Cola1973All of your claims suggesting that all of the positive stories/anecdotes are all false, rigged, staged, exaggerated, etc… would lead one to come to the conclusion that there must be a vast conspiracy. How else could it perform as well as the USAF, USN, USMC, foreign exchange pilots, etc… say that it does? It couldn’t possibly be all of the R&D that was involved in its design(which dwarfs the budgets other manufacturers have had at their disposal). So at some point in time you have to look at the variety of sources claiming how well it works, and draw conclusions, or dismiss it as a huge cover up. I’m not claiming that the exchange ratios against Rafales and Typhoons would be anything like those against F-15s and F-16s, but…if it were only at parity or marginally better, then they wouldn’t be nearly as lopsided against the legacy fighters either. Since we can’t review classified info and use that to debate with, we can only draw inferences by what can be observed.
You see Ww, that’s the trouble with you…now, I’ll try to be as mild as possible…
The thing is, you have very little/none knowledge of the matters we’re discussing here and then it’s easy to make you believe things that are several orders of magnitude out of proportion and physical possibility, without you even noticing that something is wrong.
There’s this story of a pair of F22s shooting down 20+ Hornets on Red side, in a single sortie!
I guess you never thought of with what weapons?…and F22’s “combat jacket” is filled with such nonsense.
How is ti possible to mount an intelligent discussion, when ppl actually believe this and are even trying to defend that as some kind of truth?
Then you go about F16 isn’t anything like EF (although just a few posts ago, you put Su27 and EF and F16 in the same group).
Both are planes, have wings, engine(s), sensors, weapons, etc…
There are differences, but I find it interesting you can’t tell them.
Anyway, EF did ~50:1 against legacy fighters (F15), as well.
No one suggests that 100 EFs can win a war against 5,000 F15s.
Are you saying that 180 F22s, can win a war against 20,000 J10s, or F16s??
Cola1973What are you talking about?
What conspiracy?
I’m asking questions, but I’m not getting any answers.
There’s a reason for that…
Anway, you’re very creative and have a million and one combination and semantic trick.
Too bad, those don’t win battles…
As repeated countless times before, learn how does things work, first.
Cola1973I’m referring to USAF/F-22 pilot claims, not LM claims.
I know… 😀
If it had been a missile vs missile fight, the Rafales would’ve had an even harder time.
And you know that out of your extensive combat experience?
I mean, you sound very adamant…
USAF, USN, USMC pilots
Any non-US hardware/personnel, involved?
If the Rafale or Typhoon is using comms/datalinks, the ALR-94 can still detect them passively, and provide targeting info.
Who lied you so bad?? 😀
The F-22 can use LPI to spot them at much greater distances than their IRSTs can spot the F-22, get the first shot off(and take a risk of detection). Even if their RWRs alert them that something’s out there, the F-22 can still stay far enough away, that neither their radar nor IRST can provide a firing solution. It’s exact location will still be a mystery since it won’t be continuously emitting, and can scan very quickly for target updates, and then go silent again.
…and Bruce Willis can fly to an asteroid using superspace shuttle, drill an 800ft hole, put a nuke inside and then detonate it to split it up and save the Earth. 😀
Cola1973I suppose you’ll be happy to provide evidence of the F-22 achieving only parity with these aircraft, when not even the manufacturers make such claims.
No I won’t, because we’ve been through this many times before.
Your attitude shows me, nothing changed on your part…no offense.
Manufacturer’s claims are irrelevant, in the sense you think they’re relevant.
Are you saying the French pilots gave less than their best effort?
No.
What I’m saying is that French pilots may have chosen to use missiles and more than “one on one” type of exercise, if they had anything to say. 😉
I’m not referring to a specific exercise. I’m referring to specific claims, that pilots tried flying supersonic at high altitudes, widely separated, extreme low altitudes, etc vs. the F-22, and none of those tactics changed the outcome.
French pilots?
Cola1973Flanker, Fulcrum, F-15, F-16, F-18, Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, Mirage 2000, etc….
Tell me Ww, where did you read this specific piece of information amalgam, or you came to this using your own thinking process?
Is such attitude accepted and official on USAF’s academies, or other military schools and units, or is it just you?
It wasn’t the TVC that gave the F-22s an edge though, and I seriously doubt the French agreed to make the F-22 look good.:rolleyes:
Well Ww, the French didn’t have much to say in this, did they?
It was take it, or leave it, type of exercise.
Cola1973In a platform vs. platform fight, with no AWACS/GCI or other support, the F-22’s opponent is at an even greater disadvantage.
Which opponents?
Do they have a name?
By scoring against Rafales twice at zero losses, the F-22 has proven that it is arguably the best fighter today.
Actually, it didn’t.
1vs1 guns only, was another exercise carefully designed to push F22 into an advantageous situation, where Rafale’s lack of TVC gave F22 the edge, particularly on defense.
That “one” for F22…well, who knows what it really looked like…
Anyway, many vs. many missiles allowed, would immediately change the picture, but I doubt USAF would like it.
Cola1973And just what do you envision doing that(especially considering you’d have AWACS, AESA equipped F-15s with IRSTs, F-35s, etc…all sharing info with F-22s, in the time frame you’re talking about)?
:p
Ww, the topic here is an F22, not the USAF.
If you want to go down that road, then we can then add commandos polluting water, effectively grounding the entire wing in the airbase, even before a single plane took off, f.e.
“:P” is supposed to be a smart emphasis, to you otherwise extremely intelligent comments? 😀
Cola1973Not when the Raptor can see them first, and kill them(i.e. AMRAAMs can be enroute before the Raptor is in IRST range).
Yes well, its the same situation with the F22, when gets bounced.
In other words, nobody is going to sneak up on a Raptor.
😀
IRST will only assist their odds, because no other air force is going to be able to compete on a systems level with the USAF.
and for the end, some more commercial messages. 😀
Cola1973Under very specific circumstances, but the likelihood of them knowing about the Raptor, and it not knowing about them is pretty slim.
That’s very debatable and is significantly different than you previous assertion:
No legacy plane is going to be firing BVR against an F-22 in the first place(or 5th gen for that matter).
the point wasn’t about the top speed…
Anyway, why making false claims?
…It was that the F-22 had speed advantages, as well as signature advantages. That’s all that matters.
What does the F22’s signature have to do with top speed?
Cola if we are going to doubt everything published, then let’s be consistant. Lets agree to never believe anything unless we see it on film. In this cAse we see the F-22 going post stall. I want to see a typhoon do the same.
The assertion in question is beyond doubt, false.
No need to generalize.
Cola1973Because in order to fire at a BVR target, you must first see that target.
And they can’t??
As for the 28 deg/sec at 20,000ft- that came from Col. Fornoff giving figures that can be found in Janes.
ROFL…
You have an uncanny ability to miss the point, which was that the Raptor is a faster plane whether cruising, or when it comes to dash speeds. The other poster had said that the only advantage the F-22 had was low observability, so please try to keep up, and offer commentary that is germaine to the discussion.
Ww, you’re comparing practical to theoretical speed:
Top speed Typhoon M2 F-22 M2.4+
When or where you saw an F22 flying M2.4, or whom did you hear flying in an F22, that fast?
(this is why I gave theoretical speeds for comparable fighters in my preceding post, but you obviously turned “on” your uncanny ability to miss the point, again. :D)
Cola1973No legacy plane is going to be firing BVR against an F-22 in the first place(or 5th gen for that matter).
Why?
Do they (fighters) have some kind of a private (intergenenerational) NonAgressionPact? 😀
Yes
Source?
If Paul Metz isn’t accepted as a knowledgeable source on this matter, then there’s no point in even having a discussion.
LOL, you can’t be serious?!
EF M2.3+
Rafale M2.3+
Delta Mirages M2.XX+
Who cares?
Those aren’t operational speeds.
Cola1973There’s no comparison to the target tracking, scan speed, jam resistance, simultaneous modes, EA, etc.. between the CAPTOR and the APG-77.
How about beam distortion at offbore angles over 45° to maintain A-pole, THE issue in ANY BVR combat?
Can the Typhoon sustain 28 deg/s, and >60 deg AoA?
…and F22 can?? 😀
Top speed Typhoon M2 F-22 M2.4+
Some more, LOLs…care to back that up with something solid, or more “anecdotal” evidence?
Cola1973Erm F-22, and the F-35A & F35C appear to be OK.
Are they?
Have A and C passed same tests?
I thought the B is first to go through this, but I’m not sure…
Anyway, surprise, surprise…how could anyone expect the unexpected?! 😀
Cola1973Finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics and RCS analysis all rely on mesh models, where the fineness of the mesh depends on the criticality of the feature being modeled.
Kids today make video games, precise enough to make an approximation of the plane’s shape, down to one order of magnitude.
This is why DoD/LM should have kept F35 hidden, if they didn’t want such details to come out.
Anyway, computers here are used to find an optimal shape between RCS and aerodynamic requirements, without making numerous mock ups.
That speeds up and cheapens the process, but if one can’t calculate a design because it can’t be calculated, then it doesn’t matter, how powerful his computer is.
Cola1973Oh yes you can. A curved surface is nothing more than an infinite number of plain surfaces. With enough computing power you can very much calculate how a curved surface can reflect radar waves.
Do not forget that the F-117 looked the way it looks, because the computers of the time lacked the power to calculate the RCS behaviour of a more complex shape.
If the surface is being derived, it means it isn’t curved, no matter how small the derivations are.
You can’t have curve (integral) and facet (derivation). Period.
Computing power hasn’t anything to do with F117’s look, since ppl calculated integrals and derivations, way before any computers came online.
Computing power is a hollow argument, simply because there’s nothing preventing C.Kopp from using that same computing power to recursively calculate F35’s RCS from different aspects.
Sign In
