wrightwingChief Test Pilot, Paul Metz is not a typical frontline pilot, who does operate the ordinary F-22A with 1 st FW f.e. 😎
Paul ” Max” Moga an operational F-22 instructor pilot and the Air Combat Command’ s F-22 Single-Ship Demonstration Team Pilot assign. 😎
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper ended two weeks of training here Jan. 12, flying his qualification flight in the F/A-22 Raptor. 😎
While Paul Metz joined the F-22 program immediately after the YF-23 lost the ATF … But I *Think* John Beasley(sp?) was origionally a YF-23 p ..:cool:
Make your mind about that, whom of those you will ask about something critical related to the F-22 program?!
My point is all of these pilots have flown the F-22, and have performed the various feats previously mentioned- hence their comments about it.
wrightwingDear wright, you seem to have a problem with reading things in context, bolded messages apart and claims of misquote apart. I did not misquote anything DJC said, and I was correcting the basis on which DJC made the statement above. Which apparently you do not even understand but are rushing to reply, again and again and again.
DJC made the statement that the APG-63 has 80% of the range of the Irbis-E and on that basis said Irbis/Bars will have same problem as APG-63 – the Irbis is substantially more powerful and is actually in the class of the APG-77 (non LPI full mode). So to state that the Bars and Irbis will have the same problem of visual range lockon, based on the above assumption would be wrong.
Simply put there is no data on this aspect and will not be until the situation occurs. There can be estimates however, that the F-22A should be good enough to avoid lockon at long BVR ranges, for now, from existing legacy radar sets. Extrapolating that to radar performance within WVR from sets which differ substantially in performance is unwise.
Hope you understand this time.
A-In post #129
you said-
“Dear LmRaptor, reread what Djcross wrote. You misquote the exact point I was addressing.
He said that it was not possible for the Irbis to detect (lets even leave discussion of what mode the Russians are talking about) a 3Sq Mtr fighter target at 350-400 km, citing a totally different GBAD component as proof. Second, he said the Irbis E range is 80% of the APG-63“
I corrected you.
B-No one is disputing that the Bars/Irbis have greater capability than early APG-63s. The point is that at that range their advantages aren’t going to be significantly better. What’s important here is that there isn’t much return for even a powerful A/A radar to pick up.
wrightwingThe main advantage of the F-22A and F-35 are still the stealth-capability and the related avionics. With that in mind, both are in a class of their own.
All the other claims about the flying abilities are questionable to stay polite.
So General Jumper, Major Moga, Paul Metz, John Beasley are questionable sources?
wrightwingNothing better than a bunch of forum enthusiasts taking over the expertise positions of Sukhoi in designing stealthy airframes. :rolleyes:
Yep- with their long line of previous stealth air frames, who could possibly question their expertise?:D
wrightwingDear Wright, would you kindly stop “interepreting” DJC’s thoughts for him (btw, his last post is making me think a lot, but thats the way he is, valuable and packed full of info, when he hits the home run!!).
You are again not reading what I wrote, and what I was referring to. I addressed the specific points, and I also made it clear about what Irbis-E/Bars will face in terms of challenge.
I wasn’t interpreting what he said. I was correcting your misquote. If you look back to page 4 response #104, he said-
“APG-63 has about 80% of the claimed range of Irbis-E. If APG-63 couldn’t lock an F-22 at visual ID range, the Irbis will be a little better, but not significantly better.”
Then I reiterated what he said-(notice the theme)
“I think the point being made is that if an APG-63 can’t spot you at visual range, then it’ll be challenging for Bars/Irbis to do as well.”:cool:
wrightwingIt is a little bit pity, that such overhyped claims will not revealed in time to blame those posting that.
When all all data are true for a frontline F-22A, the ones sticking to the F-35 have to be brought to court. 😀
I’m not sure I understand your response. In any event they are from actual pilots, Aviation Week, various Air Force magazines, etc…
Like I said, feel free to believe them, or remain skeptical, but the figures are coming from reputable sources. I’m not really sure what this has to do with the F-35 or the J-10 though.:cool:
wrightwingDear Wrightwring,
which is wrong.
Besides, reading helps. Please read his earlier posts as well about his estimate of Irbis-E range. It is way incorrect.
Incorrect. The Bars is much superior to Irbis according to reports. The Irbis is much superior to Bars. While this does NOT mean the Irbis can lock onto F-22A. It does means your train of though is a non sequitur.
They would be comparable to Bars.
It wasn’t my train of thought first of all, so there were no non sequiturs. I was correcting a misquote(the correct quote was what I posted above- the misquote was that the Irbis had 80% of the APG-63’s range). I think the point being made is that if an APG-63 can’t spot you at visual range, then it’ll be challenging for Bars/Irbis to do as well.
wrightwing…this was my point I believe? That the reason having the IRST on top is an advantage is because it allows it to fly low and use it at the same time?
If it’s flying low, its missiles suffer great kinematic performance degradation. Additionally, the Irbis will have much shorter radar horizon at low level, offsetting its advantages.
wrightwingLOL, name me one single person on this forum that actually HAS a clue about what he’s talkin about when it comes to the F-22. 😉 Yeah, many Raptor fans try to look very convincing when they talk about the Raptor’s advantages but this talk hardly includes more value than those Indo-Pakistani debates.
What MadRat says actually could make sense. I, for one, am not ashamed to say that I got no clue whether Raptor’s stealth is also optimized for seeker freuqencies or not.. Do you know?
It is true that nobody here knows the true specs on the Raptor(or are at least prohibited by law from divulging them), but….one can start to put a picture together of some of the capabilities(even if they’re not the absolute max capability). Now if one chooses to believe or disregard anecdotal evidence from F-22 pilots(or F-15/16/18, etc..pilots going up against them), is up to them. A few things that have been released open source are-
F-15s(and their weapons) unable to detect/get a lock, when they could physically see the Raptor.
The Raptor’s LPI modes didn’t set off any RWR/ESM of OPFOR aircraft(or if it did, not in time to prevent them from getting killed), and with a range in the neighborhood of 125-150miles against a 1m2 target(and even greater in non-LPI mode).
M 1.7-1.8 supercruise speeds
1600+mph top speed
>9g (there was one youtube clip where MAJ. Max Moga reportedly pulled 12.8gs)
28deg/sec sustained turn rate
30deg/sec yaw rates
Pretty much unlimited AoA/post stall maneuvering
ALR-94- the most sophisticated EW/ESM on any combat aircraft, reported to have a 1180km range w/ 360deg coverage.
One can come to their own conclusions, but this gives a lot of insight into what kind of plane the Raptor is.
wrightwingAWACS Nations: USA, Singapore, Iran, Taiwan, Israel, France, UK, Russia, Egypt, NATO, Saudi Arabia, China, India, Brazil, Greece, Mexico, Japan. New members to the club are UAE and Pakistan.
A-How many of these are threat nations?
B-How many AWACS do these threat nations have?
wrightwingAnd your point is? Or are you just saying random stuff?
It sounds like he was trying to dismiss the notion that the F-35 would be limited in speed due to the engine bypass ratio.
wrightwingEven 2 of the large missiles give it (T-50) something the Raptor can’t do.
What other nation has the number of AWACS/etc… that the USAF/USN have? There wouldn’t be many targets for the Raptor to require an anti-AWACS missile, as the most likely threat nations have very limited assets in this regard.
On the other hand, the Raptor could get much closer than a Flanker(to a high value asset), should the need arise(and the AIM-120D could still reach out to the 180-200km range).
wrightwingYep. Look at the frequencies an active radar is going to be using. At least as high if not higher than your average fire control radar. Right in the sweet spot. It’d be pretty fookin’ retarded to spend all that money on stealth and completely forget to do anything about the most dangerous radars (active seekers). 😀
Which is what the anti-stealth crowd would have everyone believe the engineers that designed it did.
wrightwingYou mean 10,000 lbs more thrust?
The Flanker’s engines are in the 31,000lbs/ea. range. The Raptor’s are in the 39,000+lbs/ea. range. Depending on what that + really is, that means at a minimum, the Raptor has a 16,000lb thrust advantage.
wrightwingDrag from missiles is over-estimated, Eurofighter do M1.5 clean and M1.3 under operational conditions with 6-8 missiles.
MiG-25 do M3.2 but is restricted to a mere M2.8 on operations.
Why ? is it because it cant go past M2.8 with missile loadout ? – No, its because the engine get too hot and wastly reduce lifetime.
Probably, at least for the forseable future, but it aint a IRST in terms of range.
No Foxbat(interceptor variant) has ever gone M 3.2 with a combat load.
Sign In
