"China unveils its brand new stealth fighter: the J-31 “Falcon Eagle”. But it’s a copy of the

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


No, it takes more than working once. We know what their tactics are. Our ability to detect their aircraft far exceeds their ability to detect our own. Our ability to hide exceeds theirs. The chances of a dogfight ensuing is remote. Possible, yes, likely, no. Again, what evidence is there the Chinese would win in a dogfight. Your assertion is they would. Mine is that it's possible not likely. So you provide information that supports they WOULD, not just can. As I said, the F-22 CAN malfunction. I find that a much more likely way to lose one based on evidence.

ETA: At Redflag when a dogfight was FORCED the F-22 was the equal of the best Eurofighter, the Typhoon. They had to force a dogfight because otherwise the F-22 destroyed the Typhoon every time without being detected.
edit on 22-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


No, my assertion is NOT that they will win. It's that the F-22 is not the be all, end all, oh my god military weapon that everyone makes it out to be. Yes, it's a very formidable weapons system, but that doesn't mean that it's invincible or that everything is going to work out every time, and that it's never going to have to dogfight, or get shot down.

Yes, we know MOST of the Chinese tactics, but I'll almost guarantee that they have tactics that we don't know about and equipment we don't know about. Just like when we exercise, we don't allow our pilots to use 100% of the aircraft's EW capabilities, so that we have an advantage.

And at Red Flag Alaska, the Raptor had days when the Luftwaffe had "Raptor Salad" for lunch. When we get into WVR, the Raptor has certain disadvantages. The F-117 and B-2 were supposed to be the be all end all weapons systems of their times, and yet, there are ways to find them, and they've been tracked when they should have been very hard to.

The Chinese don't even have to force them to get in close. What happens if there is a problem with the long range missiles? The AIM-120C-7 and D is having a lot of problems right now, so what if that happens in a shooting situation? They will have to close in to use short range systems, which means there's more chance of them being tracked.
edit on 9/22/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/22/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yes, it is. It is not invincible, but it's by far the most impressive thing flying the skies. Raptor Salad is laughable. Their actual claim is they were evenly matched ina dogfight.

If the F-22 has a malfunction in it's weapon systems it returns to base, it does not engage in a risky dogfight.

You're trying too hard.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I'm not trying too hard at all. The Raptor has flaws, everything has flaws.

The problem with the AIM-120 isn't with the weapons system, it's with the missile itself, and it's undetectable until the missile is fired. So if you were flying an F-22, and had a problem with one missile, you would return to base, and say your weapons system malfunctioned?

Regardless of what the Raptor or German pilots have to say about the Red Flag Alaska results, there are situations that the Raptor eventually WILL find itself in, where it's vulnerable. No weapons system is perfect, or invincible and the Raptor is no exception, regardless of what the fanboys would have us believe.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You do the same thing you do if you miss. You launch another. The malfunction is not 100%. If you run into a scenario where you have 0% chance to engage at long range you return to base. If you do not have 0% chance you keep engaging at long range. I really do not understand your point. You seem to be suggesting that they can still launch at long range, but should engage in a dogfight. I don't know how to respond to that.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


My point is that there are situations where they can attempt to engage at long range, but are unable to, which would require them to close the range. If they were trying to protect an AWACS for example. Let's say that the F-22 is down to only a couple of AMRAAMs, and there are more than two targets. You can't leave the AWACS, and you don't have any wingmen capable of engaging at long range. You have to close the range, and engage at close range. That's just one way that you could see an F-22 in a WVR engagement.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


And as I said, I find it more likely an F-22 crashes than all these other events coincide. And once in a dogfight the F-22 is equal to the worlds best fighter.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


An AWACS is an extremely high value target, and anyone we're fighting is going to do everything they can to kill one. That means that the odds of finding an F-22 in a dogfight trying to protect one are actually fairly good.

Yes, the F-22 is a good dogfighter, but there are design choices that were made that mean that it's not as good as it could be, and like anything else in the air, once in a dogfight, it can lose just as easily as win. It's not the be all, end all of the aviation world.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
You guys act like the F-22 will be by itself out there. lol Dont you think there will be a flight of them? Have you ever seen a fighter in combat flying by itself without a wingman? So what if a long range missle malfunctions. Your wingman fires his. If that one malfunctions? Well you have two F22's going to the dogfight, not just one. In my 200 plus combat sorties on a KC-135 over Iraq and Afghanistan, I have never ever seen a fighter by itself in combat.


Edit: Believe it or not we had fighter support once in Iraq. Tankers are considered HVAA as well, just like AWACS. Our fighter support had to do with a dumb ass pilot flying into Iranian airspace on "accident" with Iran launching fighters towards Iraq. Of course, they turned around at the border, but it was pretty cool to see fighters protecting ya.
edit on 22-9-2012 by boomer135 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


We're going in circles, you are making baseless assumptions, and just seem to want to disparage the F-22 while making statements that have nothing to do with what I am saying. Have a good night.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


I am well aware that there will be more than one F-22, and there will be F-15s and F-16s, and F-18s and others out there as well. My point is that there are going to be times when the F-22 WILL get into a WVR fight, no matter how hard they try not to. Combat is unpredictable, and in a massive fight, there's no telling what's going to happen.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


What, just because I say that the F-22 isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread? I don't care how hard you try, if you're talking about a major battle in the air, sooner or later, a Raptor will be required to get into a dogfight.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


No, because I never said the F-22 is invincible. It's the best, most sophisticated, deadliest thing in the skies. It will dominate the Chinese if they went head to head. End of story. Why would you chain a hunter killer to an AWAC? If you wanted support you'd toss in fighters meant for that role, that is not the F-22. Anything is possible in war. Some things more likely than others. You keep just creating scenarios that point to the outcome you want. You have zero facts that support positions so you have to create a position to support what you want to be fact.

ETA: You do realize the F-22 is designed to launch missiles at speeds greater than an AWAC can even travel. Tying an F-22 to an AWAC would completely negate the entire purpose of the F-22.
edit on 22-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


That's because there ARE no facts to show that the F-22 will dominate the Chinese, or that the Chinese will beat it. All we have are possible scenarios that could pop up.

Yes, the F-22 was designed for certain missions, but we've all seen how the commanders can screw things up and use the wrong weapons for the wrong missions. Why use infantry, or a Bradley, when you have an M-1 handy. Heh.

The F-22 used the right way, will be a formidable weapon system, but there's no guarantee that it will be used the right way, or that it won't get into a situation where it's in a hell of a fight. That's combat.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


These are the Chinese you know that's what it is. With the US and it's constant satellite service to the best place to hide and manufacturer a huge air force is underground.

We know the Chinese military industrial complex hit Lockheed-Martin. We are seeing one of the reasons why, its look alot like the F-22 as someone previously mentioned.

And as for people talking about Chinese quality.. they know exactly what their doing. You pay cheap money for it, your going to get a cheap product be it made in China or America. Porcelain anyone?
edit on 22-9-2012 by cenpuppie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You're right, if the F-22 is used wrong, sent out with no weapons and told to crash into the enemy it will suffer heavy losses. As I said, I'm done.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Of course, because that's the ONLY way that we'll lose any in combat. Just like every other game changing weapon system the US has ever used, it'll work perfectly every time, and will never get into a situation where it's going to get shot down.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Zaphod,

What problems have been occurring with the AIM-120D? I wasn't aware of this model, I'm impressed that it has a 100nm range.

I've always wondered why the phoenix missile was abandoned, without a 100nm AAM to take its place.

Seems to me that you don't need fancy jet technology when one can dominate airspace with a long range AAM.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


The Pheonix developed cracks around the fins, and engine casing. The longer they were left in storage, the more susceptible they were to the cracks. And they were actually relatively easy to avoid at long range, if they were fired at just one or two targets. They were designed to be fired into large flights of aircraft.

The AIM-120C-7 and D are having serious engine problems. The engines made by ATK are suffering a fairly high rate of failures during testing. The Air Force has withheld over $600M in payments to Raytheon, because they as of March of this year, they were almost 200 missiles behind on deliveries. Raytheon is working with a Norweigan company to develop a second motor that would be interchangeable with the ATK motor, but the Air Force won't pay them until deliveries are back on track. I just read an update that says that deliveries are slowly resuming, but not at the speed they should be yet.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


At least Zaphod knows what he is talking about, and not claiming the superiority of some one off like the Su-47 demonstrator. The biggest weakness of the F-22 is that there were only 187 built, and how many left after crashes(that damn oxygen problem...) The worst mistake those idiots in Congress made is diverting funding from the AF and Navy to the Army. I am not aware of any rumors of a follow on model to the 22, though I am sure MLUs are planned, and perhaps we will see them crank out 300 more in the near future. I can only hope and pray.

Meanwhile, I am very nervous about the 35, which handles like a pig. There has been talk of Dog Fighting being dead and gone since the early 60s, but it will never happen. I am very worried about our future capabilities, unless that B-1 Missile truck idea was more than a Popular Science/Mechanics fantasy.

I still do not see the PLAAF as much of a threat in the near future. The J-10 is a nice first real indigenous effort, though not completely of their own making(Hey, thanks again Israel, you guys are the best friends a guy could ask for!).
But my main issue with the last page of discussion is that there will still be knife fights, this talk of long range has been going on for decades, and when the real missiles start flying you get a visual or hear a FOX 2 call before all is said and done. I KNOW its only a simulator, but I play a lot of Falcon 4, and when you launch a 120 at a plane with inferior avionics, if he survives you will eventually find him skimming treetops and flying through mountain passes, and your only option will be to launch a Sidewinder or close in with the 20mm. One of my favorite memories was during such a situation, I was at 2,000 feet listening to my wingman call out his position, I couldnt find anyone on my radar and was playing with the modes flying level when suddenly I see a Mig-21 fly out in front of me, followed by my wingman in a tight turn bleeding off speed, caught in a Rolling Scissors. I radioed my wingman to break it off, and he was quick enough that I was able to get the MIG in the boresight and nail him with the AIM-9. Yes, it was just a game, but it is impossible to knock out everything in the sky from 80 miles away.

Questions about the F-35:
Zaphod, I know the thrust/weight of the 35 is roughly 1.0 thanks to one hell of an engine, but being the only 5th gen to lack thrust vectoring, how would it hold up in a dogfight? I am sure a Rafale or Typhoon would have no trouble taking it out WVR, In fact, though I admit my knowledge on the subject is very limited, I would hazard a guess that a Block-30 and up F-16 would even have a maneuvering advantage. How far off am I?
edit on 23-9-2012 by steppenwolf86 because: clarification





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join