Congrats Steve! I will definitely be buying your book now that I am on holiday! It’s definitely appreciated that we now have access to information about such AC that comes from professionals and not fanboys.

Lol he is briefed with a lot more sensitive and accurate data than we are – he is almost certainly aware of just what C-7 can and can’t do! His opinions are therefore based on better intel than ours! But the point is all he said was he claimed he beat 4 adversaries – he never said he beat 4 EFs or Gripens or Rafales lol! He was likely refering to the F-15! He never said HE IS SUPERIOR – he isn’t GENERALISING! IT is his opinion on the otherhand that NO OTHER aircraft can do what he did – and he is basing it on his own personal knowledge and experience – which is more than I can say for either of us! Get rid of your silly grudge against the F-22 – the professionals don’t believe its unbeatable – nor do I – and you shouldn’t get bothered by the fanboys – but it has been beating aircraft 4 vs 1 – 6 vs 1 – 8 vs 1 – fact! Additionally if the F-22 can get WVR of F-15 radars and latter gen AESA F-15 radars as the US claim without being detected! AMRAAM Pk go’s up significantly – as NEZ shots become a certainty! So if the F-22 as the USAF predict can do this vs other “4th-4.5gen” jets its AMRAAM Pk should rise aswell! What happens in the game of 4th gen + EW vs ECCM is classified – but C-7 and Ds have had a big portion of their R&D devoted to this – so again – we don’t know what happens here – and there are other ways of skinning a cat again – not just using the missiles terminal seeker!

Your remark is just another input. Where did I say universally? That’s your interpretation and I certainly didn’t mean that. For example, it’s pretty obvious that the older F5 with it’s small radar, won’t see F22 on 30 km. I though it’s pointless to emphasize that, but it seems I was wrong…

Look if you had used the words I think – the F-22 would become detectable or the chances are – implying its your OPINION – I wouldn’t have a problem with it. From US literature – it seems the F-15s struggle to pick it up at 30km – infact the US imply that its picked up at much lower distances – SO IN MY OPINION it might be safe to assume the F-5 would struggle picking up a headon F-22 at anywhere near 30km!

There was an article (High Rider) EF being able to lock onto F22 at surprisingly long range, but I don’t go around quoting it.
When I spoke of ground hugging, I meant beam riding, because else is pretty much useless.
Again, that’s obvious too…

Yes I think the story was broken by AV week , but I didn’t know it was (High Rider). While I do believe, unlike many admires of both the F-22 and the Eurofighter, that the two have tangled – I don’t believe the actual rumours – for starters F-22s fly with lunesburg lenses and drop tanks – which probably give the JETs a bigger RCS than an F-15 – we also don’t know the ROE, or the aircraft aspect! There has also been official denials which add doubt to the rumours and additionally both sides have traded blows with both claiming relative success!

With the EF camp admitting that the F-22s dominate the majority of BVR. While the EF dominates most of WVR – but don’t underestimate the lethality advantage ASRAAM has over F-22 AIM-9Ms – its significant – so again drawing any conclusions is speculation at best.

Well, F22 has radar only, doesn’t it? And it needs to look/shoot down most of the time, doesn’t it?

AN/ALR-94 can cue the AMRAAM…. one of the ways to skin a cat.

Agreed and this is the first thing you wrote that makes sense. Mistake on my part. Cd (gross, total, or whatever) is often referenced as just “drag”, meaning sum of coeffs, but I believe I remember from school, drag being a force.

Finally we are on the same page ;)!!!!

>>I never said, or implied that you are a little $hit and even personally, I don’t think so.<<

You claimed I twisted your words which I didn’t!

After I make a review of your posts, can’t help but remember a guy from Alan Ford (think it was a ZOO Symphony episode), that works for an electric company and goes around and cuts electric current cables of those who didn’t pay the electricity bill. So, one day he arrives to Alan Ford and cuts his candle in half, because there’s no more cables to cut. 😀

Cheers

I wasn’t talking about any specific weapon, but AMRAAM in general, since it has been the only figure given. I don’t care about C7 or C77 or C777.
Modern missile, modern ECM, got it? And where did the C7 actually experienced combat firing?

Heard that one before. What model am I fanboy of, btw?
It’s a kind of rhetoric that assumes that F22 is radar visible at 30km. Well, I may be wrong and F22 could have been actually detected in um wavelength (go figure, which sensor you need to use for that), sooner than on cm wavelength, but then hats off for F22’s LO features. 😀
Again, I never claimed that being the case, but just pointed that out as a possibility.

Didn’t have time to read it, but looking forward to learn how did the F22 solved the Doppler shift.
I agree, there’s more than one way to skin the cat, but I’ve been talking about this particular one, so don’t go around, talking about things that I didn’t say, or assume you know what I think and know.
It’s just plain obvious you have a grudge with me (being LmRaptor after all and i don’t blame you), but this is no excuse for twisting someones words and pulling unrelated stuff into the discussion. I balanced my words carefully and if you want to conduct a meaningful conversation, I’d suggest you do the same.

…”I study Aerospace Engineering”…sad…(sorry, but couldn’t help myself :D)…

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Transonic_Flow/TH19G5.htm
Pretty, straightforward…
And there’s an attachment. You should be able to see transsonic drag peak, translated into flight envelope curve…
As for your Yfrog curve, I generally have no objections about it, but…it managed to omit a slight (depending on aircraft) flattening part of the curve in the transonic region and that would be a transonic drag peak.

I don’t have a sentiment pro or against F22 or you. I do have one for stupidity, though.
But seriously correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t have any objections about that and I’m no egomaniac, since I didn’t put my background, as an argument.
However, first make sure that what you’re saying goes along with the facts.

Lol Cola – you are testing my patience lol – and If I hadn’t lost my girlfriend I’d probably ignore you – but your only making me more frustrated with your nonsense. Look I don’t want to come across as an egomaniac and I’m not sure if its your weak english, but you are talking some nonsense. Sorry If my “boasting” is putting you off but the fact of the matter is I study what we discussing – I have been examined and tested thoroughly.. while you clearly are an amateur who refuses to listen. While I’m not fully qualified with my masters yet – I am definitely learned enough to point out that you are wrong.

What you wrote in your rant:

With Pk=0.62 which has been derived from actual combat experience against technologically austere enemy (Iraq, Yougoslavia), the AMRAAM scored 62 hits in 100 launches ratio.

Where I went on respond with – I love how he gives an AMRAAM a pk thats based on a different variant of the missile . You were using this argument to undermine the F-22s A2A prowess by implying that the AMRAAM had a of 62%pk. Thats not the pk for the C7 – the F-22s AMRAAM and therefore your argument is flawed – so yes it DOES matter.

Again what you said was:

At that range F22 becomes visible and it complicates escape window (and survivability) exponentially and then there are still 4 enemies, to solve.

That range being 30Km – the F-22 becomes visible – is what you said. Now no one doubts that certain sensors will almost certainly pick the F-22 up at that range – but what you said was the F-22 becomes visible at 30km. To which I replied:Not to mention the fact that he knows the F-22 becomes visible on radar at 30km – universally.. The point being you can’t generalise – especially since we were refering to 4 enemy fighters – likely F-15s which have X band radars and don’t have IRST. There is a lot of US literature saying the F-22s often merge WVR without being detected by F-15s/F-16s – so again I was picking holes in your rant.

I agree, there’s more than one way to skin the cat, but I’ve been talking about this particular one, so don’t go around, talking about things that I didn’t say, or assume you know what I think and know.

Firstly this isn’t a Will Ferrell movie lol….

I balanced my words carefully and if you want to conduct a meaningful conversation, I’d suggest you do the same.

Read what you said above in both above quotes… you say you balance your words carefully? Well clearly you don’t because you definitely weren’t limiting the conversation to how capable the F-22 and therefore its radar is with overcoming ground hugging tactics. If you read what you actually said….

Then, there’s the issue of the flight level being limited for safety reasons, effectively cutting off, the most effective weapon against LO, the ground hugging. That goes for either offensive (ambush), or defensive (ride the beam and hide in the clutter) tactics. Turbofans spend less fuel in low level flight than F119.

Nothing there claiming you were restricting the conversation to how well the F-22s radar copes…….

To which I replied that there was a lot of USAF literature stating that ground hugging tactics from 500ft low have had no real success against the F-22. I even linked you to an article that stated it clearly – one you didn’t care to read lol. Well I will post the quote for you your highness :)…

“We had guys running in at 500 ft. off the deck,” Tolliver says. “We had guys flying in at 45,000-50,000 ft. doing Mach 1.6, trying to shoot me before I know they are there. They would mass their forces and try to win with sheer numbers. None of it worked.”

So in your effort to undermine the F-22, you twist your own words – say you were only talking about radars – say how its a big hinderance to the F-22 and claim I’m the the little $hit doing the twisiting. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I was only pointing out that the F-22 blokes seem pretty OK with the ground huggers despite what YOU claim.

What you said:

And there’s an attachment. You should be able to see transsonic drag peak, translated into flight envelope curve…
As for your Yfrog curve, I generally have no objections about it, but…it managed to omit a slight (depending on aircraft) flattening part of the curve in the transonic region and that would be a transonic drag peak.

Mate, this is not your area, clearly. Now I’m gonna attempt to explain it to you one more time… I might not be the best teacher but here goes. What you are looking at is not a transonic drag peak… Drag, COLA, is a force, measured in NEWTONS. What you are looking at is the transonic coefficient of drag peak – shown against Mach No. Now I corrected you earlier in the thread where you said that an aircraft has higher drag in the transonic region – that is false, wrong and incorrect! In general they have LOWER DRAG, but a HIGHER COEFFICIENT OF DRAG in the transonic region – and thats what you see in that graph you posted. My curve, although a shabby 2 second job, shows you what happens to the DRAG – the actual force experienced. Why is this the case, you ask? Its because Drag = 0.5*local air density*velocity of the aircraft*velocity of the aircraft*drag area*Coefficient of drag. Therefore while the Cd is higher at Mach 1 than it is at say Mach 1.4 – the aircrafts velocity is higher at Mach 1.4 and velocity its the dominant expression in the drag function as its not linear like the Cd as it’s a 2nd order expression – an expression that is raised to the power of 2! Thus in general for aircraft, the actual drag in force vs mach relation looks like the graph I posted in my previous post! Remember Cd is non-dimensional and is not the same as drag – and drag is not the sum of Cd’s.

What I have said is fact so pay heed.

Glad to amuse you. 😀
The Hornet’s kill against the F22, came from below the deck and has been commented as irregular (and if I misunderstood, I apologize)…

I didn’t give anything. USAF/DoD did…

Ah sorry, I forgot. “It won’t let me put my weapons on it”, right? 😀

Care to post a link to an article that explains how did the APG-77 solved Doppler screening? Really, I’m rather curious to read it.

…Well, I don’t want to patronize you, but you’re the guy that claims, the drag gets lesser, while drag coefficient gets higher.
Ok, English isn’t my native tongue, but as far as the available English literature goes, drag figure is a sum of all drag coefficients. Now, it seems to me you are the one that has problems, with grasping even simple things, let alone a stealth fighter concept…
Finally, my intention wasn’t to discredit USAF’s fighter and I apologize if I did. All I wanted is to point out some universal shortcomings of today’s technology (and F22’s too), that has often been omitted from official press releases, or interpreted in a biased way.
All those figures can be interpreted differently, but more importantly, they can be USED differently.
So, LmRaptor I agree. I am ranting, because the people who need to know these things, already know them and use that knowledge, no matter what I say…

Arrrgh I find this so tedious… I don’t know what you’re trying to say by the Hornet “kill” – funny now the Hornet does it and its a kill lol – but not when the F-22 does it – despite allegations from squadron commanders who say the F/A-18E violated ROE. But thats irrelavent – get back to the topic please.

With regard to your comments about the USAF giving pk results for the AMRAAM C-7 please link me too them being 62%.

“Ah sorry, I forgot. “It won’t let me put my weapons on it”, right?” I now understand I’m not dealing with anyone worth arguing with lol – aka a fanboy – what kind of retort is that….

“Care to post a link to an article that explains how did the APG-77 solved Doppler screening? Really, I’m rather curious to read it.” Don’t be so one-dimensionally ignorant… there are many ways to skin a cat and get a firing solution but I don’t care to speculate with someone who will make the whole process more tedious than it needs to be – I’ve done it with people in the know. But in short read this article before I lose my patience with you futher…. http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/documents/aviation_week_010807.pdf – It directly refutes your 500ft claim.

“…Well, I don’t want to patronize you, but you’re the guy that claims, the drag gets lesser, while drag coefficient gets higher.” Your not patronising me in anyway – your just demonstrating your not a professional I’m dealing with – and while I’ll forgive you for your poor english – I won’t for failing to understanding the basics, espcially when you talk so much and clearly know so little.

Your claim that you experience higher drag in the transonic realm of flight than above it is complete bol.locks – I will repeat – you experience greater drag above the transonic regime and if you want proof – go and do some research. I study Aerospace Engineering – I do this stuff day in and day out – and I’ve just written a bunch of exams and done a load of reports based on this in a Mach 1.8 supersonic wind tunnel as part of my degree. For simplicity D=0.5*p*(V^2)*S*Cd and while the Cd(which is linear) does indeed rise more so in the transonic regime – as I said – so does the velocity which isn’t linear in its relation to the drag equation and as a result a standard supersonic drag graph vs mach looks like this.. (please ignore its lack of quality – i just whipped it up to demonstrate to you the difference in drag between the transonic and supersonic realm)

http://yfrog.com/20draggraphp

Buy a new dictionary if you think DRAG a force in newtons is a sum of non-dimensional drag coefficients. Also comprehensive Cd in that equation should take into account the total drag of the aircraft – so please stop using (form) drag in your above posts – when you clearly don’t know what your talking about.

Oh and what you’ve written in your previous post displays nothing but ignorance and a very simplistic understanding of the topics at hand – wiki only goes so far 🙂 – so if you don’t understand why your wrong – I’m sorry but I don’t have time to correct you.

Also don’t mind me when you rant with your fanboyesq anti F-22 feelings – I don’t care – but when you start talking nonsense – if I have time – never fear – I will correct you.

Cheers