Irrelevant.

When the radar wavelength is of the order of the feature/target size, then you’ll get returns irregardless of shape and coatings.

The wavelength is too large to direct, it is too large to absorb. Basically, nowt you can do. [Well, maybe that plasma stuff would work, but thats way out of my field].

That radar may be able to detect the F-22, but will the frame of the F-22 reflect enough energy to let the system to accurately track the plane and provide a firing solution?

I find it hard to believe that the F-22 hasn’t been tested against the most powerful radars we have and the various frequencies and wavelengths possibly produced by radar systems. This was the most expensive part of the Raptor’s developement.

Truth be told, I’s be very, very surprised if these radars just rendered stealth obsolete without any testing against any fighter or bomber resembling the capabilities or construction the F-22 and B-2. The MiG 1.44 and S-37 have nowhere the amount of research, time, and development put into the Raptor. We still don’t know 60% of what it can do.

If anything, I’ll leave the stealth arguement up to djcross. I’m no expert on that either.

I think that supercruise will be used when there are definite targets in the area that need to be taken out quickly and efficiently with the least attention. It won’t be cruising supersonically on every mission.

Also, I could see the F-22 definitely using it during quick precision strikes with JDAMs or SDBs. When you can drop bombs at Mach 1.7 at over 50,000ft you have a pretty good advantage even without stealth.

Again, I don’t view it as the most important feature of the F-22. Obviously someone finds it important for what they plan to use the Raptor for. Like what’s been said before, we only know about 40% of what the Raptor can do. Dozer gave us a little more but he’s not going any further. From what he was saying the Raptor is even better than most in the USAF were expecting.

You know it is a ridiculous statement and plea, so ridiculous it sickens me, you are tring to claim victory and being right and blaiming others only because every body has different opinions, be a gentleman and learn to respect other people`s opinions closinga treath only because others have a different opinion is not the democratic way, it a dictatorial way of thinking

I’m not trying to claim victory over anyone. You have done this before in other threads MiG.

I’m not opposing your opinions. You came in here explictly stating what was wrong with the Raptor off the bat. What you think about the F-22 is different than the facts. Others gave you the facts and you refused to acknowledge them just like in the MiG-31 vs F-22 and MiG-23 vs F-14 threads.

I give up on this thread. Do as you want.

And that is not the reason the USAF`s F-22 went for thrust vectoring like the Su-37 and that is not the reaon why the F-22 performs cobras

Huh? The Raptor’s TVC system is more for supersonic manuevering than anything. It was a leftover from the early days of the ATF program where they needed it for STOL. Lockheed decided to keep it.

you are forgeting flying pairs of wingmen are tactics used by both sides and a pilot always will attack having not threat to his aircraft.

Again, you do not want to be caught going slow in a dogfight with more than one enemy in the vicinity(very likely).

Errr, define ‘big’. While undoubtedly an advantage, the claims about efficiency of supercruise in real combat are a pure guesswork of people involved.

On Russian aviation forums supermaneuvrability is presented as a decisive factor in aerial combat while supercruise is being downplayed. Here, supermaneuvrability is being downplayed and supercruise presented as the ultimate feature of all. And Flanker Fanboys and US-tech fans are fueling their ideas to the very extreme. And they all know sh!t about what is really decisive.

I don’t think that supercruise is the F-22’s ultimate feature and if it was that important, the F-35 would probably have something resembling it. I think that most of avionics suite that still pretty much over everyone heads and classified to the nth degree is the most important. That is something that the F-35 will have.

What’s really decisive is a combination of competent pilots, great planning and great equipment.

Oh yea, no ones desperate to get the Cobra out of the F-22. It’s got more in it than something that simple. 😉

Yeah, they just spent all that money on the fancy engines and aerodynamics for another bulletpoint on the PowerPoint presentation :rolleyes:

Hahaha… 😀

In terms of supersonic persistence there is no other air superiority fighter approaching the Raptor. The Flanker’s fuel capacity is not much bigger than the F-22’s and when in afterburner it sucks down gas like a supercharged H2.

Flex, by supercruise he meant flying at supersonic speeds without A/B which is its correct definition. And yes, it does give the Raptor a big advantage on the battlefield.

Thats something what i tryed to say you – on internal fuel even basic Su-30 can “supercruise” better than F-22.

The basic Su-30 can’t supercruise at all.

Internal payload might be okish for A2A mission (allthought even then 6 missiles total is not that great) but for a strike mission it just dont have enouth internal space for good payload. So you should either get bombs on external pilons and than your range suffers, or put external fuel tanks and then you are basicaly down to several small bombs with no missiles…

The Raptor carries 8 missiles on a normal A2A load. For a precision strike mission, 4 missiles and 2 1000lb JDAMs are fine and with 8 SDBs it will be better. That’s better than the F-117.

Its NOT adequate for such big & expencive plane, especeally if you consider what all these bombs replace A2A missiles.

Such a big and expensive plane? The Flanker is still the biggest fighter out there. All those bombs replace is 4 missiles. Not too big of a disadvantage.