PDA

View Full Version : Best Fighter



Pages : [1] 2

raptor1992
05 Jul 05,, 11:54
which is the best fighter?

indianguy4u
05 Jul 05,, 13:04
which is the best fighter?
Hate to say but F-22 is the top dog in today's ACs.
Of the rest
2] EF2000/rafale
3] Su-30 MKI

hammer
05 Jul 05,, 13:31
I think we should take F/A-22 raptor off the list.

dave angel
05 Jul 05,, 14:26
the F/A-22 is the best of the bunch because of its inherant manouverability, pilot-friendly cockpit and weapons suite. it would still be the best of the bunch even without its stealth capability.

the F-35 isn't a fighter, its a ground attack aircraft with a significant ability to defend itself and others.

the SU-47 and MiG-1.42 don't exist in any meaningful way, the first has been ordered but with major changes ie: swept back instead of swept forward wings which will massively affects its projected manouverability and the second hasn't been bought by anyone. at all.

the 'best fighter' is a concept for air-shows and little boys. the only fighter worth having is one flown by experienced and well-trained pilots, maintained by well-trained and motivated crews and with AWACS and tanker support and carrying the weapons needed to fulfil its role. anything else is a waste of taxpayers money leaving the ground.

highsea
05 Jul 05,, 16:12
"the SU-47 and MiG-1.42 don't exist in any meaningful way, the first has been ordered but with major changes"

SU-47 was a tech demon- there are no orders for the AC.

raptor1992
06 Jul 05,, 13:50
some people think Su-30MKI is the best fighter and belongs in the 5th generation. but 5th generation fighters are suppose to be stealthy. :biggrin:

hello
06 Jul 05,, 15:41
Su-47 Berkut and F-35 aren't pure fighters; they are multirole ground attack aircraft, the MiG-1.42 is gone, the Su-30 doesn't stand a chance against a raptor and forget the superbug. Thus the F/A-22 is by far the best of the lot. :)

indianguy4u
06 Jul 05,, 17:58
some people think Su-30MKI is the best fighter and belongs in the 5th generation. but 5th generation fighters are suppose to be stealthy.
Really?

But JXX should take the cake, b'coz chinese claim even before it is flight tested, JXX will beat F-22 hehehe :)

BenRoethig
07 Jul 05,, 05:32
Yeah the Raptor and Raptor Jr. (JSF) need to be taken off the list. It wouldn't be a fair fight.

raptor1992
07 Jul 05,, 07:48
yeah. or maybe i can take superhornet and flanker off. is there any other 5th generation aircraft other than F/A-22 and F-35 comfirmed

BenRoethig
07 Jul 05,, 14:56
MiG 1.42. That doesn't look like its getting built though. Everyone is more than happy to build gen4.5 machines because they are cheaper.

hello
07 Jul 05,, 16:21
MiG 1.42. That doesn't look like its getting built though. Everyone is more than happy to build gen4.5 machines because they are cheaper.

How is the Mig1.42 the best fighter? Its never been built or flown and is just a paper plane. It's surely not stealthy and its program has been scrapped. The Russians have preferred the Pak-Fa to it for a gen5 plane and without stealth it cant beat a Raptor. The closest Russian fighter to the F-22 to have entered service is the Su-35 which is more or less eurocanard level. ;)

molf48
09 Jul 05,, 06:57
F-22 is not prove to anybody that is the best fighter plane.. US always make excellent cinema FX using simulations to prove what? An F-22 can beat easy an F-15 (1:80).. It's simple the Lockheed must support the product that costs billion dollars for the US people.. I don't say that F-22 is an excellent plane, but is like soccer players that sign a contract of million euros, but they are just good players nothing else.. Also I am sure that F-22 can't shot down easy a Su-30 or a Su-35/37 before the russian plane able to hit F-22.. Now in close combat the posibility is shorter, I just give advantages to a Sukhoi super agilitities that we all see.. I am not sure if F-22 can beat an F-16 in close combat (?).. Same things to prove the superiority of EF2000 agains Russian fighters made from British.. But EF2000 is not able to do nothing that the british tells in a airshow (?) (1.F-22 2.EF2000 they said).. Russian fighter is very improve when the horizon with west opens, the only problem that russian planes have is past was the electronics staff, now this staff stop to be exist.. So? I believe the PAK-FA, will be also an excellent plane in same role with F-22 but still not be able to beat so easy fighter like Su-30/35.. So the best plane today.. maybe F-22 in BVR but Sukhois in close combat!

hello
09 Jul 05,, 13:12
F-22 is not prove to anybody that is the best fighter plane.. US always make excellent cinema FX using simulations to prove what? An F-22 can beat easy an F-15 (1:80).. It's simple the Lockheed must support the product that costs billion dollars for the US people.. I don't say that F-22 is an excellent plane, but is like soccer players that sign a contract of million euros, but they are just good players nothing else.. Also I am sure that F-22 can't shot down easy a Su-30 or a Su-35/37 before the russian plane able to hit F-22.. Now in close combat the posibility is shorter, I just give advantages to a Sukhoi super agilitities that we all see.. I am not sure if F-22 can beat an F-16 in close combat (?).. Same things to prove the superiority of EF2000 agains Russian fighters made from British.. But EF2000 is not able to do nothing that the british tells in a airshow (?) (1.F-22 2.EF2000 they said).. Russian fighter is very improve when the horizon with west opens, the only problem that russian planes have is past was the electronics staff, now this staff stop to be exist.. So? I believe the PAK-FA, will be also an excellent plane in same role with F-22 but still not be able to beat so easy fighter like Su-30/35.. So the best plane today.. maybe F-22 in BVR but Sukhois in close combat!

An F-22 can easily beat a Flanker, SuperFlanker, or Terminator in a BVR battle. It can detect the sukhois while not being detected itself and shoot down them before they can even get a lock. In WVR the F-22 is again better than sukhoys cause it can shoot them with AIM9x way before they can lock it as they would have to get really close to the raptor to make their IR missiles catch its low ir signature and they probably would be downed by then. :)
The Pak-Fa is half stealthy and like the f-35 is ground attack and isnt very maneuverable.

PS: The typhoon is about equal to the Su-35. ;)

ajaybhutani
15 Jul 05,, 08:05
An F-22 can easily beat a Flanker, SuperFlanker, or Terminator in a BVR battle. It can detect the sukhois while not being detected itself and shoot down them before they can even get a lock. In WVR the F-22 is again better than sukhoys cause it can shoot them with AIM9x way before they can lock it as they would have to get really close to the raptor to make their IR missiles catch its low ir signature and they probably would be downed by then. :)
The Pak-Fa is half stealthy and like the f-35 is ground attack and isnt very maneuverable.

PS: The typhoon is about equal to the Su-35. ;)
dude are u desiging PAK-FA?? for i dont think anything much in open source is avialable about the stealth level of PAK-FA.
About SU-35 how do u compare it to SU30 MKI.

Hk40
17 Jul 05,, 20:02
Clearly the F-22 Raptor! No argument.
~ Hk40 ~

-{SpoonmaN}-
18 Jul 05,, 06:26
Really?

But JXX should take the cake, b'coz chinese claim even before it is flight tested, JXX will beat F-22 hehehe :)

Maybe it will when it goes into production...in about 20 years.

-{SpoonmaN}-
18 Jul 05,, 06:33
Anyway the Raptor is dominant now, it's only serious disadvantage is that it costs too much. And it's possible some of the other aircraft would beat it at close range because it's stealth capabilities would be less useful against those russian missiles that are aimed by the pilot pointing his head at the target (I forget which excatly, there are so many russian AAMs I confuse them) and against guns, but it remains true that there wouldn't be many aircraft that would ever get close enough to the Raptor to use these weapons.

highsea
18 Jul 05,, 10:55
You're thinking of the R-73. The F-22 isn't without countermeasures, you realize. And the US did buy over 100 R-73's from Moldova. I think it's pretty safe to say we know how to deal with them.

It's worth noting that the Russian HMS is pretty basic compared to the JHMCS. The HMS is a sight only, while the JHMCS is a complete helmet mounted HUD system. This is significantly better than just a crosshair for cueing the missile. When the pilot switches to Sidewinders, the visor display comes up, and everything in the HUD is now displayed on the visor, so he can look away without losing SA, and all his tactical data stays in his field of view.

-{SpoonmaN}-
19 Jul 05,, 07:10
You're thinking of the R-73. The F-22 isn't without countermeasures, you realize. And the US did buy over 100 R-73's from Moldova. I think it's pretty safe to say we know how to deal with them.

Isn't that handy.

highsea
19 Jul 05,, 07:37
Altogether we got (IIRC) 21 MiG-29's, and over 500 AAM's- AA-8's, AA-10's, and AA-11's. This was about 6-7 years ago.

Cowboykiller
22 Jul 05,, 09:55
Those 5 people who voted for the SU-30 are either biased ( LOL India or Pakistan region I bet) or just plain silly. No fighter in the world can match the F/A-22...NONE!

An alien from another planet would choose the Raptor over the SU-30.

ajaybhutani
22 Jul 05,, 10:41
Those 5 people who voted for the SU-30 are either biased ( LOL India or Pakistan region I bet) or just plain silly. No fighter in the world can match the F/A-22...NONE!

An alien from another planet would choose the Raptor over the SU-30.
Are u from some dictatorial country .. its a free forum and people have a right to have an opinion.
i havent found an argument here in this thread or in this forum that can say that a F22 is better than buying 4 MKI's.(for thats what u get in the cost of an F22). For cost is one big factor along with the specifications.If the F22 was the best in all respect US wouldnt have been persuing the F35 program.

hello
22 Jul 05,, 14:48
The only way an Su30 is better than a Raptor is cost but a Raptor can destroy 4/5 Flankers cause they can't use tactics on somethig which they dont know is there. Su35 is slightly closer to the f22 but not a gen5 fighter. They are about equal to the Eurocanards.

ajaybhutani
22 Jul 05,, 15:35
The only way an Su30 is better than a Raptor is cost but a Raptor can destroy 4/5 Flankers cause they can't use tactics on somethig which they dont know is there. Su35 is slightly closer to the f22 but not a gen5 fighter. They are about equal to the Eurocanards.
and dude do u think that MKI is not as good as su35 or bettter then i guess u better do a recheck..
and saying that raptor can destroy 4/5 flankers dsnt make it capable of destroying 4/5 mki's as theres a lot of difference between the capabilities of the two with 3D TVC .better ECMs etc etc....comparing a normal flanker with mki isnt fair.The radars are the same for 35 and mki(i.e. only in case country buying 35 goes for that radar and russia lets him buy.. )...and in mki the radars procdessor is due to be replaced by and indian one soon to improve the radar. and that imporvement will not go in 35. I am amazed by ur analysis of mki as a simple flanker and su35 as closer to F22.Please recheck to correct urself or me (whosoever is at fault here).

Jonny555Biotch
22 Jul 05,, 16:23
and dude do u think that MKI is not as good as su35 or bettter then i guess u better do a recheck..
and saying that raptor can destroy 4/5 flankers dsnt make it capable of destroying 4/5 mki's as theres a lot of difference between the capabilities of the two with 3D TVC .better ECMs etc etc....comparing a normal flanker with mki isnt fair.The radars are the same for 35 and mki(i.e. only in case country buying 35 goes for that radar and russia lets him buy.. )...and in mki the radars procdessor is due to be replaced by and indian one soon to improve the radar. and that imporvement will not go in 35. I am amazed by ur analysis of mki as a simple flanker and su35 as closer to F22.Please recheck to correct urself or me (whosoever is at fault here).

Dude, i saw a show on History Channel, I think it was modern marvels or something, anyway, it showed the F-22 battling against 4-5 F-15s. The F-22 killed all of them. The F-15s weren't even able to touch it. So if one F-22 can take out 4-5 F-15s, then it can also take out 4-5 flankers or MKIs.

You can't fight what you can't see. ;)

kashifshahzad
22 Jul 05,, 17:45
Its really foolish to compare the F/A 22 with your SU30MKI you members know one thing that the US officials say that the 60% capebilities of this AC are not known by the people i have read that one F/A 22 flew to target 5 F-15's it targeted and then landed without even seen to the pilots of the F-15's now what is the thing which you want to compare in the SU30MKI's and the raptor :rolleyes: i think 3-4 will be not enough to knock one raptor you will need 30-40 :biggrin:

indianguy4u
22 Jul 05,, 18:42
kashif why dont u comment on fc-1. Leave mki for us indians.

kashifshahzad
22 Jul 05,, 18:58
kashif why dont u comment on fc-1. Leave mki for us indians.
Mate please leave the F/A 22 to the Americans why dont you discuss the MKI alone :(

indianguy4u
22 Jul 05,, 19:05
I am not an expert on AC. If u have any Qs on MKI, post it in MKI thread here. U will get ur answers i am sure.

ajaybhutani
22 Jul 05,, 19:43
Dude, i saw a show on History Channel, I think it was modern marvels or something, anyway, it showed the F-22 battling against 4-5 F-15s. The F-22 killed all of them. The F-15s weren't even able to touch it. So if one F-22 can take out 4-5 F-15s, then it can also take out 4-5 flankers or MKIs.

You can't fight what you can't see. ;)
1. And which F15 were they comparing it to.??Do u know that..
I have seen that show .. its readily available...and i wont call a reporters propoganda as anywhere near the real machines capabilities.. Its too stupid to just believe in blindly what they show in such shows.. u should come up with better arguments than this... if it was so easy to determine that F22 can take away 4/5 MKI's then people like HighSea would have already stated it clearly .If he says it i m ready to accept it any day for he knows a lot about aerospace and the capabilities and these machines but otherwise i need a much bigger proof than a show meant to be shown to general public..

ajaybhutani
22 Jul 05,, 19:52
Its really foolish to compare the F/A 22 with your SU30MKI you members know one thing that the US officials say that the 60% capebilities of this AC are not known by the people i have read that one F/A 22 flew to target 5 F-15's it targeted and then landed without even seen to the pilots of the F-15's now what is the thing which you want to compare in the SU30MKI's and the raptor :rolleyes: i think 3-4 will be not enough to knock one raptor you will need 30-40 :biggrin:
1. to kill 30 ?? raptor wont even have nough BVR missiles to kill more than 10/12 dummy targets. U cant kill two birds with a single shot.. .
2. do u even know what versions of F15 were used in it.
3. simulated nvironments are nowhere enar real combat. and planning and formation make a lot of difference in real combat.
4. if u believe that raptors only 60% capabilities are known u fail to realize that even indian govt would have kept some things about mki as secret.
Since u have read about this simulation please care to forward the link..??
HOW much of the details are given in it ??
Are u sure the results werent inflated before showing it to general public to make it easier for getting raptor production cleared from the congress. ??
Dude its not as easy as it seems.

brownboi4eva
22 Jul 05,, 21:08
As much as i am patriotic and want my air force to be the best i have to admit the F-22 is out of this world and will be the standard to judge future aircraft against...but to say that a F-22 will easily murder all the MKI's without any losses is another thing as our pilots arent camel jockeys either [COPE 2000]....But i do think after F-22, MKI is king.....cant wait till Pak-Fa comes out, then we will see the comparisions flying all over the place

Jonny555Biotch
22 Jul 05,, 22:03
1. And which F15 were they comparing it to.??Do u know that..
I have seen that show .. its readily available...and i wont call a reporters propoganda as anywhere near the real machines capabilities.. Its too stupid to just believe in blindly what they show in such shows.. u should come up with better arguments than this... if it was so easy to determine that F22 can take away 4/5 MKI's then people like HighSea would have already stated it clearly .If he says it i m ready to accept it any day for he knows a lot about aerospace and the capabilities and these machines but otherwise i need a much bigger proof than a show meant to be shown to general public..

I dont know a lot about airplanes, I have a lot to learn and you maybe right. I guess 4-5 MKIs or flankers may stand a chance or even beat the F-22. Its one opinion.

Unipidity
22 Jul 05,, 22:38
You can always find and exploit some asymmetry to fight a more capable enemy. But I really cant see how an F-22 could lose to 4 mki s in a head to head. A real head to head- ie with known starting locations. Not F22 vs 3 mki, until bingo fuel for F22, who then runs slap bang into the last one due to necessity and without any weapons left. ie an entirely artificial situation.

If you offered me, as an Air Chief Marshal, 400 mkis or 100 F22s (only), id go for the F22s in a heartbeat, as long as my country wasnt as big as Russia. Cant spread em too thin. Not only is the F22 probably going to be cheaper in lifetime terms than one would expect, you only need 1/4th of the pilots. Or you could double park the airframes to increase wartime efficiency. Is that feasible from a servicing pov?

indianguy4u
23 Jul 05,, 05:19
Real combact also includes tactics, pilot skills & hands on experince. Its not a motor racing that fastest car wins easily.

One Q about F-22, M2k is one of the best in terms of maintance & turnaround time in IAF. How does F-22 comparable to f-15, f-16 & other AC in USAF on this areas?

ajaybhutani
23 Jul 05,, 05:25
You can always find and exploit some asymmetry to fight a more capable enemy. But I really cant see how an F-22 could lose to 4 mki s in a head to head. A real head to head- ie with known starting locations. Not F22 vs 3 mki, until bingo fuel for F22, who then runs slap bang into the last one due to necessity and without any weapons left. ie an entirely artificial situation.

If you offered me, as an Air Chief Marshal, 400 mkis or 100 F22s (only), id go for the F22s in a heartbeat, as long as my country wasnt as big as Russia. Cant spread em too thin. Not only is the F22 probably going to be cheaper in lifetime terms than one would expect, you only need 1/4th of the pilots. Or you could double park the airframes to increase wartime efficiency. Is that feasible from a servicing pov?
both planes come with their set of advantages and disadvantages.
For 4 MKi's will be able to carry more payload and perform A2G tasks along with A2A tasks which a single F22 wont be able to just due to lack pf that much payload. The numbers come with their obvious advantages. This is all the reason why F35 becomes a need for USAF. even though F35 isnt just that capable of an aircraft as F22 but the tradeoffs need to be considered and evaluated as The possible war time opportunities in terms of planning are quite important .
I m not saying that 4 MKIs will destroy a F22 easily neither am i saying that a F22 will destroy 4 MKIs easily . Its gonna be a scenario somewhere in between in favour of either of the two . thus making it a tough question to decide on whats better. Of course if the question asked in thsi thread was which one will win a one on one fight no doubt its F22. But in this case its not an easy one to decide.

indianguy4u
23 Jul 05,, 05:30
If people think that during its lifetime F-22 would not be detected is wrong, b'coz tech always advances. Europeans, Russian & US would like to develop radars or such techs which would detech stealth AC in future.

Unipidity
23 Jul 05,, 07:53
If people think that during its lifetime F-22 would not be detected is wrong, b'coz tech always advances. Europeans, Russian & US would like to develop radars or such techs which would detech stealth AC in future.

No doubt the top of the range Chinese/Russian radar in 2020 will be able to detect an F-22 at much greater ranges than atm. But that applies in the inverse. Until a fighter radar can detect an F-22 reliably well beyond Rmax of the longest range missile in use by the USAF, the stealth will remain an advantage. That, imo, makes the F-22 top dog for its entire lifetime.

Its not a great bomb truck, and its damned expensive. But I would rather have Air Dominance and be able to deliver 1/4 the payload than to have plently of payload and have my planes shot out of the sky before they can deliver it. I think there is bugger all question as to whether a BVRM equiped F-22 could take out mkis at a 4-1 ratio, on average. When it gets unlucky, it gets unlucky, and nothing will change that. But the rest of the time I dont see how the Su could ever even engage an F-22. On its own.

Bill
23 Jul 05,, 08:43
"If people think that during its lifetime F-22 would not be detected is wrong, b'coz tech always advances. Europeans, Russian & US would like to develop radars or such techs which would detech stealth AC in future."

Yes, because the US isn't going to continue to develop and refine stealth technology in the next 20 years... :rolleyes:

ajaybhutani
23 Jul 05,, 10:59
No doubt the top of the range Chinese/Russian radar in 2020 will be able to detect an F-22 at much greater ranges than atm. But that applies in the inverse. Until a fighter radar can detect an F-22 reliably well beyond Rmax of the longest range missile in use by the USAF, the stealth will remain an advantage. That, imo, makes the F-22 top dog for its entire lifetime.

Its not a great bomb truck, and its damned expensive. But I would rather have Air Dominance and be able to deliver 1/4 the payload than to have plently of payload and have my planes shot out of the sky before they can deliver it. I think there is bugger all question as to whether a BVRM equiped F-22 could take out mkis at a 4-1 ratio, on average. When it gets unlucky, it gets unlucky, and nothing will change that. But the rest of the time I dont see how the Su could ever even engage an F-22. On its own.
the point is how much more probability is there for F22 to get lucky and how much for 4 MKI's to get lucky.

giggs88
23 Jul 05,, 11:04
Its too stupid to just believe in blindly what they show in such shows.
:rolleyes:

It wasn't "made-up" by the show, and neither was it propaganda. It was a REAL exercise conducted by the U.S military.

F/A -22 > SU

ajaybhutani
23 Jul 05,, 12:16
:rolleyes:

It wasn't "made-up" by the show, and neither was it propaganda. It was a REAL exercise conducted by the U.S military.

F/A -22 > SU
i m not arguing FA22 > SU i m arguing that u cant say FA22 > 4 SU30 MKI theres a big differen ce ..

hello
23 Jul 05,, 14:39
"Flanker" means any Su27, Su30mki/mkk, Su32, Su35 or Su37. The Raptor can destroy a maximum of 8 flankers/f15s/any planes cause it has 8 missiles, but it can't take 30-40 of em. The Su35 is better than mki cause its still being developed and upgraded and the mki hasn't got any recent upgrades.

ajaybhutani
23 Jul 05,, 18:03
"Flanker" means any Su27, Su30mki/mkk, Su32, Su35 or Su37. The Raptor can destroy a maximum of 8 flankers/f15s/any planes cause it has 8 missiles, but it can't take 30-40 of em. The Su35 is better than mki cause its still being developed and upgraded and the mki hasn't got any recent upgrades.

thats what the raptor can destroy in case mkis dont do anything.. but again the flight formation and tactics will obviously determine a lot about wether the flanker can do it or not..
mki development program isnt even complete...and in case u dont know .. as per plans each abtch rolling out of factories will be quite different and upgraded from the previous ones.. including structural changes. like composite fins better radars ecms etc etc..

Unipidity
24 Jul 05,, 06:13
Well, luck by its nature is going to be 50/50 since it doesnt exist... :)

The point is that I can think of situations in which any other aircraft in the world could potentially shoot down a Raptor without AWACs support. But they all seem to involve the F-22 not having any fuel left, and having to straight-line it back to base. It can out run, out shoot and out detect everything else. Its just not a fair fight at all. With the arrival of FMRAAM or whatever BVRM gets bolted on, it will retain its advantages over the course of its entire lifetime.

Question; what proportion of the time, during a hyopthetical expeditionary war, would an F-22 use its own radar? Is it ever really supposed to be without 3rd party support?


*Ive just had a thought; is it possible to detect an aircraft that is near its own AWACS / other huge radar by passive means? With sonar, a ping from A allows B to see A, A to see B, and B to see C, the friend of A. But since radars emit continously, would the reflected wave be swamped by the source?

Cowboykiller
24 Jul 05,, 06:14
Are u from some dictatorial country .. its a free forum and people have a right to have an opinion.
i havent found an argument here in this thread or in this forum that can say that a F22 is better than buying 4 MKI's.(for thats what u get in the cost of an F22). For cost is one big factor along with the specifications.If the F22 was the best in all respect US wouldnt have been persuing the F35 program.


Ummmm.. see my California flag avatar. And it's my right to say people who voted for that cheap SU-30MK (A Russian fighter not Indian) are morons.

How's that for free speech, apo?

Unipidity
24 Jul 05,, 06:21
The F-35 is designed for a completly different role!!! Not to mention that the US always tries to have a hi-lo mix. The F-15 is a superb aircraft, but that doesnt mean that the F-16 was unnecessary! Jeez.

ajaybhutani
24 Jul 05,, 06:36
Ummmm.. see my California flag avatar. And it's my right to say people who voted for that cheap SU-30MK (A Russian fighter not Indian) are morons.

How's that for free speech, apo?
then it makes at least one thing clear .. u are a moron..

Cowboykiller
24 Jul 05,, 06:42
then it makes at least one thing clear .. u are a moron..

Ummm..no! You are! Quit being a ***** and a sore loser because you don't know the first thing about "free speech".

Proof that you're an assclown? You voted for the *cough* Russian cheap export *cough* SU-30MK fighter over a $200 mil fighter?

Did you start all those Indian vs Any American military related topics?

Just to remind you that your country ain't **** compared to the USA or my U.S. Army.

Hooah?

ajaybhutani
24 Jul 05,, 07:04
Ummm..no! You are! Quit being a ***** and a sore loser because you don't know the first thing about "free speech".

Proof that you're an assclown? You voted for the *cough* Russian cheap export *cough* SU-30MK fighter over a $200 mil fighter?

Did you start all those Indian vs Any American military related topics?

Just to remind you that your country ain't **** compared to the USA or my U.S. Army.

Hooah?
kid .. its good loving ur country. but dont forget that even veitnam was nough to contain the US army or USA.

hello
24 Jul 05,, 07:04
thats what the raptor can destroy in case mkis dont do anything.. but again the flight formation and tactics will obviously determine a lot about wether the flanker can do it or not..
mki development program isnt even complete...and in case u dont know .. as per plans each abtch rolling out of factories will be quite different and upgraded from the previous ones.. including structural changes. like composite fins better radars ecms etc etc..

... but all are equally lousy against a Raptor or even a JSF. I said the Raptor can destroy a maximum 8 planes and even if the flankers use tactics, a Raptor wouldn't usually be alone and can also use tactics. Thus 1 Raptor can destroy about 4-5 flankers. Simple.

hello
24 Jul 05,, 07:09
The Raptor is not a $200mil fighter. Now under full production it costs only $92mil.
The superbug costs $58mil and normal JSF is $34mil(approx).

ajaybhutani
24 Jul 05,, 07:12
... but all are equally lousy against a Raptor or even a JSF. I said the Raptor can destroy a maximum 8 planes and even if the flankers use tactics, a Raptor wouldn't usually be alone and can also use tactics. Thus 1 Raptor can destroy about 4-5 flankers. Simple.
1 JSF isnt even out.. so we should leave it aside .
2. just saying that it will dnst help give me a validation.. some comparisons on the basis of which u are saying that??can u ?? or its just ir view point??

hello
24 Jul 05,, 07:16
If it can do it against AESA F-15s, it can do it against mki's. Plus, those F-15s were using every tactic they knew.

ajaybhutani
24 Jul 05,, 07:19
The Raptor is not a $200mil fighter. Now under full production it costs only $92mil.
The superbug costs $58mil and normal JSF is $34mil(approx).
superbug??

ajaybhutani
24 Jul 05,, 07:20
If it can do it against AESA F-15s, it can do it against mki's. Plus, those F-15s were using every tactic they knew.
show me a link dude??

hello
24 Jul 05,, 07:22
superbug??

I mean the F/A-18E/F SuperHornet.

indianguy4u
24 Jul 05,, 15:40
The Raptor is not a $200mil fighter. Now under full production it costs only $92mil.The superbug costs $58mil and normal JSF is $34mil(approx).
Links plz.

The last i heard of the prices of these birds
f22- 150 million US$ per piece,
f18sh- 75-80 million US$ pp,
JSF- 50-60 million US$ pp. ( all appro)

hello
24 Jul 05,, 17:03
Links plz.

The last i heard of the prices of these birds
f22- 150 million US$ per piece,
f18sh- 75-80 million US$ pp,
JSF- 50-60 million US$ pp. ( all appro)

f22-http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm

f18e/f-http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

f35-http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm

indianguy4u
24 Jul 05,, 17:34
As per ur links (hello),
f18 price as per 1998 is 60 million . jsf price as per 1994 is 35 million. Its 2005 now, what about inflation & depreciation of dollar also R&D .

Also of f-22 IT IS ESTIMATED, nowhere it is said that estimates have been achieved.

highsea
24 Jul 05,, 17:42
Also of f-22 IT IS ESTIMATED, nowhere it is said that estimates have been achieved.Two years ago the AF added one airframe to the existing LRIP lot at a marginal cost of $117 Mil. So that should tell you what the actual flyaway cost of the F-22 is.

indianguy4u
24 Jul 05,, 18:06
HS,
What about the whole contract of 70 odd planes?

highsea
24 Jul 05,, 19:19
What are you talking about? What 70 odd planes do you mean? Are you talking about all of the LRIP lots combined? It's irrelevant, because the F-22 is already approved for full rate production starting next year, and production is funded through 2009. To know what the real unit cost is, wait for follow on production orders after the plane has been in full rate production for a couple years. Should be ~120 Mil/copy.

dave angel
24 Jul 05,, 21:58
would the US seriously consider allowing a country like the UK to buy the full-spec F/A-22?

its not an issue now, but if western - chinese or russian tensions rose markedly in the future the UK/Israel/india/australia, and possibly france and germany with other NATO countries might well be in the market for the highest performance air-superiority fighter. would the US allow that transfer of technology, or would its understandable desire to maintain a real magnitude of military superiority prevent that?

highsea
25 Jul 05,, 00:25
Dave, unofficially, the ABCA countries are ok'ed for the F-22. But that doesn't mean ToT, that just means AC and support- and it's predicated on "the need". Which is to say we decide if there is a need. But if they said there was a need, we would agree, lol.

So yes, the ABCA countries could certainly field F-22's if they wanted to, and were willing to spend the money (which they aren't, because we all know that the US would intervene straightaway if an ABCA country was threatened).

Personally, I would like to see OZ and UK order ~48 airframes each to augment their planned F-35 purchases. Enough for two squadrons to watch the six of the -35's while they go about their business.

The JSF partners are further down on the tier of technology. As it stands, OZ and UK will get 'near or full' spec F-35's, depending on how much they want to spend. The AC will be tailored to their requirements. For example, Australia and Lockmart have (for all practical purposes) frozen the price at $45 mil per copy, so the capability will be based on that number.

But there will be a lower level "standard" export version. For NATO allies that are just paper allies. I will let you guys fill in that list....

Unipidity
25 Jul 05,, 05:57
Units: Full Rate- 368

Erm. No. I think not. Unless congress does a 180. Id reckon that $120m then-year is probably a bit low- production is going to continue for quite a while, isnt it? In addition; how much is the upgrade of the APG-77 going to cost? How the hell much does a high performance radar cost anyway?. But fine if its 2004 $ or similar.

*research suggests $2000/GaAs element. So an APG-77 has to cost on the order of $5m. I suppose the changes being made might be cost saving ones- better process control?

indianguy4u
25 Jul 05,, 17:45
What are you talking about? What 70 odd planes do you mean? Are you talking about all of the LRIP lots combined? It's irrelevant, because the F-22 is already approved for full rate production starting next year, and production is funded through 2009. To know what the real unit cost is, wait for follow on production orders after the plane has been in full rate production for a couple years. Should be ~120 Mil/copy.
It was something i read in the website given by hello. There it was written that f22 will cost 92 million US$(est).

highsea
25 Jul 05,, 19:09
Oh. Well, I would ignore that 1997 GAO report- the program has since been restructured.

The restructuring front loaded more of the full-rate production costs into the LRIP phase. This was done to take better advantage of production facilities that otherwise would not have existed until a later date. In the long run, it translates to a cost savings, but in the short run it costs more.

The last round of budget decisions restored the funding to the original level (the Pentagon plan cut over $10 Bil from the prog.), and funded a study of extending the program past 2009. That's when we will really see the real flyaway costs reflected in the orders. Right now, there are FOT&E costs, training, simulators, etc that are included in each years appropriation. The AC should come in around 100-120 mil. once we have a couple years of production under our belt. We are also seeing cost savings in updates to the radar and avionics, for example, the APG-77(v)1 uses the same elements and tiled configuration as the APG-81 and APG-79.

Imagine if we divided all of the dev costs for the LCA into the 4 existing airframes- we could claim that the AC cost $500 Mil each, lol. That's what the F-22 critics are trying to do with the Raptor. But we already know that the actual cost is under $120 Mil, as evidenced by the airframe that was tacked on to the earlier LRIP lot.

I fully expect Congress will approve additional production in 2007. Probably for around 72 airframes, with another follow on order in 2009. That would fund production through 2013, when the JSF will be coming into service in numbers. The AF has already said that unless they get 380+ airframes, they will need something else, like new F-15's. There is no way the Congress would cancel the Raptor in favor of a 30 year old design that costs 2/3 as much up front, and twice as much on the backside. It just won't happen. Also, once additional production is approved, and flyaway costs are around $100 Mil (or slightly less), there is a chance that Australia will want a couple squadrons to support their F-35's.

If F-22 production can be pushed up to 400-500 airframes, the cost could conceivably be brought down under $90 Mil.

indianguy4u
25 Jul 05,, 20:16
Then highsea why dont F22 is offered to countries like UK, Japan, Australia who can order atleast 150-200 between them, which would help in bring down prod cost & offsetting expense on R&D. Maybe a lesser version than a USAF ones, it will benefit USAF as they would be getting the birds at around 90 million $(est).

Do u know whats the profit margin in F22.

highsea
25 Jul 05,, 21:37
Well, presumably those countries don't have the need at this time.

As to margins, it doesn't apply right now, the program is on a fixed cost basis, i.e. cost +. When it goes into full rate production and is offered to other customers, that might come into play, but every deal is different, with various offsets and subsidies, etc. Even commercial aerospace is that way, no one works on fixed margins.

Unipidity
25 Jul 05,, 23:05
Well. The cost of the Raptor is obviously not a straight up thing. Acquisition is obviously based around a marginal- the ~ $120m figure. When you are evaluating the program as a whole, the ~$300m figure is what needs to be considered. You cant do anything to claw back the extra $180m, but you certainly can criticise the program based around it. That is, if you think it could have been done otherwise. I have yet to see any reliable figures as to what the program-end lifetime costs of an average Raptor will be in $2005. Id guess on the order of $400/500m, and it is this that will be the end figure that you use to work out if it was worth doing since whenever the ATF started. Your purchasing decisions should be based around mission requirements and marginal costs- but this can affect the net program cost. *shrug*

Personally, I'd buy a silver bullet of ~ 250. Try to get the UK/Aus to buy a few as their own silver bullets. After all, 12 Raptors ought to be more effective than a wing of EF-2000s. Highsea (since you seem to be best informed around here), what is the USAF force structure based around? Is it supposed to fight a single expeditionary war and also defend the US?

highsea
26 Jul 05,, 01:20
...Is it supposed to fight a single expeditionary war and also defend the US?I'm just an engineer, OoE is probably a better one to ask that question. The stated objective has always been the ability to fight two concurrent wars and defend CONUS. The latter is a fairly minor thing, since there isn't anyone who can really attack the US. We retired a bunch of the F-16 ADF's when the Soviet Union collapsed.

On the other subject, you can't put all the dev costs directly on the F-22, because you are ignoring all of the technology that was developed under that program, but has gone into the F-35 and (to a lesser extent) the F/A-18 E/F. Also other programs, X-45/47, Global Hawk, etc. It's money that would have been spent regardless. So criticizing the Raptor on that basis is not really a fair criticism of the program, just as technologies from previous programs like F-117 and B2 have found their way to the Raptor.

It's an evolutionary process, the F-22 has just taken a lot of criticism because it used such a big chunk of the budget, but the payoffs will be realized by other programs for many years to come.

-{SpoonmaN}-
26 Jul 05,, 07:04
True the only real threat the continental US faces from the air is hijacked airliners and ballistic missiles. Since there's nothing in service which can really defend against a missile with MIRVs, and the missile shield probably won't be able to defend against a full scale nuclear attack from a major power, ballistic missiles aren't the conern. And with the airliners, an armed trainer could drop them so it's not worth leaving F-22s in the US to defend against them.

dave angel
26 Jul 05,, 09:35
actually thats not true. the very limited time between an air traffic copntroller realising that something is wrong with an aircraft and that aircraft ploughing into a city centre means that any aircraft sent to intercept it must do so very quickly.

example: an aircraft - say an airbus A340 - in the holding pattern at heathrow leaves its course and starts to fly east towards central london. assuming that the aircraft changes course at the furthest point from london in the holding pattern (somewhere over say Reading or Basingstoke) they are only 30 - 35 miles from central london. an airbus A340 can fly at 500 mph - that gives less than 5 minutes from the controller noticing a new flightpath and the airbus making a big hole where whitehall used to be.

heathrow (the busiest airport in the world) is about 12 miles from central london, gatwick and luton both 25 miles from central london.

even intercept aircraft (EF Typhoons or Tornado F3's) based at those civilian airports and scrambled immediately by the air-traffic controller would have a job to intercept the airbus, the chances of a fighter based 50 miles away arriving in time are zero - even if it fired AMRAAMS 20 seconds after it took off.

given the small distances between cities and their airports any government who wishes to prevent a 9/11 scenario must have high performance fighters in the air 24/7. rules of engagement mean that just loosing off missiles at 40 miles is not acceptable so the fighters must be fast enough to get to visual range and attempt to force the aircraft away from london and have time to take a good shot - preferably with the wreckage landing in one of the big parks or in the thames - if the aircraft refuses to change course.

indianguy4u
26 Jul 05,, 09:54
Dave,
Even if a fighter intercept a passenger plane b4 its intended target, what can the pilot of fighter plane can do. If he fires a missile at it than even more damage will happen as the plane may already be in heavily populated urban areas, destuction will be even more.

Cowboykiller
26 Jul 05,, 10:08
The Su-30 sucks.

giggs88
26 Jul 05,, 10:10
:rolleyes:

dave angel
26 Jul 05,, 12:33
Dave,
Even if a fighter intercept a passenger plane b4 its intended target, what can the pilot of fighter plane can do. If he fires a missile at it than even more damage will happen as the plane may already be in heavily populated urban areas, destuction will be even more.

you are of course right to say that in saving whitehall we may flatten knightsbridge. however two entirely seperate arguments come into play:firstly that when a 747 exploded above the scottish town of lockerbie (about 35 minutes drive from my house) most of the heavy bits landed in the town and flattened houses and killed the occupants, a - and i can't believe i'm saying this - relatively few (30-odd)number of people died compared to the number you'd expect if a 747 crashed into a housing estate. at night. a few days before christmas.

secondly, if an aircraft crashed in the heart of government (10 downing st. the foriegn office, the MOD, the security service, parliament and the home office are all within a box less than half a mile wide) the rest of the UK could be put in mortal danger by government being unable to respond or co-ordinate to any further threat. an idea that the citizens of a small part of london sacrifice themselves to save the central government and by doing so possibly save many thousands of lives elsewhere in the UK.

neither of these things is attractive.

hello
26 Jul 05,, 15:16
This would mean that to prevent a 9/11, high performance fighters would have to patrol some distance outside the suburbs all the time. An f22s loadout in such conditions would be 6 AMRAAMs, 2 9Xs and four ext fuel tanks.

dave angel
26 Jul 05,, 20:24
yup, expensive and boring. but not as expensive as x thousand deaths, 25% off the stock market and having to rebuild whitehall - or pennsylvania avenue.

Bill
26 Jul 05,, 20:51
I feel we should've maintained two F-14D sqns, one each on the east and west coasts, for interceptor duties.

But, i'm not in charge.

Unipidity
27 Jul 05,, 02:14
Well, Dulles is far far closer to the important bits of Washington than Heathrow is to Whitehall. All of a couple of minutes, Id have thought. I dont personally think that even permenant patrols could help- and what is the motivation of putting up something like an F-22? Top speed? Loiter time?

re the dev costs of F-22; abosultly. But that should be factored in as another benefit of the program rather than as a reduction in cost- the cost is associaited with the way in which the program is run, and I dont see how you could estimate that $10b or whatever of the budget was into one-time technology improvments, when its possible that it *might* have been possible to do it more cheaply. imo.

How much WOULD it cost to put up a couple of aircraft 24/7 over the 10 largest US cities? Considering that the benefit would be marginal unless it was a secret (since im sure the 12th largest US city has plenty of targets), im not convinced. Still, it could take up flight time that would otherwise be used training regardless, so I suppose the marginal cost might be zero.

highsea
27 Jul 05,, 02:47
Raptors won't be used for CAPs over US cities. We have F-16's for that. That's National Guard duty, and though they will train on Raptors, the AC will be AF jets, at least for the forseeable future. We are not going to put unnecesary hours on the airframes for that kind of use. We have hundreds of F-16 ADF's in storage if we need to do something like that.

hello
28 Jul 05,, 13:59
Raptors won't be used for CAPs over US cities. We have F-16's for that. That's National Guard duty, and though they will train on Raptors, the AC will be AF jets, at least for the forseeable future. We are not going to put unnecesary hours on the airframes for that kind of use. We have hundreds of F-16 ADF's in storage if we need to do something like that.

F-15C/Es could be kept to do that. Their performance is fine and they have a longer loiter time. F-14Ds are fine but more expensive to maintain.

Unipidity
28 Jul 05,, 18:30
F-15C/Es could be kept to do that. Their performance is fine and they have a longer loiter time. F-14Ds are fine but more expensive to maintain.

Even with conformal and external tanks? Id have thought a given capacity of external fuel will go much further with an F-16 than with an F-15. Cost is obviously going to be the biggest issue, since I dont think airliners are going to be that big a threat.

Hmmm. If they put the IR spoofing device on airliners that they keep threatening to (in an attempt to reduce the risk of shoulder launched sams) would that make AIM-9x less accurate against hijacked liners, or is the seeker an order of magnitude more advanced?

dave angel
28 Jul 05,, 18:51
if one was to take the decision to shoot down an airliner - would it not be 'kinder' to the innocents onboard to have the missiles strike the fuselage rather than the engines: a 'quick' kill, rather than a panic stricken break-up - hence the use of RGM rather than IR seekers?

or would there be an attempt to 'control' the aircraft by destroying its engine(s)?

to be honest i'd be rather sceptical about the ability to control the break-up of an airliner with 300 tonnes of fuel on board...

hello
30 Jul 05,, 10:04
It would be a better idea to hit a threatening plane with AMRAAM so to damage its tailfin and the plane not being able to accurately hit its target building but still be able to land.An AIM9x would destroy the planes engines and wing, sending it down right where it is in a big explosion.

kashifshahzad
30 Jul 05,, 13:44
RAPTOR UNWRAPPED

With long-term military budget cuts looming once again, the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin are finally talking about some of the F/A-22 Raptor's closely held secrets that they hope will keep Congress paying for the $132-million stealth aircraft.

While these conversations, many of them informal, didn't touch on "even one-third of its classified capabilities," according to one pilot, they included the ability to hunt down and destroy cruise missiles well behind enemy lines, the introduction of a new missile that allows the head-on attack and destruction of stealthy enemy missiles, a tailless bomber derivative design, a planned electronic attack capability so powerful that it actually damages enemy electronics, and modifications that would allow the aircraft's electronic package to invade enemy computer networks.

The tone of the conversations was sharpened by a still-unreleased report about the series of air combat training engagements earlier this year between Indian air force Su-30MKs and F-15Cs from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; the latter were equipped with the U.S.' newest long-range, high-definition radars.

Those who have read draft copies of the report say the Su-30MKs and F-15 pilots were seeing each other at the same time with their radars, but the Indian pilots were getting off the simulated first shot with their AA-10 Alamo missiles and often winning the long-range engagements. The Indian pilots also had more flight time in the previous year than the U.S. pilots, roughly 300 hr. compared with 250 hr., the pilot said.

Those factors are causing the U.S. to rethink the formula that they always will be facing less well-trained pilots and inferior weaponry. They also reinforce the argument that the U.S. needs a fighter with greater radar range (the F/A-22's is more than 100 naut. mi.), stealth (the F-15 has a huge radar cross section) and fused sensors so that pilots can easily grasp what's going on around them.

Key to the F/A-22's capabilities is a complex of passive sensors, basically for electronic surveillance, that line the outside edges of the fighter's wings and tail surfaces. They gather electronic emissions at frequencies up to 18 GHz., sort them by time and angle of arrival for location, and analyze the signature automatically for rapid identification. Electronic data are fused with detailed RCS signatures gathered by the radar for additional identification.

HOW MANY F/A-22S the Air Force eventually gets is still a crap shoot. Estimates range from a service requirement for more than 400 to pessimistic predictions of only 100-150 if the congressional budgeters, soured by the growing cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are unsympathetic.

A primary mission for the F/A-22 is slated to be cruise missile interception well behind enemy lines. "A cruise missile has stealth in only one direction--straight ahead," says Lt. Col. Mike Stapleton, operations officer for the 43rd Fighter Sqdn. The F-22s would operate in an extended picket line so they can look at cruise missiles to either side of their patrol area from a beam aspect where the missile is not low-observable. In addition, the new, 200-naut.-mi. AESA radar, in development for the E-10 surveillance aircraft, is to provide key cueing of cruise missile locations.

Tactics used by cruise missile operators are instructive. One option is to send waves of 10 missiles that would pull defenses to one side while a following wave slips through. Another is to disperse a large launch into many directions so that some actually approach the targets from behind. Those tactics have led the U.S. to plan a multi-layered defense that begins with F-22s deep in enemy territory.

While F-22s would normally operate at the 45,000-50,000-ft. level, for cruise missile defense they would drop into the middle altitudes around 25,000-30,000 ft. That would allow them the flexibility to combat both AS-4 "Kitchen" or CAS-1 "Kraken"-type, high-speed, air-launched missiles (predictable course, but little time to react) or to pick "Silkworm"-type missiles (low speed, but unpredictable course) out of ground clutter. Detailed information on missiles that leaked through the F/A-22 line would be sent by data link to second and third defensive layers comprising AESA-radar-equipped F-15s and F/A-18Es operating in less well-defended areas.

Four of the initial seven cadre pilots in the 43nd Fighter Sqdn., the Air Force's first F/A-22 squadron, came from the AESA-equipped F-15 squadrons in Alaska, where they developed concepts for airborne cruise missile defense, Stapleton says. While F/A-22 crews will train to attack cruise missiles with AIM-9s and 20-mm. cannon, the primary weapon will be the AIM-120C Amraam. A variant, the AIM-120C-6 (available by 2006), has been specialized with an improved seeker to optimize the explosive cone of destruction for small, slow targets in a head-on engagement with the F/A-22. The upgraded Amraam incorporates improved fuzing through a new quadrant target-detection device. One tactic for the F-22s will be to approach a wave of cruise missiles head-on, get in a first shot and then turn at Mach 1.7 supercruise speed for a second and third shot from behind.

F/A-22S ASSIGNED the cruise missile defense mission would carry at least six Amraams and possibly more when a compressed-carriage AIM-120 design is fielded, says J.R. McDonald, director of Lockheed Martin's F/A-22 program. The range of the F/A-22 can be extended with two 600-gal., low-observable fuel tanks carried on two inboard hard points that are plumbed to transfer fuel. However, there are a number of concepts for a larger, longer range FB-22 that could also carry a larger weapons payload. McDonald says the weapons bay on either the F/A-22 or FB-22 concepts could be enlarged to carry more missiles. Moreover, because of the improvements in stealth coatings, shaping and RCS predictability, the changes could be made while actually improving the signature of the aircraft, he says.

Some of the FB-22 derivative concepts being proposed by Lockheed Martin include both one- and two-seat options, with and without a vertical tail, McDonald said. The tailless version would be possible because the wing would be expanded and made large enough to carry sufficient flight control surfaces to provide adequate aerodynamic authority.

"We have a smorgasbord of options," McDonald said. The objective is to preserve all the attributes of the F/A-22--stealth, speed, integrated avionics--while giving up a bit of agility in order to field a stable bombing platform. The aircraft would also be designed to control a wide range of unmanned reconnaissance and strike aircraft.

Most intriguing about the F/A-22's future were hints from various sources that the fighter would have drastically improved electronic attack capability and would introduce computer network attack to its arsenal. Critics say some of the planning borders on the fanciful. Officials have acknowledged that the F/A-22's AESA radar has a projected capability to concentrate its transmission power onto a narrow spot--most likely the electronic radars and communication links associated with air defenses--with enough focus to jam them. The Thor jamming system is to be active in 2008. Those working on improvements say that with the addition of radar cheek arrays to the aircraft in 2010, it would be able to focus enough energy in a beam to actually damage electronic components in enemy sensors.

An associated capability is airborne computer network attack that, under project Suter, currently resides with the EC-130 Compass Call. However, the aircraft is large, slow and can't penetrate defended airspace. Futurists say a further modified F/A-22 will be able to operate over key targets and carry out computer attack or surveillance with much less power. "If you're 5 mi. from the threat, you don't need the power of Compass Call" to penetrate an enemy computer network, says one official.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/05244wna.xml

At last i am able to find some of the capebilities of the raptor i cannot understand all of them i will try to digest all of them the stealthness and the ability to intercept missiles looks good to me

hello
30 Jul 05,, 14:21
So thats CAP, cruise missile defence, SEAD, electronic attack, early warning, reconnaisance, strike, bombing, etc. And thats only one third.

kashifshahzad
30 Jul 05,, 15:31
So thats CAP, cruise missile defence, SEAD, electronic attack, early warning, reconnaisance, strike, bombing, etc. And thats only one third.
No one in the public knows by the other two third what it can do might be there something other then the flairs and chaft for the defence purpose .It might have the ability to fire a missile on the back side for the defence form the missiles or the AC who knows

Unipidity
31 Jul 05,, 01:11
Dear me. I hardly think that qualifies as a real technical assesment. Not to mention that saying that the FB-22 is a feature of the F-22 is hardly honest. Id suggest that the performance parameters of the F-22 can be estimated, and saying that it can do everything, everywhere, perfectly is just hyperbole.

Yes, its stealthy. And has supercruise. And a powerful radar that it probably wont use most of the time. And nice avionics. And is maneuverable. As far as I can see, the only revolutionary leap forward in terms of the paltform itself is the stealth. I dont see that 150 F-22 can do all that much more than 500 F-15s and a couple hundred -16s. Of course by 2015 that might well be another matter entirely. But by 2015 the US will probably be fielding UF-45 or whatever the hell they will be called.

Bill
31 Jul 05,, 06:29
"If they put the IR spoofing device on airliners that they keep threatening to (in an attempt to reduce the risk of shoulder launched sams) would that make AIM-9x less accurate against hijacked liners, or is the seeker an order of magnitude more advanced?"

AIM-9X uses a Imaging InfaRed display. It does not see a hot spot, but instead sees an actual thermal image of the aircraft. Once it locks onto that image, it's not going to be decoyed. A traditional disco ball or flares are useless against AIM-9X.

Here's an actual shot from an AIM-9X seeker tracking an F-4 Phantom just before impact.
http://www.infomarmb.hpg.ig.com.br/imagens01/seeker-AIM-9X.gif

Torvalus
31 Jul 05,, 06:35
I watched some TV show that stated in vietnam 80% of fighter pilots got 30% of the kills and 20% of our fighter pilots got 70% of the kills and this is one of the reasons the F-22 was made, to have highly trained pilots with the best aircraft obtain 70% of the enemy kills while making up the smallest portion of fighting aircraft in the conflict. Think the T.V. show was modern marvels, anyway I dont know if it's true or not...just seemed interesting.

hello
02 Aug 05,, 15:07
"If they put the IR spoofing device on airliners that they keep threatening to (in an attempt to reduce the risk of shoulder launched sams) would that make AIM-9x less accurate against hijacked liners, or is the seeker an order of magnitude more advanced?"

AIM-9X uses a Imaging InfaRed display. It does not see a hot spot, but instead sees an actual thermal image of the aircraft. Once it locks onto that image, it's not going to be decoyed. A traditional disco ball or flares are useless against AIM-9X.

Here's an actual shot from an AIM-9X seeker tracking an F-4 Phantom just before impact.
http://www.infomarmb.hpg.ig.com.br/imagens01/seeker-AIM-9X.gif

That's quite a pic. A cobra/kulbit manuevering Flanker can't dodge this. :cool:

jgetti
02 Aug 05,, 17:30
No one in the public knows by the other two third what it can do might be there something other then the flairs and chaft for the defence purpose .It might have the ability to fire a missile on the back side for the defence form the missiles or the AC who knows


I hear it can perform the disappearing pig trick and do a triple lutz with one wing tied behind it's fuse......

hello
03 Aug 05,, 14:41
What's the "disappearing pig" trick?

Officer of Engineers
03 Aug 05,, 14:47
Pineapple, honey glazed.

Wraith601
04 Aug 05,, 08:04
Personally I think we should keep at least a few F-15Es and F-16s around fro some time to come.

I'm still not sold on the Navy's plans though. I'm kinda partial to F-14Ds and SuperHornets or even F-14Ds and F-35Bs over F-35Bs and SuperHornets but that's just me. The Marines are in serious need for seomthing better than the Harrier and the F-35C sounds pretty good.

Unipidity
04 Aug 05,, 08:21
F-14Ds are just too expensive. Probably in manhour terms, as well as cost terms.

WildLomcevak
04 Aug 05,, 10:50
Well..since there are obviously a number of F-22 fans here, I run the risk of being strung up, or staked out on an anthill...but I'm going to make a prediction.
Within the next 5 years, the F/A 22 will be considered one of the major blunders of military aviation history. There, I said it. Sorry guys. I hope I'm wrong.
But...here's why.
First, a little justification. I spent about eight years of my life as a member in good standing of the tactical fighter community. (USAF) I was also lucky enough to be born into a military aviation family, my father flew in WWII (air corps), Korea, and VN..one brother flew A6's with the Navy, and another F4's with the air force. My father flew with Gen (ret) (then Captain, I believe)Charles E Yeager out of Muroc, and I spent many happy hours tallking with him about aircraft and tactics as a youth- and, while I was flying on the aerobatic circuit, I met and befriended (or maybe it was the other way around) Bob Hoover.
I'm a commercial pilot these days, and I've never been within 10 miles of an F/A 22 to my knowledge, but I have learned a few things over the years- and both Hoover and Yeager (and presumably my father, although he passed away in 1987) agree with, and in fact convinced me of, this concept.
Aerial warfare depends much more on the pilot than the aircraft- Yeager proved this numerous times, to the surprise of many cocky fighter jocks. History has proven that the more complex a system is, the more failures occur. The F-16, for instance, is a fine aircraft- but look into the problems the design has been plagued with over the years, and you'll be shocked...and compared to the F/A 22, the F-16 is a Playstation.
Yeager loved the F-5, and when the F-20 was introduced, he flat fell in love with it- it is, in many ways, a beefed up F5. It's fast, manueverable, and simple. It has fairly rudimentary onboard computers, requires minimal ground support, and the pilot workload is remarkably low.
The F22, on the other hand, is extremely complex. Pilot workload is somewhat alleviated by computer assistance, but his brain is suffering from sensory overload almost from engine start...the plane imparts a serious amount of data to the driver.
Computers are computers- the military doesn't have some wonderful OS that never crashes, nor does it have titanium motherboards- think about how often your PC has a glitch...military computers aren't immune, by any means. Now figure, those components are supplied, not by the most competent manufacturer, but by the LOW BIDDER. Honest, they are. Seriously. Often it doesn't even make THAT much sense, but rather is politically motivated.
An old girlfriend's father was a big wheel with General Dynamics- he was a major player in defense building and contracting of aircraft, like the F-16 and A-10. The man was a complete friggin' idiot, I mean he was a moron...I'm amazed that they allowed him to breed. This is, often, the sort of person building, maintaining, even designing, our front-line military hardware. Shoot, one of my brothers is a VP with Northrop-Grumman, and HE'S an idiot.
So while the F/A 22 is an awesome design, a true exponential advancement in aerodynamics, weapon systems, you name it...it has two problems. One, it's too complex for combat conditions...and Two, it will suffer from low-bid maintanence, assembly, and production.
And third, while this is a purely personal opinion and preference...I don't like multi-role aircraft. Air to air and air to mud are two entirely different missions, with entirely different requirements. Designing an aircraft to perform both missions is rife with compromise. Since aircraft, particularly military aircraft, are compromise personified anyway...I think this is a bad thing. It's not all the aircraft, either- though many compromises occur in the design of a multi-role aerial weapons platform, the biggest problem in this regard is the pilot. Learning to fly aerial combat is hard- learning to fly air to ground is hard. Each deserves a dedicated aircraft, and a dedicated pilot. Pilots of multi role aircraft rarely get enough practice in both- they either fly primarily one, or the other...and whichever they get the least of..that's where they auger in one day.
In military aviation, we have something called DAC- dissimilar aerial combat. That's where you practice fighting an aircraft other than the type you fly. (much of the practice is done within a squadron or against other similar squadrons- thus F16 pilots often "fight" other F-16's) Many pilots have been amazed and dismayed when they've been "shot down" in their top o' the line frontline fighter by an obsolete design flown by a top o' the line pilot.
As I said, I hope I'm mistaken. I think the Raptor is an amazing piece of machinery. The average civilian may never even know if the plane is a failure- the military doesn't like to broadcast it's goofs. Yet planes like the Osprey, the B2, the B1, even the early F111 and F16, have proven my point for me. If they don't drop the program, they will eventually get most of the bugs worked out, true- but how many good pilots will buy farms they didn't want before they do?
Personally, I'd like to see tactical aircraft- particularly interceptors- get simpler. Advanced weapons systems have made dogfighting almost obsolete- most shots now are taken BVR anyway. (Beyond Visual Range) These weapons systems are exotic enough- the planes should be single role and as simple as possible. The only reason we have multi role aircraft anyway is to save money- nobody thinks they're better, they just keep the government from having to purchase more aircraft...and in the Navy's case, it makes carrier aircraft more versatile, important when you have limited deck space.
By the way, many of you seem to like the MiG and Sukhoi designs- fine aircraft. Yet by our standards, their computer systems are archaic, and their FCS (flight control systems) rudimentary. Similar, in fact, to the F-20.

Ok boys, let me have it...just wanted to say my piece.

For the record, although I've never flown one, I'll go with the F-20 as the finest fighter...even though very few were produced, and the government wouldn't allow export. Yeager is kind of an ass, but he knows airplanes.

Thanks for listenin'!

hello
04 Aug 05,, 11:22
In real battles the f22 pilot will have to do less work then in mock battles because many things will be controlled by AWACS and datalinks. The little f20, though simple can't stand a chance against a Flanker or even an f15/f16.

jgetti
04 Aug 05,, 14:30
Personally I think we should keep at least a few F-15Es and F-16s around fro some time to come.

I'm still not sold on the Navy's plans though. I'm kinda partial to F-14Ds and SuperHornets or even F-14Ds and F-35Bs over F-35Bs and SuperHornets but that's just me. The Marines are in serious need for seomthing better than the Harrier and the F-35C sounds pretty good.

The E's won't be going out any time soon,, they'll serve their useful lives. In addition, about 175 C/D models will be continuously upgraded to serve until 2025. These are called the 'golden fleet'.

hello
04 Aug 05,, 16:28
Until when will the Es stick around till?

jgetti
04 Aug 05,, 16:57
Until when will the Es stick around till?

Just as long or longer than the C/D's if I had to guess. The last of the E's on order from USAF, E236, flew out of here brand new less than a year ago.... Lots and lots of flight hours to go before that one's done. There is no replacement for a regional bomber in development to replace it, so I forsee them staying around until the airframes are at 100%.

hello
04 Aug 05,, 17:14
Won't UCAVs and F-35s take the F-15Es role or is this an A10-like case where continuous upgrades keep it going?

jgetti
04 Aug 05,, 17:36
Won't UCAVs and F-35s take the F-15Es role or is this an A10-like case where continuous upgrades keep it going?


E's will be continuously upgraded,, I've even heard many will be getting AESA radars installed. F-35 does not have the range or payload capability to replace the E. The E was designed as a replacement for the F-111,, a long range bomber. UCAV will have it's place,, but I don't see any permanent replacement for the piloted role of regional bomber any time soon.

WildLomcevak
04 Aug 05,, 20:53
Actually, I think- given equal pilots and a perfectly functioning aircraft- that the F-22 would be practically unbeatable in aerial combat. In theory the aircraft should be incredibly manueverable, but I'm dismayed at the way we're counting on uplinks to "help" the pilot, and in limited ways, even control the aircraft. ECM technology has gotten incredibly complex, so anytime a pilot is so dependent on a datalink it bothers me- and jamming technology has increased exponentially over the last decade. In general aviation, there is a concern that pilots are losing their skills because of high-tech gadgetry in their aircraft, and I believe this is a relevant concern with military hardware and pilots as well. After Korea, american pilots began losing their flying skills- many aircraft were built without machine guns or cannons, and dogfighting was barely touched in flight training- all because this super new technology called the air-to-air missile was supposed to make head-to-head confrontation a thing of the past. Turned out to be entirely wrong- thus the formation of advanced training facilities and programs like the Navy's Top Gun and the Air Force's Red Flag. I think the current trend towards technological solutions is the same mistake with different wording. Only time will tell, though, I suppose.
As for the AWACS, sure they are a serious advantage over the battlefield- but they can be taken out, and if the pilots and planes are totally dependent on them, the loss of one would be a major blow to effectiveness, not to mention morale and confidence. Pilots are just people- if they are trained that the AWACS (or similar) are their lifeline, a major component of their survivability- if they lose it they lose confidence in their ability to win. The focus needs to be on the man (or woman), not the machine.

Officer of Engineers
04 Aug 05,, 21:10
Taking out the AWACS is the tough part.

WildLomcevak
05 Aug 05,, 05:33
Taking out the AWACS is the tough part.

Taking it out by knocking it down isn't easy, sure enough- although not impossible. Rendering it impotent with active and passive jamming or other means of ECM isn't quite as difficult- depending, of course, on who the enemy is. I see us coming to blows with China at some point- it seems inevitable to me- and their technology is head and shoulders above terrorist cells'. Regardless, I believe fighter aircraft should be as self contained as possible...the ability to act autonomously is vital. The AWACS is an invaluable tool, no doubt...but the old saying about all the eggs in one basket comes to mind.

Unipidity
05 Aug 05,, 06:33
What is airframe lifetime of an -E? 15,000 hrs? Less? Got to be 20 years left in some of them though. And its not as though China will be getting rid of its MKKs just because they cant compete with F-22s. They'll be around for decades most likely.

The F-15 and F-35 have similar combat radii, dont they? circa 600nm? And for longer range strike, F-15 payload goes down to about 10k lbs. Though I dont know what F-35 payload is like under similar circumstances.

Su-47MKI
05 Aug 05,, 06:45
I say the JF-17 is the best fighter on the planet! It is painted by citizens of the land of the pure, therefore it must be the best. It will shoot down all the F-22s and Su-30MKIs the infidels throw at it, since Pakistani pilots are the bravest and greatest pilots on the planet.

INSHALLAH!!!!

Bill
05 Aug 05,, 07:27
The F-22s own onboard APG-77 is head and shoulders above anything any threat aircraft possesses, and does not advertise the F-22s position.

It's important to keep in mind that to date the F-22 doesn't even have a link installed.

It's done what it's done in mock combat with it's own onboard sensors and have quick radios.

hello
05 Aug 05,, 15:39
I say the JF-17 is the best fighter on the planet! It is painted by citizens of the land of the pure, therefore it must be the best. It will shoot down all the F-22s and Su-30MKIs the infidels throw at it, since Pakistani pilots are the bravest and greatest pilots on the planet.

INSHALLAH!!!!
How?

hello
05 Aug 05,, 15:41
E's will be continuously upgraded,, I've even heard many will be getting AESA radars installed. F-35 does not have the range or payload capability to replace the E. The E was designed as a replacement for the F-111,, a long range bomber. UCAV will have it's place,, but I don't see any permanent replacement for the piloted role of regional bomber any time soon.

Thanks for the info. :)

Wraith601
05 Aug 05,, 18:24
I say the JF-17 is the best fighter on the planet! It is painted by citizens of the land of the pure, therefore it must be the best. It will shoot down all the F-22s and Su-30MKIs the infidels throw at it, since Pakistani pilots are the bravest and greatest pilots on the planet.

INSHALLAH!!!!

:rolleyes:

Go play some video games and let the grown ups talk.

Bill
05 Aug 05,, 19:13
I think SU47 was just being sarcastic, lol.

Wraith601
06 Aug 05,, 06:49
If that's the case I'll retract my statement, but I've seen lots of equally stupid statements made in complete seriousness. Sarcasm doesn't translate over the internet well, that's what the smilies are for.

Su-47MKI
06 Aug 05,, 06:51
If that's the case I'll retract my statement, but I've seen lots of equally stupid statements made in complete seriousness. Sarcasm doesn't translate over the internet well, that's what the smilies are for.

;)

Bill
06 Aug 05,, 08:43
See, i knew he was being sarcastic.

longcat
15 Aug 05,, 01:12
f 22 is the best

hello
15 Aug 05,, 12:47
Who's the person who voted for Su47 Berkut?

wipeout
30 Sep 05,, 09:01
except for the F-22 and the sukhoi, rest are hypothetical aircraft. It is like building a V8 -powered car at home versus buying a factory built sedan, which is better.

tphuang
01 Oct 05,, 03:00
except for the F-22 and the sukhoi, rest are hypothetical aircraft. It is like building a V8 -powered car at home versus buying a factory built sedan, which is better.
Eurofighter should be in this list too.

longcat
01 Oct 05,, 03:32
Eurofighter should be in this list too.

Yeah, I agree. Take out the SU-47 and add the Typhoon.

raptor1992
01 Oct 05,, 03:38
Eurofighter doesn't stand a chance though. f-22 is twice as good as typhoon and it wouldn't be fair. but i should've not put f-22

tphuang
01 Oct 05,, 05:25
Eurofighter doesn't stand a chance though. f-22 is twice as good as typhoon and it wouldn't be fair. but i should've not put f-22
if Eurofighter gets an AESA radar, it would be able to compete with F-22.

indianguy4u
01 Oct 05,, 07:38
if Eurofighter gets an AESA radar, it would be able to compete with F-22.
Is AESA god!

tphuang
01 Oct 05,, 16:23
Is AESA god!
nope, but there is a reason that it is so expensive, it is worth it.

indianguy4u
01 Oct 05,, 17:16
nope, but there is a reason that it is so expensive, it is worth it.
But just by getting a AESA, how could EF2000 be competitive against F22?

tphuang
01 Oct 05,, 20:57
But just by getting a AESA, how could EF2000 be competitive against F22?
It would not be on the same level, but I think it can probably do better than other fighters available, might even achieve a 1:2 kill ratio.

indianguy4u
02 Oct 05,, 07:19
It would not be on the same level, but I think it can probably do better than other fighters available, might even achieve a 1:2 kill ratio.
It seems farfetched. EF2000 is not a stealthy plane. Its weapons is exposed & not enclosed like raptor.

tphuang
02 Oct 05,, 18:40
It seems farfetched. EF2000 is not a stealthy plane. Its weapons is exposed & not enclosed like raptor.
it's not as stealthy as F-22, but it does employ some stealth techniques.

raptor1992
07 Oct 05,, 01:44
if Eurofighter gets an AESA radar, it would be able to compete with F-22.

The radar on the F-22 is still superior. besides how can ef-2000 find the raptor anyway. by using the naked eye? not a chance :biggrin:

JG73
07 Oct 05,, 02:36
The radar on the F-22 is still superior. besides how can ef-2000 find the raptor anyway. by using the naked eye? not a chance :biggrin:


Ever heared of PIRATE? Maybe that answers your question. And ever heared of AMSAR? Now search with google for it and think twice.

tphuang
07 Oct 05,, 02:47
The radar on the F-22 is still superior. besides how can ef-2000 find the raptor anyway. by using the naked eye? not a chance :biggrin:
the latest rumour is that EF-2000 found F-22 from 80KM out. That's the rumour on F-16.net apparently.

raptor1992
07 Oct 05,, 02:48
Ever heared of PIRATE? Maybe that answers your question. And ever heared of AMSAR? Now search with google for it and think twice.
your point is ef-2000 can compete with the raptor? !!!!!!!!!

JG73
07 Oct 05,, 03:06
It would be a shame if F-22 wasn't a great aircraft for that price. I just don't like assertions without substance and just gave you advice to compair AESA and AMSAR and to inform yourself about PIRATE.

SuperFlanker
07 Oct 05,, 04:51
Lets just remove the F-22 and F-35 from the comparison...since none of us actually know their true capabilities and anything we say about them is pure speculation.

I'd say the top 5 fighters are the Su-30MKI, F-15E w/ AESA, EF2000, Rafale, and the JAS-39. Both the EF2000 and Rafale are having problems however. I've heard reports about european countries complaining that the EF2000 is having too many mechanical problems and the Rafale was recently defeated by F-15s in a dogfight(during hte sale proposal for singapore). Right now, i think the #1 fighter rank is between the F-15E and Su-30MKI...only time will tell which one is better, since neither have engaged in real combat situations.

tphuang
07 Oct 05,, 05:16
Lets just remove the F-22 and F-35 from the comparison...since none of us actually know their true capabilities and anything we say about them is pure speculation.

I'd say the top 5 fighters are the Su-30MKI, F-15E w/ AESA, EF2000, Rafale, and the JAS-39. Both the EF2000 and Rafale are having problems however. I've heard reports about european countries complaining that the EF2000 is having too many mechanical problems and the Rafale was recently defeated by F-15s in a dogfight(during hte sale proposal for singapore). Right now, i think the #1 fighter rank is between the F-15E and Su-30MKI...only time will tell which one is better, since neither have engaged in real combat situations.
did you not hear about EF2000 beating those two F-15Es last year?

SuperFlanker
07 Oct 05,, 06:27
I actually didn't. I haven't heard much about hte EF2000 except that it has been very difficult to maintain.

leib10
07 Oct 05,, 06:58
I don't see why the F/A-18 is on here.

tejas_mk
07 Oct 05,, 15:28
People, pls i know that everybody is in favour of Raptor, but look at the fact sheet, it isn't even in the production, leave aside the combat. also america brags about its products too much. only 2 prototypes are built. how can anyone compare it with su-30mki. Guys, i am not against Raptor but think, it has never put in action against any SU-30mki. one should not give reviews without any result. Raptor has not put against any fighter as far as i know.No hard feelings though.

Also, Some of the planes in the list were not made strike purpose. As far as strike capability is concerned, i think Su-30Mki tops, followed by F-15. F-18, isn't in the league. Havent heard of Ef2000 in a combat or even in an exercise so it will be too early to comment.

i also read that in this thread that f-15 and Su-30 have never been engaged each other in combat. I would like to tell that F-15 was put against Su-30k in a combat exercise in india.The result was devastating for F-15's. the kill ratio was 9:2 between F-15 & su-30k.
American pilots themselves confirmed that they are not ready to confront Su-30k leave aside Su-30mki. They said that Su-30k radar
is able to track 12 tragets simultaneously and engage 10 at one time.
The biggest shock for them was that a Mig-21 was able to get a shot on an F-15 although Mig-21 is no way near an F-15 (which is a Legend in my eyes.) The analysts on the joint combat exercise said that amodified f-15may give su-30k a strong competition but they wont stand a chance against an Su-30mki. Please understand that i'm am not against F-15(i love them) but truth is that f-15 may be competition for su-30k but ...... against Su-30mki is a big no no.

Also Ef2000 is a gud aircraft fitted with gud technology speially the Voice command feature. meaning that it can perform half of the functions just by the pilot giving him voice commands(coooool). But off late it has been suffering from some software problems.i dont know if they r true. now as far as the list is concerned:-
1.) Su-47( Not in production therefore, cant say till some records showup). :redface:
2.) f-22 ( Not in production therefore, cant say till some records showup). :redface:
3.)F-35 ( Not built for strike fighter more like for the same purpose as of a harrier.) :frown:
4.) Mig-1.41(Guys , y the heck is this in the list) :confused: :mad:
5.) su-30mki(Now this is a tough one. for me, this plane is a god among those in service.) It will be a legend as an F-15 is. It may outrun the legacy of f-15. :cool: :biggrin: ;)
6.)F-18( ha ha ha ha.... :eek: its a joke. it should not be even thought of when the jets like F-15 and su-30mki are in the service,leave aside placing it in the list.)

tejas_mk
07 Oct 05,, 15:42
Dude, i saw a show on History Channel, I think it was modern marvels or something, anyway, it showed the F-22 battling against 4-5 F-15s. The F-22 killed all of them. The F-15s weren't even able to touch it. So if one F-22 can take out 4-5 F-15s, then it can also take out 4-5 flankers or MKIs.

You can't fight what you can't see. ;)

First of all, dont belive what u see. Coz the americans are always a showoff, it might just be a publicity stunt to show that a F-22 beat all the F-15 . And practically,there's a hell of a differenceb/w beating an F-15 and beating an Su-30mki. Those F-15 dont even stand a chance aginst Su-30mki. Also there is a hell of a difference between a flanker and an mki. so dont judge by urself. u make it sound like raptor is invincible. dont forget that americans boasted too much about U-2 and the russians blew it right in the sky. dont take russians and their machines for granted.Do not under estimate them. :mad:Remember they have tesla breed of radar whichcan detect stealth too. U may get a surprise if a raptor goes aginst an mki.

tejas_mk
07 Oct 05,, 15:48
Those 5 people who voted for the SU-30 are either biased ( LOL India or Pakistan region I bet) or just plain silly. No fighter in the world can match the F/A-22...NONE!

An alien from another planet would choose the Raptor over the SU-30.

i think ur being biased for choosing raptor. and i think an idiot would choose raptor without knowing that raptor isnt even in the production, leave aside confronting su-30. it will be proved only when confront each other or go for a joint exercise. also pilot skill is heavily requird.

tejas_mk
07 Oct 05,, 15:50
Those 5 people who voted for the SU-30 are either biased ( LOL India or Pakistan region I bet) or just plain silly. No fighter in the world can match the F/A-22...NONE!

An alien from another planet would choose the Raptor over the SU-30.
i think ur being biased for choosing raptor. and i think an idiot would choose raptor without knowing that raptor isnt even in the production, leave aside confronting su-30. it will be proved only when confront each other or go for a joint exercise. also pilot skill is heavily requird.

tejas_mk
07 Oct 05,, 15:58
kid .. its good loving ur country. but dont forget that even veitnam was nough to contain the US army or USA.
wah wah wah wah.....that was gud one for that arrogant dude. :mad: Perfectly said.... even a small place like vietnam was enough for them. :cool:

BenRoethig
07 Oct 05,, 17:22
would choose raptor without knowing that raptor isnt even in the production

Yes it is, over 50 have been delivered to the Air Force. 27th Fighter Squadron of the 1st fighter wing is transitioning over to the Raptor.

tejas_mk
07 Oct 05,, 17:29
Yes it is, over 50 have been delivered to the Air Force. 27th Fighter Squadron of the 1st fighter wing is transitioning over to the Raptor.

Thanks for the info dude. ;)

BenRoethig
07 Oct 05,, 17:41
did you not hear about EF2000 beating those two F-15Es last year?

You know that Strike Eagle is a tactical bomber right? It is built on a heavier airframe than the C/D in order to carry the heavy payloads.

jgetti
07 Oct 05,, 17:53
You know that Strike Eagle is a tactical bomber right? It is built on a heavier airframe than the C/D in order to carry the heavy payloads.

The F-15E is a strike fighter. Though it was designed for tactical bombing missions, it retains all air superiority cababilities of the A-D variants. The airframe is a few thousand pounds heavier, but depending on loadout, fuel, etc, often weighs the equivalent amount as an A-D on many missions. It also has more powerful engines.

I don't know where you heard that E's got beaten, but I find that highly unlikely. Are you speaking of a DACT exercise?

Dreadnought
07 Oct 05,, 18:07
Maybe it will when it goes into production...in about 20 years.

The raptor will rule the skies for the next 20 years till we come up with a newer toy ;) There are currently raptors now in U.S. possesion. I saw the show where they put her up against the 4-5 planes. Remarkably they were all dead even before she appeared on their radar screens. See ya's in the future :biggrin:

jgetti
07 Oct 05,, 18:13
The raptor will rule the skies for the next 20 years till we come up with a newer toy ;) There are currently raptors now in U.S. possesion. I saw the show where they put her up against the 4-5 planes. Remarkably they were all dead even before she appeared on their radar screens. See ya's in the future :biggrin:

I'm not saying that wouldn't happen,, but they also said the F-14 with phoenix could shoot down 6 aircraft simultaneously "PROVEN" in tests....... Before I'll ever assume anything from a government test of a military platform,, I want to know ALL hidden agendas, assumptions, test conditions, and methodology. Without that information, their test results are about as useful as a preachers prick.

tphuang
07 Oct 05,, 23:39
The F-15E is a strike fighter. Though it was designed for tactical bombing missions, it retains all air superiority cababilities of the A-D variants. The airframe is a few thousand pounds heavier, but depending on loadout, fuel, etc, often weighs the equivalent amount as an A-D on many missions. It also has more powerful engines.

I don't know where you heard that E's got beaten, but I find that highly unlikely. Are you speaking of a DACT exercise?

I'm talking about this one:

Eurofighter a shooting star in clash with US jets

MURDO MACLEOD
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT


IT might be over budget and years late but the Eurofighter Typhoon has shown that it can shake off America's best fighter plane and shoot it down.

A chance encounter over the Lake District between a Eurofighter trainer and two F-15 aircraft turned into a mock dogfight, with the British plane coming off best - much to the surprise of some in the RAF. The episode was hushed up for fear of causing US blushes.

For a project 10 years late and $8bn over budget, it is a welcome piece of good news.

The 'clash' took place last year over Windermere when the two-seater RAF Eurofighter was 'bounced' from behind by the two F-15E fighters.

The US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless 'Limey' for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down.

But much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails.

The British pilots themselves were almost as surprised at winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world.


As for tejas_mk, I think we all read about the handicap F-15s faced in that encounter already.

BenRoethig
08 Oct 05,, 21:35
I'd like too see a rematch with the F-15K

doctor_vals
17 Oct 05,, 05:53
the F/A-22 is the best of the bunch because of its inherant manouverability, pilot-friendly cockpit and weapons suite. it would still be the best of the bunch even without its stealth capability.

the F-35 isn't a fighter, its a ground attack aircraft with a significant ability to defend itself and others.

the SU-47 and MiG-1.42 don't exist in any meaningful way, the first has been ordered but with major changes ie: swept back instead of swept forward wings which will massively affects its projected manouverability and the second hasn't been bought by anyone. at all.

the 'best fighter' is a concept for air-shows and little boys. the only fighter worth having is one flown by experienced and well-trained pilots, maintained by well-trained and motivated crews and with AWACS and tanker support and carrying the weapons needed to fulfil its role. anything else is a waste of taxpayers money leaving the ground.
I agreed with you 120% It is matter only about "one flown by experienced and well-trained pilots, maintained by well-trained and motivated crews and with AWACS and tanker support and carrying the weapons needed to fulfil its role".
Let say left side will use any airplane from the list with not well trained crew and support and the right side will use any aircraft from MiG15, MiG21, Mirage or F4 Fantom with best of the best crew and exelent support. And I know everybody will find out - who will be the winner?
It is m

canoe
19 Oct 05,, 09:03
Ok first off because so many people seem to be totally unaware, as someone stated the F22 is an operational aircraft with the U.S airforce now over 50 have been delivered and more are on the way.

Second for those touting the Eurofighter vrs the F15, I'd expect the Eurofighter to have significant advantages in certain areas over the F15's keep in mind the F15's airframe was designed around 1969. Its avionics and weapons have been kept constantly up-to-date but you can't seriously expect it to match a brand new modern western-european design across the board in terms of performance. My personal view is the F15's are approaching the end of their useful lives as first tier fighters. The problem is the F22 is too expensive to replace the F15's on a 1 to 1 ratio but the airforce really needs to look at alternatives, maybe designing a suped up F35 with longer range or something to replace the F15's, similar to what was done with the super hornet. I'm not really sure why their replacing the F16's with F35's anyway given the modern F16's are dirt cheap they're doing just fine so far at their tasked mission.

The Eurofighters direct competitors will be the F22 and to some degree the F35. The F22 will be top of the food chain for the forseeable future but in 15 years who knows.

raptor1992
22 Oct 05,, 01:05
when it comes to F-15 vs. EF-2000, i can already see the Eagle erupting into flames. not trying to offensive about those of you who like F-15s

hey_you
22 Oct 05,, 01:18
when it comes to F-15 vs. EF-2000, i can already see the Eagle erupting into flames. not trying to offensive about those of you who like F-15s

i believe you have no respect for others you SOB. i can tell this guy is a freak :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: ;) ;) ;)

jgetti
14 Nov 05,, 18:23
I'm not really sure why their replacing the F16's with F35's anyway given the modern F16's are dirt cheap they're doing just fine so far at their tasked mission.

The Eurofighters direct competitors will be the F22 and to some degree the F35. The F22 will be top of the food chain for the forseeable future but in 15 years who knows.

It's very interesting to me that you think the F-15 is no longer up to standards as it is too old, yet you think the F-16 lawn dart "is doing fine so far at their tasked mission." Remind me again how many F-15's have been shot down by other aircraft? I'm confident you have no idea what you're talking about.

Basic flight principles haven't changed since 1969 when the 15 was being designed. It's wing design is still the most efficient out there. Newer designs have sacraficed optimum performance wing geometry for stealthier geometries. It still has one of the lowest if not THE lowest wing loading of any active aircraft. It's avionics are unparallelled, and it still has room for growth. The F-15 is a stable design, i.e. it doesn't require fly-by-wire to achieve highly maneuverable yet stable flight. 15's are capable of sustaining much more damage than any other air superiority fighter and still return to base with safe landings. Ask any pilot in the world (less the F/A-22) if they would feel confident going up against ANY F-15 and I'm quite sure that any pilot with a lick of sense in their head would give you the same response,, and that is NO.

Are there stealthier designs out there? Yes. More maintenance friendly? Oh yes. But believe me,, if USAF thought there was any possibility that F-15 couldn't maintain air superiority against any current threat, then they would have forced operational capability of F/A-22 a long time ago.

HistoricalDavid
23 Feb 06,, 03:33
I'm talking about this one:

Assuming that story is true, which I don't think it is due to inconsistencies, then one would expect the brand-new multirole Eurofighter to be able defeat a bigger and heavier bombtruck, the older F-15E, especially considering it is, I believe, more expensive.

hello
23 Feb 06,, 10:35
I'm talking about this one:

Eurofighter a shooting star in clash with US jets

MURDO MACLEOD
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT


IT might be over budget and years late but the Eurofighter Typhoon has shown that it can shake off America's best fighter plane and shoot it down.

A chance encounter over the Lake District between a Eurofighter trainer and two F-15 aircraft turned into a mock dogfight, with the British plane coming off best - much to the surprise of some in the RAF. The episode was hushed up for fear of causing US blushes.

For a project 10 years late and $8bn over budget, it is a welcome piece of good news.

The 'clash' took place last year over Windermere when the two-seater RAF Eurofighter was 'bounced' from behind by the two F-15E fighters.

The US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless 'Limey' for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down.

But much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails.

The British pilots themselves were almost as surprised at winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world.


As for tejas_mk, I think we all read about the handicap F-15s faced in that encounter already.

The F-15E is a bomber, EF-2000 is an air-superiority fighter. StrikeEagles aren't supposed to attack fighters, its only supposed to engage to defend itself if something happened to its escorts. Typhoon is comparable to Su-35, Superbug and JSF. The F-15E is comparable to Tornado IDS Gr.4.

jgetti
23 Feb 06,, 21:22
The F-15E is a bomber, EF-2000 is an air-superiority fighter. StrikeEagles aren't supposed to attack fighters, its only supposed to engage to defend itself if something happened to its escorts. Typhoon is comparable to Su-35, Superbug and JSF. The F-15E is comparable to Tornado IDS Gr.4.


I disagree that it's comparable to a Tornado. In strike capability perhaps. The difference is, the E can still support the Air Superiority role very very well if need be. Other than about 4000 pounds more backbone, it retains ALL air-to-air capability that the A-D aircraft had. They're not putting AESA, JHMCS, and AIM-9x in them to blow up bunkers, and the Israeli's, Saudi's, Korean's, and Singapore certainly aren't just using them as bomb trucks.

Bill
23 Feb 06,, 22:32
LOL, agreed Jgetti. The F-15E is a very dangerous A2A machine.

highsea
23 Feb 06,, 23:04
...Assuming that story is true, which I don't think it is due to inconsistencies...You would also have to believe that a couple Strike Eagles on a ferry flight (which means they are loaded with fuel, flying above FL180 and therefore in class A airspace and on an IFR flight plan) decided to play impromptu ACM with a couple Typhoons on a training flight.

Not to mention the havoc it would create in the airspace, I can imagine their respective CO's just loving this...lol. Good way for a fighter pilot to become a transport pilot in one easy lesson.

I can see them lighting up their targeting radars for fun, but that's about it...

Karna
24 Feb 06,, 00:21
So...

What IS the best fighter?

The_Burning_Kid
24 Feb 06,, 01:11
So...

What IS the best fighter?

F-22 Raptor for sure.

Captain Drunk
24 Feb 06,, 01:59
I'd say Mig-1.42, which is only a testbed for the real 5th generation Mig. Only the US and Russia have the technology to design 5th gen. fighters. Right now Russia is developing basically 3 main 5th gen. fighters - Mig-1.42, Vityaz-2000 and Izdeliye 21(Sukhoi).

hello
24 Feb 06,, 14:34
The MIG-1.42/1.44 has already been cancelled. Do the other two have any pics or information?

highsea
24 Feb 06,, 16:22
The MIG-1.42/1.44 has already been cancelled. Do the other two have any pics or information?The V-2000 was a concept plane by MiG from a few years ago. It is an LIF/trainer (subsonic) that was sold to Iran and is now known as the Shafaq.

The I-21 is just another name for the Pak-Fa.

It's all part of the Russian alphabet soup of AC naming.

HistoricalDavid
24 Feb 06,, 17:03
By the way, how comparatively expensive are F-15Es, Eurofighters and F/A-22s to each other?

B.Smitty
24 Feb 06,, 17:16
By the way, how comparatively expensive are F-15Es, Eurofighters and F/A-22s to each other?


Depends on who's buying, how many they get, and how you calculate price.

Recent foreign orders for F-15s have been at or above $100 mil each in program price (including all the extras). IIRC, Eurofighters have been no cheaper and possibly more.

The only price guide we have for the F/A-22 is the U.S. buy. The program unit price for them, based on a 181 unit order is somewhere around $250 mil each, IIRC. Of course the flyaway price is more like $130-150mil, and the marginal production price (the price just to turn raw materials into a finished aircraft) was more like $90-110mil.

If the USAF gets their way and ups the order to 381 Raptors, those prices will come down.

Captain Drunk
24 Feb 06,, 17:33
The MIG-1.42/1.44 has already been cancelled. Do the other two have any pics or information?

No, not quite the Mig-1.42 is a concept, just like YF-17 Cobra of 1972 turned out to be the F/A-18 Hornet a decade later. Nope, no pics for Vityaz-2000 and Izdeliye 21, but I forgot to mention PAK-FA and Sukhoi LFS, supposed to be Russia's counterpart to the F-35 JSF.

http://veiculosmilitares.vilabol.uol.com.br/2003/00lfs1.jpg

highsea
24 Feb 06,, 19:02
A correction to my previous post. The Mukhamedov Integral I-2000 was incorrectly referred to by Janes as a Mikoyan project, and there are a lot of pics of the "MiG I-21" floating around. This is the same AC that some call the Vityaz-2000.

As I mentioned, it's a subsonic LIF/Trainer that was never developed by Russia.

Here are a couple pics- first the "Vityaz", then the Shafaq.

Bill
24 Feb 06,, 19:59
They're some GOOFY looking LERX's on that bird.

highsea
24 Feb 06,, 20:08
They're some GOOFY looking LERX's on that bird.Agree. It's a very strange planform.

I'm not really a fan of LIF's. Simulators are good enough today that they make LIF's kinda obsolete. It's smarter to invest in a real combat capable AC, imo.

-{SpoonmaN}-
25 Feb 06,, 05:56
Why is it that everyone is so amazed to hear that an EF-2000 can top an F-15? It's 25+ years newer than the Eagle for god's sake, do people think the Europeans have been spending all their money and waiting 25 years for something that can only match the Eagle?

hello
25 Feb 06,, 06:37
A correction to my previous post. The Mukhamedov Integral I-2000 was incorrectly referred to by Janes as a Mikoyan project, and there are a lot of pics of the "MiG I-21" floating around. This is the same AC that some call the Vityaz-2000.

As I mentioned, it's a subsonic LIF/Trainer that was never developed by Russia.



Except for the odd wings, the mid-section of the Vityaz looks like its been copied from the X-35.

avon1944
25 Feb 06,, 07:59
Why is it that everyone is so amazed to hear that an EF-2000 can top an F-15? It's 25+ years newer than the Eagle for god's sake, do people think the Europeans have been spending all their money and waiting 25 years for something that can only match the Eagle?
Very good point!

People talk about the F-15E, what about the F-15K -the latest variant of the F-15 family? It has the new AESA radar, avionics, HMDS/Sidewinder-9X and, new engines.
While it doesn't have some of the maneuverability in the "guns envirement" of some other generation 4.5 aircraft but, is it as combat effective as its competition, yes! It will certainly hold its own against any aircraft not a fifth generation aircraft. As an interceptor, it has a very long range or patrol time with a good weapons load.




YF-17 Cobra of 1972 turned out to be the F/A-18
The Northrup P-530 Cobra was a test aircraft for developement of new technology. When the USAF asked Northrop to design a candidate for the lightweight fighter competition, Northrop modified the P-530 to make the P-600 which was the internal model number for the YF-17. After losing to the GD YF-16 of which the US Navy could not use, the Navy still needed an aircraft to replace the A-7 and F-4. The Navy still hated Jack Northrop, because he told Congress that the flying wing with atomic bombs was all America needed, aircraft carriers were obsolete. A deal was struck between McDD and Northrop where the YF-17 would be converted to the F/A-18A and Northrop would produce the F/A-18L.

Adrian

Rusky
26 Feb 06,, 00:04
Sad to say, but Raptor is the best for now.

Simullacrum
27 Feb 06,, 14:06
Just an insight.....!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
FAOS is of particular concern, which may be applied to Eurofighters with internal bays..!!!..also the secretive HALO project by BAe..!!! Also and intersting insight into STEALTH techno...one of which (surprisingly is how Europe played a big part in stealth techno mainly coming from the UK and Germany..!!
It will be intresting to see (if indeed its real, which in my opinion would say it exists, gathering information from various sources) what Halo would be like against the Yanks dominance of Stealth planes..!!
---------------------------------------------------------

FOAS

FOAS or Future Offensive Air System is a British programme (embodied in RAF/MoD Air Staff Target-425) to research, develop and construct a replacement platform for the RAF's InterDictor Strike Tornado's (the GR.1, GR.1A, GR.1B and GR.4). Originally called Future Offensive Aircraft that designation was dropped since it appeared to preclude non-manned systems. Several European countries are showing interest including France, Germany and Italy and may yet officially join the program.

Possible platforms include stealthy manned systems both new and old, Unmanned (or Uninhabited for the more PC person) Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs) and air launched long range guided missiles. One potential suitor is a modified Eurofighter with a larger wing, internal bays, altered fuselage layout, increased internal tankage and upgraded avionics. A further possible candidate is the oft talked about but little known BAe project HALO (a possible black project supposedly under way for some time at BAe's military aircraft division at Warton, near Preston, North West England.)


JOUST ģ

As part of the development of the Eurofighter Typhoon, British Aerospace developed a desktop simulation system dubbed FOX-1. This single user system was intended to allow quick, simple (and cheap!) evaluation of the aircraft and its systems. Following on from this project Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) developed a networked multi-unit Beyond Visual Range battle simulation system dubbed JOUST. Instead of allowing just a single pilot to fly the aircraft several people could undertake simulated battles.

Since the system is fully computerised the parameters used to define the aircraft can be easily changed. This led to a number of very significant evaluations of the Eurofighter Typhoon being carried out. Since real pilots were involved it removed to a large extent the artificial nature of previous computerised evaluations.

At this time DERA have constructed an eight machine system at RAF Coningsby (which will play home to the Eurofighter OEU/OCU in future years). This allows complex beyond visual range tactics to be developed giving future Eurofighter pilots a head start. In addition the JOUST system has been utilised (linked with an SGI Onyx graphics engine) to evaluate potential upgrades to the Jaguar fleet as well as baseline requirements for the Typhoon's future medium range weapon, BVRAAM.



Radar Cross Section (RCS)

In recent years with the declassification of the U.S. F-117 project the idea of stealth aircraft has been brought very much to the forefront of public attention. However the term stealth is extremely general. For example an aircraft flying below enemy radar while minimising its radio (both radar and standard voice/data communication) transmissions is acting stealthy, the Tornado IDS is a good example, as is the F-111. However the general public now think of stealth aircraft as being invisible to radar. However no aircraft can be totally invisible to radar for a number of reasons. For example radar encompasses a large range of EM frequencies. It is extremely difficult to design an aircraft capable of minimising the return of such a range of frequencies. However there are fortunately a number of reasons as to why this is not an extremely detrimental problem.

The first production stealth aircraft, the F-117 used mathematical techniques originally developed (and abandoned) by the Russians. At the time (1970's) there was simply a lack of processing power to use these techniques on anything other than flat surfaces. This is why the F-117 has the now famous faceted surface. By careful placement of the diamond shaped surfaces, combined with the saw tooth edging between jointed surfaces, gold plated canopy and shield engine intakes it is possible to minimise the reflection of EM waves back to their source. In addition the development of radar absorbent materials (actually by Britain and Germany) helped lower the returns further.

However the aircraft although barely observable by high frequency radar's (those used by other aircraft and most ground based tracking systems) its not impossible to track by sets operating at lower frequencies. For example it is rumoured that British Type 42 Area Defence Destroyers regularly tracked American F-117's during the Gulf War. However the saving factor here is that low frequency radar's cannot pin-point an aircraft particularly well, instead they give only a general area in which the aircraft may reside. Increases in processing power have allowed designers to move from flat faceted surfaces to curved designs. The B-2 Spirit and the F-22 Raptor are both examples of this improvement.

Although the U.S. has dominated the research and development of stealth aircraft only an unwise person would assume they are the only country capable of constructing such platforms. Britain and Germany have worked on low observable platforms and technologies since they pioneered the development of radar before WW2. The German's were rumoured to have been close to producing a stealth aircraft in the late 80's/early 90's in the form of the FireFly. However American pressure is thought to have put paid to that project. Britain, through it is extremely close ties to the U.S. is also believed to have been involved in the research and development of U.S. platforms (the radar absorbent material applied to the U-2 was supplied by Britain for example) as well as its own classified technologies (such as the rumoured BAe HALO project).

Current next generation aircraft such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale also benefit from some low observable technologies. For example the Typhoon utilises radar absorbent materials and certain fuselage design techniques to reduce radar returns. Similar details apply to the Rafale. Although neither aircraft can be classes as a true stealth platform like the F-117 or F-22 they will both prove more difficult to detect by enemy aircraft. The next generation of British aircraft are required to be true stealth platforms, upping the ante on U.S. and foreign companies and forces.

STOL
STOL, or Short Take-Off and Landing as the term suggests is the ability of an aircraft to take off and land in relatively short distances. Typically aircraft take time to build up speed and provide enough air flow over the wings to lift the place skyward. Similarly upon landing it takes time to decelerate the aircraft. European airforces have generally been the leaders in the fields of conventional STOL aircraft since it was envisaged that during war time, fighters and bombers would often be re-located to secondary airfields (including motorways, major roads, etc.). To achieve short take off a plane needs to be able to obtain maximum thrust quickly and for that level to be maintained. For landing it generally requires strengthened undercarriages, improved breaking systems, thrust reversal systems and other airbraking equipment. For example both the Eurofighter Tyhoon and SAAB/BAe Gripen can take off and land in extraordinarily short distances using their high thrust engines, or by pitching down their canards upon landing (to increase drag). With overseas deployments becoming ever more usual it is now becoming increasingly common to see aircraft being designed with STOL operations in mind.

STOVL
STOVL, or Short Take-Off Vertical Landing was first developed after the second world war primarily by Britain, Germany, the U.S. and France. Britain pioneered the idea with the Flying Bedstead, effectively a metal structure with jets strapped to the sides.

The flying bedstead was ultimately designed into the first fixed wing production aircraft capable of taking off and landing vertically, the Hawker Siddely Harrier. It achieves this ability through a thrust vectoring system. The exhaust of the single Pegasus engine can be directed from the normal parallel arrangement through to a perpendicular direction. Although the Harrier can indeed take off vertically it uses a large amount of fuel to do so. Therefore it is more typical to see a Harrier take off normally, using it is variable geometry engines to reduce the take off run required. The only other production STOVL aircraft was the Russian Yak-xx, however it was never well adopted and is rarely seen.

The Harrier entered service with the RAF and later the Royal Navy. The RN who were about to lose their large fixed wing aircraft carriers found the Harrier to be the perfect solution to retaining a maritime air capability. They are currently used on the three Invincible class aircraft carriers with their well known ski jumps. The Harrier was also later purchased (and upgraded) by the United States Marine Corp who operate it from their Wasp class amphibious assault ships. In addition the Harrier is operated by; Italy, Spain, India and Indonesia.

The Harrier is now constructed and upgraded by a partnership between BAe and Boeing. It is due to be replaced in British use by the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (or FCBA) and in USMC use by the Joint Strike Fighter (which may or may not fill the FCBA requirement)

HistoricalDavid
27 Feb 06,, 18:29
You do love those exclamation marks, don't you Simullacrum?

Simullacrum
27 Feb 06,, 21:58
You do love those exclamation marks, don't you Simullacrum?


lol dont mean anything by them, just a habit i guess lol ...!!!! :biggrin:

-{SpoonmaN}-
28 Feb 06,, 00:06
From what I gather HALO is supposed to be a completely new bomber design. If so, it's gonna cost too much.

Simullacrum
28 Feb 06,, 09:26
From what I gather HALO is supposed to be a completely new bomber design. If so, it's gonna cost too much.

who knows what it will cost or what its performance will be.!
It has been in development for a wee while now..it only came to fruitation when the Goverment slipped up on a budgetry detail of expenses going to militry projects...they forgot to take out of the paper, the project called Halo. Which is still deemed classified and non-existant supposedly.

It just nice that there ia another country working on projects like Halo, which isnt soley owned and dominated by the U.S. as every one think it is...and that "Stealth" is an american concept and invetion which it aint.

We just have to wait and see what Halo will bring into the world of aviation.
I for one am intrigued as to what it will look like and what if any performance it will bring compared to current Stealth fighter/bombers.
It may not bring anything..only time will tell, like with most things.!

-{SpoonmaN}-
28 Feb 06,, 12:22
who knows what it will cost or what its performance will be.!
It has been in development for a wee while now..it only came to fruitation when the Goverment slipped up on a budgetry detail of expenses going to militry projects...they forgot to take out of the paper, the project called Halo. Which is still deemed classified and non-existant supposedly.

It just nice that there ia another country working on projects like Halo, which isnt soley owned and dominated by the U.S. as every one think it is...and that "Stealth" is an american concept and invetion which it aint.

We just have to wait and see what Halo will bring into the world of aviation.
I for one am intrigued as to what it will look like and what if any performance it will bring compared to current Stealth fighter/bombers.
It may not bring anything..only time will tell, like with most things.!

Well if the EU really wants to be a super power, they're going to need a real deep-strike capability, so there could be a market if the funds become available.

dave angel
28 Feb 06,, 16:34
tecnically the funds are already there within the states of the EU, its just that because each country has its own forces there is vast duplication at the lower end of the spectrum with little spending at the higher end of the spectrum.

Europe as a whole has about 1.7 million men under arms and just the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain spend about £200 billion between them on defence, but because each nation has its own forces, all of which do very much the same thing - which is territorial land and air defence and Naval ASW, there is little for expeditionary warfare (A/C carriers, amphibious ships, heavy air transport, etc...).

easiest way to think of it is if each US state had its own military, some of which it contributed to a federal force. the US would be awash with infantry, logistics, cavalry etc., but would have a relatively small navy and an air defence force comprising mostly F-16's but with no heavy transport to speak of, no B2's, no F-22's. no real reach. thats the situation Europe is in, it spends the money but it spends it on the wrong things. 20-odd logistics trains, 20-odd ASW navies, 20-odd chains of command, 20-odd small air forces and 20-odd armies designed to sit and wait for the soviets to come rumbling into view....

were that money spent in a coherant fashion Europes ability to project military power would be vastly increased.

canoe
28 Feb 06,, 17:45
tecnically the funds are already there within the states of the EU, its just that because each country has its own forces there is vast duplication at the lower end of the spectrum with little spending at the higher end of the spectrum.

Europe as a whole has about 1.7 million men under arms and just the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain spend about £200 billion between them on defence, but because each nation has its own forces, all of which do very much the same thing - which is territorial land and air defence and Naval ASW, there is little for expeditionary warfare (A/C carriers, amphibious ships, heavy air transport, etc...).

easiest way to think of it is if each US state had its own military, some of which it contributed to a federal force. the US would be awash with infantry, logistics, cavalry etc., but would have a relatively small navy and an air defence force comprising mostly F-16's but with no heavy transport to speak of, no B2's, no F-22's. no real reach. thats the situation Europe is in, it spends the money but it spends it on the wrong things. 20-odd logistics trains, 20-odd ASW navies, 20-odd chains of command, 20-odd small air forces and 20-odd armies designed to sit and wait for the soviets to come rumbling into view....

were that money spent in a coherant fashion Europes ability to project military power would be vastly increased.

But therein lies the problem with considering the EU as a unified military force. Its not as unified as it makes out, the military equipment EU members use varies ALOT between the members. While they do work on joint defence projects theres frequently alot of bickering and more often then not some countries pull out of projects. Theres alot of duplication and multiple instences of similar assets and equipment in all EU member countries.

Unless they EU members consolidate and transfer control of their militaries to a single organization they will never have military 'superpower' status.

Given that will probably never happen the EU will continue to have limited military importance and capabilities.

-{SpoonmaN}-
04 Apr 06,, 01:43
Maybe they could strike a deal to cmmitt say, half their regular forces to a centralised organisation and retain half as 'National Guard' type units. The Centralised Forces could have standardised equipment, training and uniform but have their units organised on the basis of Nationality to break the language barrier.
Still, I know this isn't happening for a long time but eventually it might.

Jimmy
04 Apr 06,, 18:16
Maybe they could strike a deal to cmmitt say, half their regular forces to a centralised organisation and retain half as 'National Guard' type units. The Centralised Forces could have standardised equipment, training and uniform but have their units organised on the basis of Nationality to break the language barrier.
Still, I know this isn't happening for a long time but eventually it might.

In regards to flight, English is the standard language.

PubFather
29 Apr 06,, 11:59
Maybe they could strike a deal to cmmitt say, half their regular forces to a centralised organisation and retain half as 'National Guard' type units. The Centralised Forces could have standardised equipment, training and uniform but have their units organised on the basis of Nationality to break the language barrier.
Still, I know this isn't happening for a long time but eventually it might.
I had a similar idea myself - and grouping in nationality could generate a nice espirit de corps and encourage healthy competition. Navally and with aviation you could go further - leaving the various countries with a coastguard and limited air-defence.

If the money for the Euro military was even 3% of GDP then it would a very capable force. Each nation could contribute forces according to their skillset - i.e German tanks and infantry and British ships for example. The French and Italians could do the cooking, and the Greeks the dishes afterwards... lol

Not that it will happen in the foreseable future. Something would need to happen to drive Europe closer together, and realise that it couldnt rely on the US all the time.

-{SpoonmaN}-
02 May 06,, 07:02
I had a similar idea myself - and grouping in nationality could generate a nice espirit de corps and encourage healthy competition. Navally and with aviation you could go further - leaving the various countries with a coastguard and limited air-defence.

If the money for the Euro military was even 3% of GDP then it would a very capable force. Each nation could contribute forces according to their skillset - i.e German tanks and infantry and British ships for example. The French and Italians could do the cooking, and the Greeks the dishes afterwards... lol

Not that it will happen in the foreseable future. Something would need to happen to drive Europe closer together, and realise that it couldnt rely on the US all the time.

I dont think they do rely on the USA now, I think they just don't see themselves as needing a real Global Military capability, plus I suspect a lot of Europeans haven't grasped that individually each nation isn't really capable of mounting their own big ops (with the obvious exception of France and the UK).
And yeah it's a long way off. Maybe when hell freezes over and we all realise that National boundaries exist only in our heads this sort of system could be implemented for a UN Military Force, but I'm talking fiction now.

Doug97
18 May 06,, 15:25
Why no EF-2000?

Jimmy
13 Jun 07,, 23:36
Because this poll is retarded anyway.

FiRepower
23 Jun 07,, 16:23
Because this poll is retarded anyway.

:)

Feanor
28 Aug 07,, 04:36
Guys I have yet to see a fighter beat the X-Wing. no but seriously 3/6 of the planes on the list have not been put into production.

glyn
14 Sep 07,, 11:51
The Eurofighter Typhoon is in production, and in service but unaccountably is not on the list. I agree with Jimmy. This poll is retarded.

EAGLE22
14 Sep 07,, 12:39
as i posted in the thread "F-22 stuff you should now", i have found (on wikipedia) some sources about Eurofighter Typhoon has beaten the F-22.

It has to be definetly on the list, because if this source is true, it is the best fighter in the world

EAGLE22
14 Sep 07,, 13:17
I currently found this:

"During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 reportedly proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor is claimed to have achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise"


Does somebody know more about that or about the how the Raptor did in Red Flag 2007?

i'm a little bit confused at the moment

HistoricalDavid
14 Sep 07,, 18:32
as i posted in the thread "F-22 stuff you should now", i have found (on wikipedia) some sources about Eurofighter Typhoon has beaten the F-22.

It has to be definetly on the list, because if this source is true, it is the best fighter in the world

What source was that?

Obvious question on my part, really.

EAGLE22
14 Sep 07,, 19:46
What source was that?

Obvious question on my part, really.


on wikipedia.org Search: F-22, chamber: comparisons

seems that the raptor has proved it's capabilities during a few battles under friends :)

Jimmy
16 Sep 07,, 01:02
I currently found this:

"During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 reportedly proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor is claimed to have achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise"


Does somebody know more about that or about the how the Raptor did in Red Flag 2007?

i'm a little bit confused at the moment


Red Flag is held multiple times per year, but as far as I know the Raptors only fought in one of them...I know they weren't in all 3 for sure, because they werent at the one I was at :(

They cleaned house. Tore the agressors up, and that's impressive. There were multiple quotes from aggressor pilots to the effect of "Even though I could see it out the cockpit the radar had no idea it was there."

Zinja
18 Sep 07,, 02:52
There were multiple quotes from aggressor pilots to the effect of "Even though I could see it out the cockpit the radar had no idea it was there."

Now that my friend is a big problem! I suppose the best advice for any pilot who will come against these in combat is to take a catapult or a sling and a couple of stones with them. If the tried and tested super duper tech wont work against them, then the only other option is the good old Davidic style :biggrin:

Jimmy
18 Sep 07,, 19:03
Or a gunport like what armored cars (in the US) have.

Indirect Fire
18 Sep 07,, 23:05
Su-47 :Not out yet
F/A-22: Good plane, but high cost
F-35: Better than the Raptor, and cost effective
MiG-1.42: WTF? This is a TECH DEMONSTRATOR
Su-30MKI: Comparable to the Raptor and JSF
F/A-18E/F: I don't know very much about this plane

GGTharos
18 Sep 07,, 23:41
Su-47 :Not out yet
F/A-22: Good plane, but high cost
F-35: Better than the Raptor, and cost effective


Um, what? 'Better than'? In what respect? In A2G and short-range SA - but if you're doing Air to Air work? Raptor wins, hands down.



MiG-1.42: WTF? This is a TECH DEMONSTRATOR


That only flew once, IIRC ...



Su-30MKI: Comparable to the Raptor and JSF

Try F-15E or newer. Not Raptor or JSF.



F/A-18E/F: I don't know very much about this plane

It does its job.

Ruskiy
20 Sep 07,, 07:50
http://www.junshijia.com/ziliao/mil2/pic/zhanji/jxx.jpg

Reminds you of something?

gunnut
20 Sep 07,, 10:00
F-35: Better than the Raptor, and cost effective

Dropping bombs maybe. Definitely not a2a.




Su-30MKI: Comparable to the Raptor and JSF

Try comparable to F-15E and F-18E.



F/A-18E/F: I don't know very much about this plane

It's a good bomb truck. Or as someone once said, it's the Honda Accord of fighters.

Repatriated Canuck
21 Sep 07,, 07:49
It's a good bomb truck. Or as someone once said, it's the Honda Accord of fighters.

That's a great compliment as my Accord lasted forever and it was very fast. Still though, I couldn't beat a Mustang in it.

Seems to sum up the Hornet nicely.

omon
27 Sep 07,, 01:18
ha, i like my new accord, handles great, good mpg, roomy, but it won,t stand a chance against my olds, (in acceleration).

Bella
16 Oct 07,, 04:55
I can tell through all of Eagle22's post, that he has a serious problem with the F-22. I guess if the F-22 is so bad, according to him, maybe the U.S. should just continue building F-15's sence they are undefeated.

Canmoore
30 Oct 07,, 02:31
I did not vote because I know squat about military aviation.. I did watch a show tonight on the ultimate strike planes.

I have gained a lot of respect for the F-15 Eagle.. 30 years old, and it is still the best active air superiority plane in the sky.

I know some stuff about the Raptor so I will skip that.. to the Eurofighter. That really impressed me, I like the delta wing..reminds me of the Avro Arrow. Anyone know anything more about the Eurofighter?

Maggot
30 Oct 07,, 03:45
The F-22 has had so many problems it's not funny. It's a contracting nightmare for the US taxpayers and the other nations that got sucked into helping to fund it. It belongs in the category of technological playground, instead of as a focused project. It took them forever to get the engine right and it's still underpowered. They had a major software error and had to get escorted back after trying to fly to Japan. They're finding out that the titanium used in the airframe reacts poorly to flight, resulting in bad vibes and increased maintenance costs. The US air force is doing it's best to get out of this one, with the current cost per jet somewhere in the ball park of $200ish million per jet and rising! It really makes me wonder what the hell is going on at Lockheed Martin these days. If they spent as much effort on the engineering as they did on the marketing it would be the best jet of all time. Cutting back on testing is not how you create your next generation air superiority jet. It's like Microsoft was in charge of running their Q&A.

The worst thing is the solution is to buy a jet made by the same people who screwed up the F-22 and pre-order some more expensive jets before they are properly tested. It's as bad as the guys screwing around with the new Moon lander design.

The F-15, now that was a jet built for battle.

Feanor
30 Oct 07,, 04:16
Gah this thread is so dead. Why don't you guys just get over the fact that none of them will ever shoot down a Nazgul.

Maggot
30 Oct 07,, 04:56
I like that the Russians jets are built with intakes that can deal with a debris choked airstrip. They don't have to spend hours picking up things that could bring down their jets. If you're in a serious war, chances are there's going to be debris where you are taking off with your jets.

FOG3
30 Oct 07,, 05:24
The F-15, now that was a jet built for battle.Heh. Boyd would inform you how the Blue Shirts utterly gold plated _his_ design. Then he'd tell you how they utterly screwed up the back up plan he had in the F-16.

Maggot
30 Oct 07,, 05:43
Meanwhile, whatever happened to the intentionally morphing wing project of the F-18 AAW? I thought that that had huge potential.

VarSity
30 Oct 07,, 17:28
I very much like the Typhoon, mainly because I saw it on top gear taking off, flying up to one mile vertically, then falling back down to its start position before a Bugatti Veyron covered a mile.

wajahat
30 Oct 07,, 21:14
ever heard of OLS?? or optical locator system/station ??

russian jets with OLS can easily take out U.S stealth planes

my vote for the best fighter goes to the MiG-35 & the sukhoi-37

OLS, as well as radar, allows to detect targets and aim weapon systems. But, unlike the radar, OLS has no emission which means - canít be detected.

MiG-35 OLS may see USAF stealth planes very nicely as well. Today itís impossible to hide the plane from the complex of powerful optics with IR vision.

This optical system can distinguish targets and aim weapons as well. Since, it has no emmissions, it is very silent

Jimmy
30 Oct 07,, 21:32
Gah this thread is so dead. Why don't you guys just get over the fact that none of them will ever shoot down a Nazgul.

Oh please, the eagles totally rocked the Nazgul.




What the hell has happened to this thread? Hahaha!

glyn
30 Oct 07,, 21:44
Oh please, the eagles totally rocked the Nazgul.




What the hell has happened to this thread? Hahaha!

I suggest that the uninformed listen to the uniformed on this (and other) threads. :mad: Fat chance!:mad: We seem to be collecting patrioteers. Why should that be? Is somebody orchestrating this?

HistoricalDavid
30 Oct 07,, 22:20
This optical system can distinguish targets and aim weapons as well. Since, it has no emmissions, it is very silent

Cloud, rain or night is likely to render this OLS of yours a losing proposition, even if your electronics have the power to distinguish a tiny little jet in the big huge blue sky... before it shoots you down.


The F-22 has had so many problems it's not funny. It's a contracting nightmare for the US taxpayers and the other nations that got sucked into helping to fund it.

Which nations are those? That's right, the F-22 is about as American as apple pie.

You might be thinking of the F-35, and even then it's difficult to deny that the US is providing the lion's share of funding for that one, if a quick visit to the wiki page is anything to go by. F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35#International_participation)


It belongs in the category of technological playground, instead of as a focused project. It took them forever to get the engine right and it's still underpowered.

The F-22 has probably the most godlike thrust-to-MTOW ratio of any fighter in its class that I'm aware of: 1:1! Again, you're probably thinking of the F-35.


They had a major software error and had to get escorted back after trying to fly to Japan.

It's a new and ridiculously advanced aircraft - it's called 'ironing out the kinks'.


They're finding out that the titanium used in the airframe reacts poorly to flight, resulting in bad vibes and increased maintenance costs.

'Bad vibes'? Very analytical. Titanium is one of the most impressive materials known to man - you're thinking of the stealthy RAM which coats the F-22's skin and prevents it from flying too fast. Oh no, it can do only Mach 2 instead of Mach 2.4+.

INTERESTING EDIT: The titanium used in the SR-71, comprising 85% of its airframe grew stronger with repeated flights due to annealing from its Mach 3.2 sustained speeds.


The US air force is doing it's best to get out of this one, with the current cost per jet somewhere in the ball park of $200ish million per jet and rising!

IIRC it's $150 million production cost and $350 mil+ total development cost (bearing in mind some of that goes toward the F-35 as well)


It really makes me wonder what the hell is going on at Lockheed Martin these days. If they spent as much effort on the engineering as they did on the marketing it would be the best jet of all time.

It pretty much is the best jet of all time. Name a superior jet and why it is so.


The F-15, now that was a jet built for battle.

Are you seriously suggesting the F-15 is superior to the F-22?

scorefour
31 Oct 07,, 03:33
The US air force is doing it's best to get out of this one, with the current cost per jet somewhere in the ball park of $200ish million per jet and rising!

Yeah, they're trying real hard, that's why they just requested 20 more!:rolleyes:

US Air Force requests funding for 20 more F-22 fighters (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/25/218896/us-air-force-requests-funding-for-20-more-f-22-fighters.html)

The F-22 is one of the most tested aircraft of all time. The USAF knew exactly what they were getting. Now that it's operational and allied nations are seeing the data, it's interesting that Japan, Korea, and Australia have all made overtures to the U.S. to possibly obtain the F-22 for themselves. If the F-22 were an absolute turkey, this wouldn't be happening.

The F-22 isn't perfect, but right now, it's the baddest of the bad, and likely to stay there for quite a while.

Canmoore
31 Oct 07,, 03:50
Are you seriously suggesting the F-15 is superior to the F-22?

in a war of attrition it would be.

Feanor
31 Oct 07,, 04:05
I suggest that the uninformed listen to the uniformed on this (and other) threads. :mad: Fat chance!:mad: We seem to be collecting patrioteers. Why should that be? Is somebody orchestrating this?

What's a patrioteer?


in a war of attrition it would be.

Consider not just best, but best for it's time frame.

scorefour
31 Oct 07,, 04:08
in a war of attrition it would be.

The fact is, the F-22 is many times more survivable than the F-15.

Really, the question of which plane would be more valuable in battle comes down to who you're fighting. If the enemy has an advanced anti-aircraft network, you've gotta have something to kick down the door. That's what the F-22 is for. Once air superiority has been established, the F-15's can go in and do what they do.

More than likely, the U.S. isn't going to face any nation that could put up serious resistance. In such cases, the F-15 would work fine. If, however, the U.S. were forced to defend Taiwan, they would bless the day that they committed to buying the F-22.

Jimmy
31 Oct 07,, 19:55
in a war of attrition it would be.

We've got 4 or 5 times as many F-15s as F-22s.


The Raptor would win. Sorry.

Shamus
31 Oct 07,, 21:06
What's a patrioteer?I believe beating one's manly chest mightily while expounding loudly and stridently regarding your own country's military abilities regardless of hard facts pointing to the contrary would qualify as being somewhat of a patrioteer.However,if I am incorrect in my definition I am confident that Glyn will correct the errors in my description.;) :biggrin:

glyn
31 Oct 07,, 21:48
You are yet again entirely right, Shamus:)

gunnut
31 Oct 07,, 21:55
ever heard of OLS?? or optical locator system/station ??

russian jets with OLS can easily take out U.S stealth planes

From what range? It doesn't help you if you can see me from 30 miles out but I can see you from 120 miles out.



my vote for the best fighter goes to the MiG-35 & the sukhoi-37


Are they in service?



OLS, as well as radar, allows to detect targets and aim weapon systems. But, unlike the radar, OLS has no emission which means - canít be detected.

MiG-35 OLS may see USAF stealth planes very nicely as well. Today itís impossible to hide the plane from the complex of powerful optics with IR vision.

This optical system can distinguish targets and aim weapons as well. Since, it has no emmissions, it is very silent

OLS might not have emissions, but how about the planes carrying them?

HistoricalDavid
31 Oct 07,, 22:12
OLS is practically just like IRST, only even more attentuated by bad weather and night. (Actually IRST would be more effective at night).

Canmoore
31 Oct 07,, 22:53
We've got 4 or 5 times as many F-15s as F-22s.


The Raptor would win. Sorry.

Exactly..so say in a war of attrition you start to loose F-22s to say accidents, or lucky AA fire, or whatever.. You only have 100 hundred of these planes right now, and at 137million each it is going to cost the airforce a lot to keep these in the air.

Now, the F-15 eagle is still the best active air superiority strike plane out there, and with a much cheaper price tag.. if you start loosing F-22's to whatever, would the F-15 not start to look more attractive?

My point is, if a war turns into a crash up derby, do you bring the new turbo charged Race Car, or the beat up old Cadillac?

HistoricalDavid
31 Oct 07,, 23:46
Since when would or has modern aerial warfare for the United States turned into a crash up derby?

Feanor
01 Nov 07,, 00:43
I believe beating one's manly chest mightily while expounding loudly and stridently regarding your own country's military abilities regardless of hard facts pointing to the contrary would qualify as being somewhat of a patrioteer.However,if I am incorrect in my definition I am confident that Glyn will correct the errors in my description.;) :biggrin:

But, but, but . . . . Nazguls aren't from my country :/

:biggrin: :biggrin:

gunnut
01 Nov 07,, 00:58
But, but, but . . . . Nazguls aren't from my country :/

:biggrin: :biggrin:

Are you sure? I've seen the way Putin floats about at meetings and news conferences...

Canmoore
01 Nov 07,, 02:16
Since when would or has modern aerial warfare for the United States turned into a crash up derby?

lol I get what you are saying. And the F-22 is superior enough that more than likely nothing will touch it. But I mean every time you loose a Raptor, you are loosing a lot of money. Eagles can do the job just as good when compared to what is out there right now, and for a lot cheaper. I am just wondering if the Raptor is a little bit of overkill..

Like bringing a nuke to an infantry battle.

jennery587
01 Nov 07,, 04:06
:mad:
F-22 is not prove to anybody that is the best fighter plane.. US always make excellent cinema FX using simulations to prove what? An F-22 can beat easy an F-15 (1:80).. It's simple the Lockheed must support the product that costs billion dollars for the US people.. I don't say that F-22 is an excellent plane, but is like soccer players that sign a contract of million euros, but they are just good players nothing else.. Also I am sure that F-22 can't shot down easy a Su-30 or a Su-35/37 before the russian plane able to hit F-22.. Now in close combat the posibility is shorter, I just give advantages to a Sukhoi super agilitities that we all see.. I am not sure if F-22 can beat an F-16 in close combat (?).. Same things to prove the superiority of EF2000 agains Russian fighters made from British.. But EF2000 is not able to do nothing that the british tells in a airshow (?) (1.F-22 2.EF2000 they said).. Russian fighter is very improve when the horizon with west opens, the only problem that russian planes have is past was the electronics staff, now this staff stop to be exist.. So? I believe the PAK-FA, will be also an excellent plane in same role with F-22 but still not be able to beat so easy fighter like Su-30/35.. So the best plane today.. maybe F-22 in BVR but Sukhois in close combat!

jennery587
01 Nov 07,, 04:20
there's one playa we foget.. china yep china j-10 we dont know yet how much good it is im not say j-10 is the best at the same time we should keep eyes on them

texasjohn
01 Nov 07,, 04:36
there's one playa we foget.. china yep china j-10 we dont know yet how much good it is im not say j-10 is the best at the same time we should keep eyes on them

You mean the "reverse engineered Israeli Lavi" ? What about it?

With Raptors in the sky "turkey shoot" comes to mind!!

jennery587
01 Nov 07,, 05:00
You mean the "reverse engineered Israeli Lavi" ? What about it?

With Raptors in the sky "turkey shoot" comes to mind!!

nobody know how good german fighter was before world war 2 uk france russia usa taste it nobody tough german navy was good then uk spanish france versel yep again nobody know russian mig-29 shut down usa f-111
:mad:

texasjohn
01 Nov 07,, 05:09
I'm sorry - I dont understand your post. No offense.

scorefour
01 Nov 07,, 05:16
nobody know how good german fighter was before world war 2 uk france russia usa taste it nobody tough german navy was good then uk spanish france versel yep again nobody know russian mig-29 shut down usa f-111

Actually the U.S. does know how good most of the world's fighters are. They have quite a collection of Russian made planes along with several other country's. They may not have the latest versions, but performance numbers can be extrapolated quite easily from the baseline versions.

Everyone would do well to remember this when they start claiming that Russian fighters would slaughter the F-22 in real comabat. The fact is, the F-22 has gone up against modern Russian fighters many times. The U.S. flies against them all the time because they own an entire fleet of them. The U.S. wouldn't be spending this kind of money if the results weren't extremely favorable for the F-22!

zraver
01 Nov 07,, 05:17
ever heard of OLS?? or optical locator system/station ??

Yup sure have, but do some math with a range of about 10km for fighter sized aircraft how long doe sit have to find, lock and launch on a craft with a closing speed of 1886km/h? (F-22 at 45,000' doing mach 1-660mph/1062km/h and another fighter doing 450mph/724km/h) 31km/min thats just 20 seconds meanwhile if the F-22 LPI AESA picked up the OLS equipped fighter at 100km it has had 3 minutes to act in total safety.



russian jets with OLS can easily take out U.S stealth planes

maybe a subsonic B-2 or F-117 if they no ingress egress routes, but not a F-22.



my vote for the best fighter goes to the MiG-35 & the sukhoi-37

I hope you pick better in political elections.


OLS, as well as radar, allows to detect targets and aim weapon systems. But, unlike the radar, OLS has no emission which means - canít be detected.

the F-22 is a flying ESM platform, can datalink, and its own radar is nearly impossible to detect.



MiG-35 OLS may see USAF stealth planes very nicely as well. Today itís impossible to hide the plane from the complex of powerful optics with IR vision.

It'll be dead before it even knows its death warrant was signed.



This optical system can distinguish targets and aim weapons as well. Since, it has no emmissions, it is very silent

It (OLS) also has itty-bitty range.

Maggot
01 Nov 07,, 07:03
The US will be trying its best to offset the cost of the F-22 by foreign sales. Unfortunately, this will mean that the US will probably be using billions from the Defense Export Loan Guarantee Fund to cover whatever foreign nations canít cover on their own, to ensure the sales are made. At the cost of the F-22, the taxpayer will be eating a lot of the money on these sales to make them happen. Nations are currently getting sucked into the funding the F-35 as a continuation of the F-22 technology. The Australian PM already got in trouble for announcing out of the blue that they were going to order the F-35 without actually going through the proper defence contracting channels.

The titanium airframe issues with the F-22 are due to the titanium pieces, where the wings and tail attach to the fuselage, failed to meet the requirements to avoid premature metal fatigue. Titanium welds were a problem with the SR-71 Blackbird too, because of its finicky nature in aircraft frames. The difference of water impurities from different sources had drastic differences in the durability of the titanium welds. Are they having the same problems with the F-22? Difficult to say.

Itís going to be practically impossible to test all of the software and I fully expect more problems, since the F-22 has around 2 million lines of code in its system, more than anything else the air force has right now. Now to be fair, I realize that Windows XP has in the ballpark of 45 million lines of code, but when it crashes people donít generally burn and die, or get squadrons lost in the middle of the ocean. That and Microsoft is notorious for poor Q&A. Thatís what weíre for apparently. To be fair they had their fair share of software glitches in the F-15 too when it was being introduced.

They also hit a wall because of the rapid advances in technology happening while they were such a long-term project. Being state of the art is so very hard when the tech bar keeps moving passed you while you work. The 5 volt chip was big at the start of the project, but since then weíve seen several advances, especially the 1-volt Pentium chips. The 5 volt chips and their systems arenít compatible with the lower voltage chips, and there are already serious concerns about procurement of the obsolete 5 volt chips.

In 2006 they had a pilot trapped inside the F-22 canopy for 5 hours because nobody could figure out how to open it after the canopy decided it liked being locked! Thatís right, it was sitting on the runway, and no one in the Air Force or Lockheed Martin had a clue how to open the canopy of their own jet. Eventually they had to cut him out.

Theyíre having huge problems with corrosion, by huge, I mean 2 out of 3 jets. The problem is the maintenance access panels, where they meet the rest of the airframe. Theyíve had this problem before and said it was solved, but itís back again and might be back again after the new access panels are installed.

The F-15 is getting old, but it was an unbelievably well built machine in its time. There were a lot of critics then that it was overbuilt and people wanted to go to a cheaper airframe then too. If the next generation air superiority jet is built with the same drive and focus as they had with the F-15 weíd be well served. It just seems that government contracts are being thrown at Lockheed Martin like drunken sailors on leave. One oversight brought up again and again about the F-22 is how freaking large it is for a stealth plane. I would think that this would seriously eliminate it from any possible naval carrier role, not that it was ever developed for the navy. Which makes me wonder if it was supposed to be the next generation jet, why it wasnít developed for carrier use from the beginning?

I really hope that the F-22 project proves everyone wrong and doesnít turn into the disaster its critics are hailing it as. With all the classifications on specifics and the marketing of those specifics, itís going to be a while before we actually know what itís capable of and really, until they start duking it out with the new Suís over some future crisis zone, against well trained pilots, itís going to be hard to say if it was money well spent. Wargames against F-18ís and F-16ís have resulted in the F-22 being shot down, but there are a lot of doubts about the exercises because of enemy forces not following the scriptÖ

Personally though, Iíd rather they were working on a replacement for the A-10, since itís been so busy. The current plan that the all-encompassing F-35 will take over for the Warthog just doesnít make sense, since it doesnít share the characteristics that make the A-10 a great close support jet and couldnít even mount the gun.

Feanor
01 Nov 07,, 08:12
Are you sure? I've seen the way Putin floats about at meetings and news conferences...

He's not man enough to be a Nazgul. Gollum at best. A Goblin most likely.

gunnut
01 Nov 07,, 11:15
nobody know how good german fighter was before world war 2 uk france russia usa taste it nobody tough german navy was good then uk spanish france versel yep again nobody know russian mig-29 shut down usa f-111
:mad:

Oh we know a lot about the J-10. We practically designed it. It's based on the Lavi, which was killed due to American pressure. The Lavi was based on the F-16. We wanted to sell more F-16s.

gunnut
01 Nov 07,, 11:16
He's not man enough to be a Nazgul. Gollum at best. A Goblin most likely.

I can see him being Gollum. :biggrin:

Feanor
01 Nov 07,, 13:07
So back to the topic at hand. No aircraft here presented has even a remote chance of EVER shooting down a Nazgul on fell beast. So the ringwraiths win by default.

HistoricalDavid
01 Nov 07,, 14:37
lol I get what you are saying. And the F-22 is superior enough that more than likely nothing will touch it. But I mean every time you loose a Raptor, you are loosing a lot of money. Eagles can do the job just as good when compared to what is out there right now,

Wow, you aren't being short-sighted at all.

The F-22 is designed not only with current threats in mind but with potential threats for the next few decades.

Plus, the F-15 may be cheaper but its pilots are going to be almost as expensive. Lose one F-22 and you lose one pilot; lose five or six F-15s and you lose five or six multi-million dollar irreplaceable pilots, and while the F-22 is more complex I'm betting its pilots aren't five to six times more expensive to train.

Plus, you will put five or six times less people of yours in harm's way, and from a moral perspective that's always a good thing.

PS to produce new F-15s would not be cheap. The F-15SGs or F-15Ks were sold for approaching $100 million recently.

gunnut
01 Nov 07,, 21:32
So back to the topic at hand. No aircraft here presented has even a remote chance of EVER shooting down a Nazgul on fell beast. So the ringwraiths win by default.

Harry Potter on a broom will kick a Nazgul's ass.