LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteDid you even read this thread?
according to this sources the F-22A was beaten by Eurofighter Typhoon.
Talk:F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think USAF should stop the program now. With the price of one F-22A you should expect that it beats the cheaper Typhoon...
Maybe someone of you has sent the link yet, I havent read all 17 pages.
Last edited by EAGLE22; 14 Sep 07, at 09:18.
Did you even read this thread?
Chimo
yes I have and I even checked out this forum:
The Eurofighter Typhoon beat the F22 in real tests!
-> they got more infos
ok I have to say they don't have much more infos
Last edited by EAGLE22; 14 Sep 07, at 10:05.
If you were in an SU-30, would you rather go up against an airforce flying the F-22 or an airforce flying the Typhoon?Originally Posted by EAGLE22
I absolutely love this PDF: http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Stevenson%20F-22%20Brief.pdf
Everything is written in extra large letters coupled with pictures. I wonder if the author can make it a flip-up book?
Reading that forum reminds me of the Pakistani Defense forum. I can only take half a thread of all that chest thumping.
Last edited by gunnut; 14 Sep 07, at 10:13.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
if I were in the Su-30 i would choose the F-22A cause it's easier to beat in an dogfight than an EF2000 according to the source above
If this story is true and the EF2000 really matched the F-22's out pentagon has some serious problems
Good, that's what we want the world to think.if I were in the Su-30 i would choose the F-22A cause it's easier to beat in an dogfight than an EF2000 according to the source above
If this story is true and the EF2000 really matched the F-22's out pentagon has some serious problems
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
That piece is a nice propaganda, it is so full of holes it isn't funny. There have been no free fights between the two aircraft. Detecting the F-22 at eighty miles speaks volumns about the ROEs. The "real test" sounds much like Cope India.
The largest plane in the sky gets spotted first, tell that to the Su-30 pilots or, the F-15 which has a 100+:0 kill ratio!
Adrian
Last edited by avon1944; 14 Sep 07, at 23:39.
You completely missed the point. Great, the system is innovative and unlike anything else. What are the components of those systems? What kind of performance do they get from the CPUs aboard that Apache? A lot of military equipment built in the past 10 years uses computer parts roughly on par with an Intel 386.
ACMI is an incredible system, and I've worked with it several times. Sitting in on a shot validation debrief is a blast. Again...it uses components that are considerably older and "more obsolete" than you would imagine. Same goes for virtually everything else. They didnt invent a quantum computer for the Raptor, it uses something that was readily available 10 years ago.
To clarify, I'm not disagreeing with anything you actually said (aside from the factual errors pointed out...which I didnt know either), I'm reiterating my original point. Systems are not the same as components. Modern, top-of-the-line systems are often made of components widely considered obsolete and ridiculous to use, but they WORK.
Last edited by Jimmy; 15 Sep 07, at 02:08.
Just a few minor corrections
Last edited by Gun Grape; 16 Sep 07, at 02:52.
Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?
Other than the solution of the F-22, what would you suggest.... considering the amount of time required to design a major system? The expandable computer with parallel processing is the best answer to this problem that I have heard.
The only systems type work I have ever done was back in the early 1970's, a 'digital clock!" Having to explain how a clock with no moving parts would work to people. I used flip-flops, Schmitt trigger, Nixie tubes, etc. Working at National Semiconductor, I was able to get "thermal reject IC's" free. I do realize the sort of effort and time to require to get all sub-components to work together to make a system work.
*On Sept 16, 1977 a cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts were awarded to Boeing Aerospace Company and the Vought Corporation to design.Just a few minor corrections
the M-270 MLRS was a joint UK, Germany, France, US project
*April 14, 1978 Vought began flight testing the GSRS from a launch pod/container.
*July 1979, the governments of the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for joint development and production of GSRS.
US design!!
A horrible TYPO, I'm old enough to know better!
Adrian
I didnt say it was a bad idea. I prefer the idea of having something with a proven track record on board, rather than something completely experimental.
Unless they want to give me some kind of test bonus
I bet the day the Russians get a decent radar system, hell will turn cold. It's not that Russia doesn't make good electronics, its just that Russians and electronic components don't go hand in hand very well.
I have no idea what I'm doing. Honestly!
Electronics/avionics is America's strength in weapon systems. The Russians have their strengths also and they design their weapon systems to fit into their idea of what war will look like next close to their borders. They use simplicity and quantity as prime ingrediants. The US tends to design weapons that are the most complex (for their time) and are designed to be used in every theater of war.
A good example is the M-1 versus the T-72. The T-72's DU sabot can penetrate the M-1's primary armor inside 1,550 meters. Very good for the plains of Europe. The M-1 is designed with expensive creature comforts to operate all over the world effectively.
Results, in the PGW#1 the M-1 was killing the T-72's long before the T-72 was within range to kill the M-1. The M-1 could see the T-72's in dust storms when the T-72's could see only dust. Russian weapons are not bad, they have to be used the way the Russians had intended and, few militaries use them the way they perform best.
Adrian
You are drawing a conclusion from an unsourced report. That's not the very reliable. It certainly does not form the basis for any conclusion, let alone the one you reach.
Let's look at the situation realistically. Do you know what the rules of engagement were? Let us assume that the Typhoon got radar lock on a F-22. That is certainly possible. Stealth only means that radar detection is minimized not eliminated. Now, you should also know that any radar transmission can be detected at a greater range than it can detect a target. Thus, if the Typhoon got radar lock on an F-22, we must assume that the F-22 had detected the Typhoon's radar emissions and was not allowed to act on that information. Why? Rules of engagement.
Now, you would have us abandon the single best net-centric fighter platform in the world on the basis of one unsourced report. A report that, if true, only indicates that there were restrictive rule of engagement in place. Think again. And when you have a clue about how our air force fights feel free to write again.
What if both planes are running silently, and attack each other based on visual contact?
In this scenario, is the Typhoon more likely to win due to its small size, and CA, or will the F22 due to its tech.
I have no idea what I'm doing. Honestly!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: