sites. These deployments provide virtually complete coverage at medium to high altitudes over the USSR and in some areas extends hundreds of kilometers beyond the borders. Limited coverage against low-altitude targets is concentrated in the western USSR and in high-priority areas elsewhere. Since 1983, The Soviets have begun to deploy two new air surveillance radars. These radars assist in the early warning of cruise missile and bomber attacks and enhance air defense electronic warfare capabilities.

www.fas.org...

Not all of that is still functional but then much of it has been replaced by mobile systems in support of SAM batteries.

The proper way to use stealth and for what it was designed was to reduce return over distance. effectivelly it creates holes in a radar belt by being harder (no impossible to detect in comparison to a "norm" aircraft. If the station could detect a norm plane at 500km it will only be able to pick up the 22 at 250km.

That is true but remember that it may still detect the F-22 as soon as it comes over the radar horizon and launch missiles before it comes in range given current SARH technology that does not require 'lock' for launch. Study SARH and you will understand why modern long range air defenses are no joke and why 'stealth' is unlikely to save you even on your long range approach to such emplacements that could be moving a few times per hour. .

and if this station is in a belt of radars that are spaced 1000km apart the 22 now has a hole 500km wide that it can fly undetected.

But the holes exist only in the imagination of the public who do not actually study these topics or understand the depth and extensive nature of the defenses these planes will encounter over Russia and soon over China...

The above principle is how stealth should be deplyed and well if its not the goverment got in the way again. bottom line I disagree the F-22 will have a easier time then anything else to penetrate enemy airspace.

It will have a easier time but my point is that for the cost to range and weapons deployed it's not worth the trouble and will result in a force that is incapable of fighting a war of attrition.

Stellar

Originally posted by waynos
westy, re AESA and the F-15, yes that is the plan, quite right. However as far as the last reports I read go the funding for that plan is not yet certain (and such things are always subject to change).

Waynos, of course until they upgrades do happen uncertainties will be around. However this plan is almost certain to happen unless the USAF gets hundred’s more Raptors.

Originally posted by waynos
However it does not change my point that promoting the F-15 over certain rivals because 'it has AESA' is disingenuous, or at least premature.

No but AESA along with other upgrades in weaponry and avionics will keep the F-15 a relevant force to be reckoned with. Especially for second tier systems which wont get the full attention of the Raptor.

Originally posted by waynos
I also noticed the comment that an LPI radar will give no warning (if the same person made these claims I'm not having a go, I just wanted to answer these specifics).

If US F-15's, F-16's and Super Hornets along with a host of other aircraft have not been able to detect the APG-77 in exercises than that's good enough for me. Nothing is certain, sure, hence LPI but even if it works nine out of ten times it's a great advantage. With smart tactics such a capability can be greatly exploited.