F-22 and F-35 superiority

Originally posted by Vanguard223
StellarX,
Your posts, through your lack of rational thought, have made it obvious that you're either a Mig fan boy or an America hater.

I said i would rather by flying the F-22 so i don't see how that makes me a Mig lover. As to the 'America-hater' thing you will have to explain it to me as i don't understand the reasoning involved.

I shouldn't need to explain why a Mig-25 is no match for an F-22. Are you freaking serious?!

Well i have found that those who do not wish , or see reason, to explain rarely can so maybe you should try and discover that you really have no knowledge and only propaganda derived conclusions. As for the Mig-25 vs F-22 i would again MUCH rather be flying the F-22.

By your train of thought, why would we ever design new aircraft at all?

We quite clearly should and i am relatively sure that given proper pentagon oversight the F-22 could be built for the type of money that makes it comparable to the Su-35 in strategic viability.

Why not still field F-86's....hell, why not P-51's?

Well you could probably do that if you were willing to lose 20-30 for every enemy aircraft 'destroyed' for lack of airfields to land on. It could make economic sense but who wants to throw away so many lives trying to prove my point? The Vietnamese and others have proven that losses is no indication of who will win and had anyone the interest to construct a air force employing the same resources and USD value of the USAF i am quite convinced that they might win such a war.

That's it! Russia can save a lot of money by just upgrading Sopwith Camels with data links and rear facing radars!

I'm not sure those would fit but i suppose that it could be done given enough willpower and desperation.

Oh wait....but those aren't Russian built aircraft so they're obviously inferior in every way, right?

If you say so....

Give me a break, your posts smack of fanboism.

I would tell you what your posts smack of but i might get banned for that much honesty.

It's hard to hold a rational conversation with someone who thinks Migs are the second coming of Jesus Christ.

It's no easier to hold a conversation with someone who misrepresents everything i say! I make some controversial claims but when your done with them it's hard to recognize them!

Here's a little test for you. What's your opinion on how F-22's would stand up against Typhoons or Rafales, all other factors being equal?

Well they are really not comparable to either the F-22, F-15 or Su-27 and i think it's ridiculous to pay 50 million USD for such light weight, in many more ways than one, fighters. On a 1v1 basis the f-22 is in my opinion very very likely to defeat those two and very likely to defeat the F-15/Su-27's but it all changes when you consider the operating and manufacturing cost or include ground and "AWACS" type assets.

Stellar

Again, extrapolating on your line of thought, a sopwith camel could theoretically take down an F-22. Afterall, I should analyze every possible tactical situation, right? Give it a rest. For the sake of keeping this argument short one must give a specific scenario and in this case (and any other case) the most logical senario to chose is a 1v1 engagement. You could throw any number of variables into the mix and say "see, the Mig could win that fight". Well of course it could....but so could a guy with a pistol in an ultralight. You guys are really reaching here.

Any number of situations could occur that would give an inferior aircraft an advantage over another aircraft, should I have covered them all?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say anyone who thinks a Mig-25 could have consistant success against F-22's in the REAL WORLD (not this Migs are immaculately conceived fantasy world some of you are in) is smoking something. I'm not talking about a situation where F-22's are already engaged with some SU's, are at bingo fuel, are sitting on the run way, have just suffered bird strikes, or the pilots are having a seizure. Get real people.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by Vanguard223]

Originally posted by Vanguard223
Again, extrapolating on your line of thought, a sopwith camel could theoretically take down an F-22. Afterall, I should analyze every possible tactical situation, right?

Yes, I've just said that. Isn't that what I said?

Give it a rest. For the sake of keeping this argument short one must give a specific scenario and in this case (and any other case) the most logical senario to chose is a 1v1 engagement.

Are aircraft deployed in singles? No. Is your scenario likely? Not really.

Do aircraft sometimes tangle with enemy aircraft, and do air controllers deploy reinforcements in the event of a clash? Yes. Is my scenario likely? Could very well be.

You could throw any number of variables into the mix and say "see, the Mig could win that fight". Well of course it could....but so could a guy with a pistol in an ultralight. You guys are really reaching here.

What's really funny is that you're doing the exact same thing as I already did. You're taking a possible yet unlikely situation that gives an obvious advantage to one or the other. In a situation where one aircraft of both sides is present and aware of the other at BVR ranges, the F-22 has the advantage. Why? Because the Raptor was made for this exact situation. The MiGs were not. The ideal mission of one of the MiGs would be an incoming aircraft (or group of aircraft, if you prefer) that was to be intercepted. The MiGs would do so at high speed and very high altitude, and deploy long-range munitions. Chances are pretty good in an intercept that you've got Ground Support or a handy-dandy A-50 EWS platform around. This is what the MiG is for. It's an interceptor. The F-22 is an air superiority, which translates as "See enemy, blast away.". Most of its capabilities are given in such a way that they support this capability, which was deemed the most important by its designers.

Ultimately, what we've both done is placed our sides in their ideal habitats for success. What's different about mine is that it's quite likely to happen in a wartime situation. There ARE interceptions with likely ground and possible air support. Not 1 on 1 skirmishes in the middle of nowhere with no support whatsoever.

Any number of situations could occur that would give an inferior aircraft an advantage over another aircraft, should I have covered them all?

Yes. How would ignoring every possible outcome except for one give you a proper idea of the true capabilities of an aircraft?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say anyone who thinks a Mig-25 could have consistant success against F-22's in the REAL WORLD (not this Migs are immaculately conceived fantasy world some of you are in) is smoking something. I'm not talking about a situation where F-22's are already engaged with some SU's, are at bingo fuel, are sitting on the run way, have just suffered bird strikes, or the pilots are having a seizure.

I smoke many things. Usually by burning them. Most with the aid of accelerants such as gasoline or thermite, but I don't inhale the fumes. That would be unhealthy.

Anything could be consistently successful against anything else if they are used properly. I can't immediately think of a proper way to use a Sopwith Camel, or a P-51 Mustang against an F-22, but we're not talking about those, are we? We're talking about MiG-25 and MiG-31. The MiG-25 isn't so old as to be completely useless. Granted, it's not the best choice, but it does have some impressive capabilities that give it a bit of an edge over a Raptor in some feasible combat cases. Will it be used? No, but the MiG-31's sure will, though.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that: Yes, you should consider every possible way to use an aircraft, and every possible way that the aircraft could be defeated. It's not exactly the most efficient plan, but it's the core of any strategic plan. If you know ways in which to use what you've got and ways in which to bring about advantageous situations, you're holding aces.

Originally posted by Vanguard223


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say anyone who thinks a Mig-25 could have consistant success against F-22's in the REAL WORLD (not this Migs are immaculately conceived fantasy world some of you are in) is smoking something.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by Vanguard223]

I said a MiG-25 with a AESA Radar, why did the F-18 with a newer APG-79 shoot down the 22 then?

[edit on 25-8-2007 by YASKY]

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
reply to post by Vanguard223

 

Currently though, the Russians cannot afford to build enough of these to make a difference in any future war the they may have with the US.

I heard a long time ago that there was some kind of traitor in the US who secretly gave away the Soviet Union top secret US info. Now I don't know if that's true but if it is, then Russia may have an advantage with a war against America.

Originally posted by YASKY
I said a MiG-25 with a AESA Radar, why did the F-18 with a newer APG-79 shoot down the 22 then?

Any current Mig with AESA would make no real difference over a NATO - central Europe battlefield, the most likely engagement point. And why do you still bring up the ridicules case of the Super Hornet Vs. the Raptor in dissimilar ACM? I have shown to you countless times that it means virtually nothing in combat terms and that is has even less to do with the radar

[edit on 25-8-2007 by WestPoint23]

In this situation the ability of the Su's to turn away and run while providing mid course updates by means of a tail radar/data-link is in my opinion quite critical.

Neat. But in my opinion tracking or even detectinig a F-22 is unlikely. I am pretty stubborn.

Supercruise is a meaningless term as the Su-27/30/35 can all go further than the F-22 at the same mach 1.7 that is touted as 'supercruising'.

They can?

Modern air to air missiles can not be out flown by manned machines and i think pilots should rather be trained how to eject properly than get into WVR maneuvering contests against missiles.

Ok. Maybe not outmaneuver missiles, but I beleive they should be taught how to effectively use chaff, flares, and how to bleed the missiles energy. If you get a visual on the missile you can 'beam', the missile. What this means is keep the missile 90 degrees above you at all times and it bleeds its energy off. Eventually it will loose its ability to turn hard then you just keep it 90 degrees above you and it will wiz right by.

Even Amraams are likely to be ripple fired and a F-15 can not take on four flankers without running out of missiles by assigning two per target. The Flankers are in the lucky position that whichever aircraft is not fired on can simply keep on providing mid course updates for all the missiles in flight while the targeted flankers turn and run while sending the mid course updates trough tail mounted radar.

Like I said it would be a saucide mission. But that said I do beleive that atleast one missile has a good change of destroying a Flanker.


Eh, I would not ask questions about range usually, but Australian internet sucks, and viewing two 5 minute long youtube videos somehow chewed up 1gb of our retarded 'download limit'. Damn you Telstra. So I am not even meant to be on.

P.S. What about the ERAAM?

[edit on 25-8-2007 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by YASKY
I said a MiG-25 with a AESA Radar, why did the F-18 with a newer APG-79 shoot down the 22 then?

I have shown to you countless times that it means virtually nothing in combat terms and that is has even less to do with the radar

[edit on 25-8-2007 by WestPoint23]

STOP trying to sound like StellarX, you ain't impressing me Stellar always postes by saying "I've already shown you this and that" now your trying to sound like him in your attempt to look knowlegable about AirCombat anyways a MiG-25 with new AESA radar will be able to shoot down the 22 thats what "New Radar" is supposed to do is find and lock on to the NEW threat, just like that 18 that shotdown the 22, now how would it not happen with a new AESA radar in the 25, what would the 22 do?

The only person who is attempting to look knowledgeable about air to air combat is you. It has been explained hundreds of times how the F-18 shot down that F-22, and infact, if I'm not mistaken it was WVR. An F-16 'shotdown' a F-22 because the F-16 respawned at redflag before the F-22 pilot noticed.

Both of these incidences mean nothing to real world performance, so quit bringing it up and research the incident more, PLEASE.

______

If I'm not mistaken, the four Sukhoi thirties have to be focusing there radars in one place to detect a stealth plane. Well, what if you have four F-35s spaced ten kilometres apart and at very diferant altitudes? While one may be detected and shot down, what about the others? Surely they could sneak in four shots and score some kills...? This brings me to my next point. The USAF needs more F-22's or they should not have them at all. Why have one super expensive plane that can be detected by newer Russian technology when you can have four planes which can carry many more missiles and have a higher chance of getting kills?

P.S. Like my new mini profile?

[edit on 26/8/2007 by C0bzz]

yasky, no MiG 25's have, or ever will have, AESA sets fitted. You will only eve get these in the current generations of fighters and the MiG 25 has been out of production for about two decades. This makes your analogy pointless and mere fantasy. Now, can an AESA equipped Flanker/Fulcrum/Foxhound ever be successful against the F-22?

Of course they can. The F-22 is the best equipped fighter generally, of course, but if you know how to make the most of your own assets nothing is impossible. An enemy with an overblown ego who massively underestimates you can only help as well (if that should be the case).

I'm sure the F-22 crews know that they are flying the best fighter in the world, buit I'm also sure that they know they still have lots of work to do if those advantages are not wasted. In warfare nothing is a sure thing.

Originally posted by waynos
yasky, no MiG 25's have, or ever will have, AESA sets fitted. You will only eve get these in the current generations of fighters and the MiG 25 has been out of production for about two decades. This makes your analogy pointless and mere fantasy. Now, can an AESA equipped Flanker/Fulcrum/Foxhound ever be successful against the F-22?

Of course they can. The F-22 is the best equipped fighter generally, of course, but if you know how to make the most of your own assets nothing is impossible. An enemy with an overblown ego who massively underestimates you can only help as well (if that should be the case).

I'm sure the F-22 crews know that they are flying the best fighter in the world, buit I'm also sure that they know they still have lots of work to do if those advantages are not wasted. In warfare nothing is a sure thing.

Waynos, this is the smartest reply in this thread so far.

The F-22 is not invincible....just close.

Some folks here need to get a grip.

Originally posted by Vanguard223
Waynos, this is the smartest reply in this thread so far.

The F-22 is not invincible....just close.

Some folks here need to get a grip.

Funny enough, that's what I've been trying to tell you. Is a MiG-25 likely to do anything to an F-22 in a randomely determined scenario? Probably not. But if you don't consider the possibility, you could be missing something important.

By the way, as far as I know, MiG-25 has no continuing updates. MiG-31 in its M variation does actually have the SBI-16 Zaslon "Flash Dance". I'm getting iffy results on whether it actually is AESA or not, different sources seem to say contradicting things, but it's an upgrade so something better than the original radar seems logical. So try playing around with that thought in place of the MiG-25, it'll seem a lot more likely.

Originally posted by YASKY
STOP trying to sound like StellarX, you ain't impressing me...

Impressing you is the least of my concerns at the moment






Stellar always postes by saying "I've already shown you this and that" now your trying to sound like him in your attempt to look knowlegable about AirCombat

anyways a MiG-25 with new AESA radar will be able to shoot down the 22 thats what "New Radar" is supposed to do is find and lock on to the NEW threat, just like that 18 that shotdown the 22, now how would it not happen with a new AESA radar in the 25, what would the 22 do?

We'll always have the ace..our retro made UFO technology is thousands of years ahead

Originally posted by Willard856
Actually, the generalisation that Chinese weaponry is cheap and built in bulk is a little outdated. Some of their new equipment is very nice indeed, such as the J-10 fighter , the WZ-10 helicopter, new air to air missile etc. It might not be at the Russian standard just yet, but considering how far they have come in a short time, I'd say it won't be long before they are at least comparable in many areas, if not ahead. Their fifth generation fighter is called the XXJ, and IMHO I think it will be quite good.

Originally posted by Vanguard223
Again, extrapolating on your line of thought, a sopwith camel could theoretically take down an F-22.

In theory i suppose it's possible but i would rather have the hundred first/second world war planes i could now build for the F-22's price go after airfields in the type of numbers that could not be stopped. In fact with the UAV and cruise missile revolution this is probably exactly what will happen; why should you try shoot down a plane when you can just destroy it's means to come back a second time round? That being said UCAV's can fire missiles yet they are entirely expendable.

Afterall, I should analyze every possible tactical situation, right?

You have not so far so why would you start now?

Give it a rest. For the sake of keeping this argument short one must give a specific scenario and in this case (and any other case) the most logical senario to chose is a 1v1 engagement.

I am not playing a flight simulator where 1v1 combat actually happens. I am attempting to discuss what might happen in the REAL WORLD (TM).

You could throw any number of variables into the mix and say "see, the Mig could win that fight".

Sure and those variables were not so hard to come by when one looks at Korea and Vietnam. The US 'experts' then said the rival planes were comparable and they proved that beyond any doubt in the hands of third world pilots.

Well of course it could....but so could a guy with a pistol in an ultralight. You guys are really reaching here.

I don't think we are reaching all that much but i suppose anything contrary to your point of view is 'reaching'.

Any number of situations could occur that would give an inferior aircraft an advantage over another aircraft, should I have covered them all?

No you do not and i made it EXPRESSLY clear that i would pick the F-22 if my skin depended on it. When one does not involved economics, strategy and such 'weird stuff' it's not hard to pick where it's best to stick your neck in.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say anyone who thinks a Mig-25 could have consistant success against F-22's in the REAL WORLD (not this Migs are immaculately conceived fantasy world some of you are in) is smoking something.

And i'm not disagreeing with that....

I'm not talking about a situation where F-22's are already engaged with some SU's, are at bingo fuel, are sitting on the run way, have just suffered bird strikes, or the pilots are having a seizure. Get real people.

Thanks for the 'advice'.

Stellar

Originally posted by C0bzz
Neat. But in my opinion tracking or even detectinig a F-22 is unlikely. I am pretty stubborn.

As long as we are sticking to opinions i will just say that i am stubborn too and that i have seen no reason to believe that the F-22 will not be seen like anything else.

They can?

Yes! The F-22's combat range on internal fuel is shorter than almost all the Su-27 models ( to say nothing of the 'Su-35') and at mach 1.5-1.7 dash speeds the Flankers higher internal capacity allows it to go far further at the same speed. If both uses external tanks the Flankers still go further but obviously the F-22 can drop such external stores before entering combat.

Ok. Maybe not outmaneuver missiles, but I beleive they should be taught how to effectively use chaff, flares, and how to bleed the missiles energy.

Sure...

If you get a visual on the missile you can 'beam', the missile. What this means is keep the missile 90 degrees above you at all times and it bleeds its energy off. Eventually it will loose its ability to turn hard then you just keep it 90 degrees above you and it will wiz right by.

This will work but only if you turned away soon enough and the missile were fired at it's longest stated range. As you get closer if your decoys can't do the job you have very little change of defeating it and this is especially true for modern medium and long range SAM's.

Like I said it would be a saucide mission. But that said I do beleive that atleast one missile has a good change of destroying a Flanker.

The sad reality is that in a purely logistical sense you can lose almost 5 Su-35's or 3 Su-30 MKI's before your actually losing parity in resource expenditure.

Eh, I would not ask questions about range usually, but Australian internet sucks, and viewing two 5 minute long youtube videos somehow chewed up 1gb of our retarded 'download limit'. Damn you Telstra. So I am not even meant to be on.

P.S. What about the ERAAM?

I also have limits on download so i could not watch video's even if i had the time to do so. The ERAAM and Aim -120D both give quite more range but so does the R-77M and the R-37 and or the KS-172 which will probably be introduced alongside the Eraam.

Stellar

[edit on 26-8-2007 by StellarX]

lmao, stellarx. Flankers being able to travel farther at M1.5- 1.7 speeds. Ever heard of supercruise on the Raptor. Sorry, but those Flankers don't have it.

Originally posted by bdn12
lmao, stellarx. Flankers being able to travel farther at M1.5- 1.7 speeds.

The truth...

Ever heard of supercruise on the Raptor.

Yes i did and the only advantage the F-22 derives from it is much reduced heat and sound signature which obviously adds to it's 'stealth' characteristics. Other planes can also fly at these speeds and for the same distances because of more efficient engines or far larger fuel capacities.

Sorry, but those Flankers don't have it.

And they do not need to.

Stellar

Correct me if I'm wrong here but surely THE advantage of supercruise is that a speed of Mach 1.5 can be maintained on dry thrust, thus massively increasing the range. It doesn't matter if the Flanker has a more efficient engine than the Raptor (and that's still only IF) because afterburning (which the Flanker must use to reach that speed) simply eats fuel.

youtube.com...

heres a plane that can macth the raptor

[edit on 26-8-2007 by manzoor]