Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wes14 on June 22, 2007, 12:47:47 PM
-
:D gotta love the Su-37
Click (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GdfnTLKcvM)
-
It's already in production, and it's called Su-30MK
-
Mehh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Q6Vb9xJM0
Bronk
-
Gotta love the (classified) skin-coating on F/A-22s. It looks like the stuff you see from sci-fi shows/movies :)
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Mehh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Q6Vb9xJM0
Bronk
It seems all they were doing is showing off how it could go vert. But yes, the F-22 and F35 will be far better than anything the Russians and British have to offer.
-
I remember going to airshows when the F15 and F16 were just new babes showing their stuff. Those were exciting shows. When I see todays fighters going through their paces, I just cant help but feel unimpressed.
Maybe its all these silly flight sims Ive played over the years...
-
Originally posted by Spikey
It seems all they were doing is showing off how it could go vert. But yes, the F-22 and F35 will be far better than anything the Russians and British have to offer.
Yet, unfortunately, the F22 will come in second when you look at the Saab Gripen. It is widely reguarded as the best airframe in the world. There is an outstanding challenge by the Saab Corporation that their bird will wax any other in ACM, specifically aimed at the F-22. The AF has declined to accept the challenge. Stealth Technology is the only thing that makes the F22 more marketable, which, any defense analyst will tell you, is becoming outmoded. Stealth, or "radar invisibility" is stepped around by less technological means. F22 is great, but I put my money on the Gripen.
-
Yes. But, like I said if the F/A-22 does not beat the Gripen, then the F-35 JSF will blow it away.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I remember going to airshows when the F15 and F16 were just new babes showing their stuff. Those were exciting shows. When I see todays fighters going through their paces, I just cant help but feel unimpressed.
Maybe its all these silly flight sims Ive played over the years...
I agree, best airshow I have ever seen (Most Impressive) was the Blue Angels in Phantoms
Second Best was the Thunderbirds, In Phantoms
-
Untill swamped by a gang-banging hoarde of Gripens, or anything really, - I put my bucks on RC bugs...:D
-
Originally posted by SpikesX
Yes. But, like I said if the F/A-22 does not beat the Gripen, then the F-35 JSF will blow it away.
F-22:
80 times less visible than the current F-15, providing the important advantage of first look, first shot, before enemy aircraft even know it's there. Additionally, its stealth allows the fighter to get close to a target and out before the bombs explode. This, coupled with the F-22's ability to operate at altitudes of more than 50,000 feet, puts it out of reach of many surface-to-air missiles, or SAMs. Unlike its predecessors, the new plane also has the ability to supercruise -- to fly at better than Mach 1.5 without using an afterburner, greatly saving fuel. It allows for a hit-and-run before ever being identified or fired on. Finally, the new fighter is extremely agile, with an ability to recover from a 60-degree angle of attack. In all, it is reported to be the most technologically advanced jet ever built.
I'd take a F-22 with a U.S. Airforce pilot over any aircraft in the world and give you 4 to 1 odds.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
It is widely reguarded ---------There is an outstanding challenge --------- declined to accept the challenge. -------------------- any defense analyst will tell you,
yadayadayada, americans build crap, your-o-peeans build better planes, cars, wine, hammers, saws, motorcycles, bicycles, toothpicks, and the euro is better than the dollar.
it gets boring.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
F-22:
80 times less visible than the current F-15, providing the important advantage of first look, first shot, before enemy aircraft even know it's there. Additionally, its stealth allows the fighter to get close to a target and out before the bombs explode. This, coupled with the F-22's ability to operate at altitudes of more than 50,000 feet, puts it out of reach of many surface-to-air missiles, or SAMs. Unlike its predecessors, the new plane also has the ability to supercruise -- to fly at better than Mach 1.5 without using an afterburner, greatly saving fuel. It allows for a hit-and-run before ever being identified or fired on. Finally, the new fighter is extremely agile, with an ability to recover from a 60-degree angle of attack. In all, it is reported to be the most technologically advanced jet ever built.
I'd take a F-22 with a U.S. Airforce pilot over any aircraft in the world and give you 4 to 1 odds.
So its a Boom and Zoomer? :t
-
Originally posted by Wes14
So its a Boom and Zoomer? :t
More like a cougar that pounced you and killed you that you never saw. ;)
-
Originally posted by john9001
yadayadayada, americans build crap, your-o-peeans build better planes, cars, wine, hammers, saws, motorcycles, bicycles, toothpicks, and the euro is better than the dollar.
it gets boring.
What Uro's are really pissed about is that the US never exports its own special-stash versions of military aircraft, which can kick the crap out of the exported versions. ;)
-
:confused: i heard that Russia is already designing a plane to counter the F-22
like the Su-37 was made to counter the F-15 ;)
-
Originally posted by Wes14
:confused: i heard that Russia is already designing a plane to counter the F-22
like the Su-37 was made to counter the F-15 ;)
Tit for tat, dating back to when Grog had a big club, and Mog made a club with spikes....
The F-15 kicks the SU-37's butt with AWACS in the general vicinity, without AWACS its a pretty darn even battle (assuming we're talking a missile engagement)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
What Uro's are really pissed about is that the US never exports its own special-stash versions of military aircraft, which can kick the crap out of the exported versions. ;)
US Exported the most advanced F-15 variant to S. Korea... The F-15K
-
Originally posted by 1K3
US Exported the most advanced F-15 variant to S. Korea... The F-15K
I didn't know Asia was European. ;) Glad my kids don't attend the skools you do. ;)
On a serious note, the F-15K is it still based on an airframe that's roughly what, 34 years old now? It's really reached it limits compared to the newer 21st century fighters that are NOT being exported, like the F-22.
-
Back to the original post, the current full-up F-22 demo puts the flanker demo to shame. In half of the flanker maneuvers, the pilot puts the plane into an extreme position and then the plane just sort of falls off back to a flying attitude. This is obvious to just about any pilot who has ever flown high performance military aircraft. It can't actually hold those crazy positions and it is certainly not fully controllable in many of those maneuvers. Look at the cobra maneuver... It will quite often recover back to level flight with just a little bit of rotation. That's because the plane has been flown past the point where it's controllable, and the pilot can't really do much to direct the plane until it gets back to a normal attitude.
Yes, the flanker has pretty amazing maneuverability and capabilities, but after seeing the F-22 demo, to some extent the flanker demo is about as impressive as throwing an arrow backwards and applauding when the pointy end moves back to the front.
The F-22 remains fully controllable through the demo and does not rely on the natural or computer-enhanced stability of the plane to recover from any airshow maneuvers. And even being limited to controllable maneuvers that any F-22 pilot could perform, the demo maneuvers are in my opinion at least as impressive as the flanker demo maneuvers that can't be flown by anyone but a specially trained flanker demo pilot.
If you have a chance to see a full-up F-22 demo, you should definately go see it. I think it's amazing. If you see the F-22 at an airshow and it doesn't do some weird stuff, then either the plane is partially broken, they're operating under some sort of flight restriction that day, or it's not the real demo team.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'd take a F-22 with a U.S. Airforce pilot over any aircraft in the world and give you 4 to 1 odds.
Out of interest, what odds would you give for RAF Jaguars against USAF F-15s?
-
Watch the flight controls during the F-22 and Flanker videos... You can see that while every single maneuver the F-22 does is in direct response to moving flight controls from maneuver entry through exit, the flanker flight controls are often simply centered for maneuver exit. Not once does the F-22 nose drop or fall all by itself... The pilot places the nose up or down at will. The Flanker flat turn (looks like a spin) is ended by a dive followed by a climb, but the same F-22 maneuver ends with the pilot stopping the turn and pulling the nose right up into a climb without having to let the nose fall to gain airspeed first like the Flanker does.
Looking at the F-22 and Flanker elevators during the demos makes it clear which plane is being flown throughout each maneuver and which is not.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Out of interest, what odds would you give for RAF Jaguars against USAF F-15s?
With AWACS in the area? F-15.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Watch the flight controls during the F-22 and Flanker videos... You can see that while every single maneuver the F-22 does is in direct response to moving flight controls from maneuver entry through exit, the flanker flight controls are often simply centered for maneuver exit. Not once does the F-22 nose drop or fall all by itself... The pilot places the nose up or down at will. The Flanker flat turn (looks like a spin) is ended by a dive followed by a climb, but the same F-22 maneuver ends with the pilot stopping the turn and pulling the nose right up into a climb without having to let the nose fall to gain airspeed first like the Flanker does.
Looking at the F-22 and Flanker elevators during the demos makes it clear which plane is being flown throughout each maneuver and which is not.
Exactly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW2Hvu_mUdU&mode=related&search=
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
With AWACS in the area? F-15.
During Red Flag - I would imagine so.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Tit for tat, dating back to when Grog had a big club, and Mog made a club with spikes....
The F-15 kicks the SU-37's butt with AWACS in the general vicinity, without AWACS its a pretty darn even battle (assuming we're talking a missile engagement)
wonder who would win in a good ol' fashion Cannon dogfight :)
-
Su37 is much more maneuverable than the F22, from what I know it has thrust vectoring in all directions, unlike the F22 which is primarily thrust vectoring in pitch.
Which is fine, it doesn't hurt my American centric ego to admit that the F22 wasn't designed to be super maneuverable, it was designed to destroy planes from far away without being detected. The thrust vectoring is only a bonus, not its main benefit.
But the Su37 does look pretty evil...
-
A fine example of American thrust vectoring taken to the extreme is the NASA X31 demonstrator:
The Mongoose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq7Lwdow3Eo
-
heres another video of that plane
Click (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCELX-NgqFQ)
-
Originally posted by mandingo
Su37 is much more maneuverable than the F22, from what I know it has thrust vectoring in all directions, unlike the F22 which is primarily thrust vectoring in pitch.
Which is fine, it doesn't hurt my American centric ego to admit that the F22 wasn't designed to be super maneuverable, it was designed to destroy planes from far away without being detected. The thrust vectoring is only a bonus, not its main benefit.
But the Su37 does look pretty evil...
I think I'll listen to a real military jet pilot before the opinion of an online gamer. ;)
Originally posted by eagl
Watch the flight controls during the F-22 and Flanker videos... You can see that while every single maneuver the F-22 does is in direct response to moving flight controls from maneuver entry through exit, the flanker flight controls are often simply centered for maneuver exit. Not once does the F-22 nose drop or fall all by itself... The pilot places the nose up or down at will. The Flanker flat turn (looks like a spin) is ended by a dive followed by a climb, but the same F-22 maneuver ends with the pilot stopping the turn and pulling the nose right up into a climb without having to let the nose fall to gain airspeed first like the Flanker does.
Looking at the F-22 and Flanker elevators during the demos makes it clear which plane is being flown throughout each maneuver and which is not.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I didn't know Asia was European. ;) Glad my kids don't attend the skools you do. ;)
On a serious note, the F-15K is it still based on an airframe that's roughly what, 34 years old now? It's really reached it limits compared to the newer 21st century fighters that are NOT being exported, like the F-22.
what I'm trying to say is that US still exports advanced weaponry.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I think I'll listen to a real military jet pilot before the opinion of an online gamer. ;)
[/B][/QUOTE]
ok mary, dont forget your starbucks.
-
Originally posted by eagl
...The F-22 remains fully controllable through the demo and does not rely on the natural or computer-enhanced stability of the plane to recover from any airshow maneuvers....
I will say if you watch close seeing the elevators move opposite of each other a few times amazed me.
but my question is this? does the pilot have independent control over each elevator? if so how?
or am what I see as elevators really function as ailerons?
pretty confusing if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by mandingo
ok mary, dont forget your starbucks. [/B]
I don't drink coffee. ;)
-
Originally posted by Wes14
wonder who would win in a good ol' fashion Cannon dogfight :)
I would say that it'll never come down to that but I think they made that mistake several decades ago. I think we're just gonna need a good old fashioned air war to really prove superiority. ;)
-
JB,
I think the technical term is stabilators, although we called them merely the "horizontal stabs" in the F-15 even though they do move somewhat independently to provide both roll and pitch control.
But yes, the left and right horizontal stabs on the tail of all modern US fighters will move independently to provide both pitch and roll, and any associated yaw moment produced by the independent movement is also accounted for in the flight control laws. The pilot doesn't have *direct* independent control over each individual stab, because the fighters still have conventional controls. Instead, the flight control laws will interpret the pilot's control inputs based on a set of predictable rules and move ALL control surfaces appropriately in order to make the plane maneuver as directed.
As a simple example, at high angles of attack with the control stick pulled back, the F-15E flight control laws reduce aileron deflections to near zero in order to control adverse yaw, prevent tipstalls, and avoid spins, so rolls at high AOA in the F-15E are accomplished primarily through differential deflection of the horizontal stab and rudder. To make the ailerons move more, the stick must be moved forward first. However the pilot inputs for rolls remain the same, lateral control stick movement, at any angle of attack and any stick position.
This is of course not true in older aircraft such as military trainers. In the T-37 and T-38, if you get to high angle of attack and move the stick left or right, the ailerons will still move. That means in order to maneuver at the edges of the flight envelope in older/simpler planes like our trainers, the pilot must know and understand how the aerodynamic forces work for that particular plane. With the modern fighters, you should understand aerodynamics but it's more important to know how the plane will maneuver in response to any given control input, based on it's particular flight control laws.
Example - In the T-37, if I want to rapidly yaw the plane to the right or begin a right-hand spin rotation, all I have to do is pull the stick back until the plane is in a mild stall or approach to stall condition, and add in some rudder. That makes the nose slice very nicely in a spin entry (or snap roll if going too fast). In the F-15E, to do the same thing I need to get the plane to a medium-high AOA first, add in pro-rotation rudder, but then move the stick slightly forward (to regain aileron authority) and maybe add aileron opposite of the desired rotation direction. If done right, the F-15E will pirouette on command, just like a T-37 entering a spin. Neither maneuver breaks the laws of aerodynamics and both can be dangerous maneuvers if accomplished un-intentionally, but if you know what you're doing then it's just one more "feature" of that plane's flight envelope, completely predictable (and avoidable) and controllable.
The F-22 simply takes this all to the next level. While the Flanker and it's advanced variants can maneuver to extreme angles of attack, the plane and software is not designed to allow full controllability throughout the entire flight regime that can be entered. It's a bit like entering a tail-slide in an F-15... It's possible to get an F-15 to a ludicrous angle of attack, but once you're there, you're along for the ride until the pointy end goes back into the wind. The Flanker is a heck of a lot better at that than the F-15, but the F-22's next-gen flight controls are designed to keep the plane controllable longer than any other operational fighter in the world. It's still not a UFO and you're not going to see airshow pilots flying it around backwards or sideways for any length of time, and it's yaw control isn't nearly as authoritative as it's pitch/roll control, but it's designed to be controllable at flight-path angles that would be considered completely uncontrollable just a few years ago. As far as total yaw control goes, I think not having total yaw control was probably the result of a combination of cost and stealth tradeoffs. 3-D vectoring nozzles would probably be a lot more costly or reduce the stealthy nature of the plane (or both), and at high angles of attack you can use pitch/roll/yaw coupling to get the nose pointed pretty much wherever you want it even without full authority in one axis.
-
THANK you eagl, that was a great explanation, and sadly (in a cool flight sim geeky way) I get it ;)
Just to make sure though, if I may condense a bit... flying something like that makes you "re-learn" flying at some even basic levels. In AH and in a "real" plane I know what is going to happen when I move X,Y,Z axis, and let's just take simple spin procedures, nose down, rudder opposite spin...
the flight controls of the F22, or even "older" planes like the F15 you mention are "overridden" but the computer, and do not actually move the control surfaces exactly as you input them?
saying in situation "A" a high nose roll would not be accomplished in the same way as oh let's say a Cessna 152?
granted the higher degree of maneuverability and overall control is a huge plus it must make for hulla training in those planes.
-
JB,
Once you understand the principle and relax to the inevitable (heh), it's not as tough as it seems. Once you accept that moving the stick laterally will cause a roll, you don't really need to memorize *how* the plane makes that happen unless you're going to be teaching the subject or you want to be the next red baron. The system is designed to be predictable and intuitive across the entire flight regime, so all you have to do is practice until you instinctively know what the plane is capable of doing in various situations and remember the few situations where the plane will turn around and bite you if you do the wrong thing. Overall, it makes the planes easier and easier to fly each generation. You spend less time thinking about how to fly and more time working on the tactical employment problem at hand.
But yea, to some extent you do need to re-learn how to fly. But it's so easy, it's just not a problem. Example - Even for an experienced fighter pilot, it takes 15 or more rides to become qualified to fly a T-37 (not instruct in it, just fly the damn thing). It takes 6 rides to become qualified to fly an F-15E.
T-37 qual - 15+ rides.
F-15E qual - 6 rides.
I dunno how long it takes to get the basic qual in an F-22 and there is probably a lot of academics and many simulator rides before the first flight just because it's so expensive, but the basic instrument qualification checkride can't take more than a handful of rides to accomplish.
-
I dunno if it was intentional or not but the F-22 in the video appeared to be in a flat spin after climbing out vertically for while. Was this a perhaps subtle display of complete controllabilty?
-
oh I get it, it is just amazing from a layman like myself.
1 intro flight in a 152 and I want to PWN the skies LOL
the way you explained it first with the situation of moving the stick forward to get the ailerons to actuate threw me, but now I "get it"
anyway <> to you sir for doing what you do!
-
AKIron,
In one of the vids linked in the thread, the F-22 does the vertical thing, starts the flat spin-like turn, but then pulls the nose up, stops the turn, and then starts turning the other direction before recovering back to level flight. It should all be part of the demo. One of the videos also showed a clip from operational testing that included a sharp pull-up followed by a yawing turn reversal that looked a lot like a hammerhead stall turn. That was intentional.
-
Maybe it's just my patriotism but in yer face control while falling flat is much kewler than that cober manuver. ;)
-
Originally posted by mandingo
Su37 is much more maneuverable than the F22, from what I know it has thrust vectoring in all directions, unlike the F22 which is primarily thrust vectoring in pitch.
Which is fine, it doesn't hurt my American centric ego to admit that the F22 wasn't designed to be super maneuverable, it was designed to destroy planes from far away without being detected. The thrust vectoring is only a bonus, not its main benefit.
But the Su37 does look pretty evil...
One thing I saw about the F-22's thrust vectoring was that the yaw thrust vectoring was left out because it was determined that the yaw on the F-22 was already so good that it wasn't needed.
The F-22 was designed to be super maneuverable and stealthy and fast. It was also designed to dominate the sky, not just control it. I suspect there are many things we won't know about the F-22 for a long, long time. :)
If you check out eagl's posts, he points out that while the Su-37 can do very extreme maneuvers, in many instances while coming out of said maneuver it is uncontrollable. The F-22 otoh remains maneuverable at all times despite extreme AoA. I would think the F-22 would beat an Su-37 quite handily just based on that.
I gotta admit though, the Su-37 does look sexier than the F-22 does. :)
-
Originally posted by john9001
yadayadayada, americans build crap, your-o-peeans build better planes, cars, wine, hammers, saws, motorcycles, bicycles, toothpicks, and the euro is better than the dollar.
it gets boring.
John, I love my country, but the blood my family shed for it does not constitute blind loyalty to everything that is produced by it.
I'm only forming an opinion from the words of the colonel who was in charge of the development of the program.....but what does he know....
"Ultra-High Performance
The F–22 does not provide a Great Leap Forward in performance relative to the F–15C or MiG-29.At 65,000 lbs, with 18,500–18,750 lbs of fuel, with two nominal 35,000 lb thrust engines—it has the thrust to weight ratio of the F–15C, the fuel fraction of the F–15C, and a wing loading that is only slightly inferior to that of the F–15C, so it will accelerate, climb, and maneuver much like the F–15C for reasons of basic physics.
There are two differences from the F–15—thrust vectoring and supersonic speeds in dry thrust. Thrust vectoring allows the F-22 to maneuver controllably at sub-stall speeds, which other aircraft cannot. This, in the helicopter speed domain, is in seeming contradiction to an aircraft designed for supersonic engagement with slashing attacks using its beyond visual range missiles.
The flight test program to validate maneuverability is utterly inadequate. Using a single number—the maximum steady-state G at 30,000 ft at 0.9 Mach—on an aircraft that operates from 40 knots to beyond Mach 2, from sea level to above 60,000 ft is a throwback to the Dark Ages of aircraft evaluation. Proper presentations are global, all-altitude all-speed plots at the two major power settings. They must be compared to friendly and enemy aircraft. Comparison reveals progress, the whole truth, and even allows the formulation of battle tactics.
Stealth
The F–22 is not a Stealthy Aircraft.
Stealth means the proper suppression of all its important “signatures”—Visual Signature, Radar Signature, Infrared Signature, Electromagnetic Emissions, and Sound.
Visually—The F–22, one of the world’s largest, most identifiable fighters, cannot hide in daylight. Its role is in daylight. Stealth operations are night operations. Unfortunately stealth against radar invariably increases the size of a fighter making it more visible.
The radar signature is utterly inadequately reported.
Only a single data number is provided to congressional committees and the GAO—the average radar signature in the level forward direction within 20 degrees of the nose, presumably to enemy fighter radars. In the B-1B reporting fiasco, the 100/1 signature advantage over the B-52 became a real 1.8/1. One cannot design an aircraft to simultaneously hide from low and medium frequency ground radars and from high frequency airborne fighter radars. Properly, all the data should be portrayed and reported—for all azimuths, for all “latitudes,” and for all radar frequencies. Single data points constitute lying by omission and gross incompleteness.
The temperature increases of supersonic cruising flights make the F-22s beacons in the sky to infrared sensors."
(Col. Everest E. Riccioni) (released Freedom of Information Act)
The F-22 is overhyped... a great plane... but overhyped. The JSF will be much better though.. Yet, in a clear ACM, inside of visual range... I'd take my chances with a plane with a 1.4:1 thrust to weight ratio, and a 240 degree per second roll rate. (The Gripen)It's smaller (harder to spot) and more agile than the F-22, and carries the same weapon load. (AIM9x and AAMRAAM, with the new METEOR being phased in) F22 range is superior... but we weren't comparing that... we said ACM. Pilot being the factor... in the hands of equals... I'll take the Gripen.
FYI... I did find stuff about an exercise in Alaska, where a Gripen squadron came over and ACM'd an F22 squadron to a kill ratio of 20:1... but I can't confirm it anywhere....There was a link to a defense newsletter, but the link came up down.
-
(correct me if im wrong)I dont think its really about maneverability anymore. Its who can fire the farthest away without being seen.:noid
Btw i saw the Red Flag thingy in OKC's Omnidome.
:D
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
...bunch of stuff I don't want to bore the people scrolling through the thread and making them re-read a wall of text, sorry MORAY37
from what I am reading of you, you seem to assume the "worst possible scenario" situations the F22 can be in.
let's just for a moment play that role...
I too have read Tom Clancy books, and let's assume the situation you describe, F22 VS Gripen.
the chances of an all out dog fight to save man kind depending on that are so remote I can't quantify it.
the advances and technology of the US military in a whole are so beyond the enemy this is the "best that needs to be" for literally the foreseeable future.
with the exception of an all out war of the planet (not WWIII but literally a war for survivability on the PLANET) nothing will even get to "engage" a plane like the F22.
if you truly want "to see what it can do in the worst" I am sorry, but in that situation you will not be alive, or able to see what happens.
think about that in overall design factors, instead of impressing John Q. Flight sim enthusiast at an air show and you'd probably appreciate the plane a bit more.
-
Can't wait for PAK FA, Sukhoi t-50:)
-
ofcorse if the enmy use EMP fields from a "nuke" will just fry all flight computers true? hmmm well the F-22, F16, f15 , Su33 ect. are all stuffed. Ergo i'd rather a Saab Vigan , Draken , Tornado F3 , harrier, Jaguar, Mig 29 ,Su23, evan an A-10 in a dog fight .
-
going to see an f22 fly today in RI!
-
Todays US warplanes are hardened against EMP so that argument goes out the window. :D
Moray sez:FYI... I did find stuff about an exercise in Alaska, where a Gripen squadron came over and ACM'd an F22 squadron to a kill ratio of 20:1... but I can't confirm it anywhere....There was a link to a defense newsletter, but the link came up down
Seen the same report... It was the F-22 that had the 20:1 kill ratio.
Originally posted by SpikesX
Yes. But, like I said if the F/A-22 does not beat the Gripen, then the F-35 JSF will blow it away.
I know several pilots from Red Flag and the Alaskan games that will disagree. Worst complaint all pilots have that go against the F-22 is that they absolutely can not get lock on, which means you go to guns ranges... But you have to see her first and pray the EW pukes don't snaggle your shot with a Check Six. :O
F-35 is very impressive with the jump-jet improvements over the AV-8B coupled with the F-22 technology. Now that's going to be a "Buck Rodgers" attack plane to watch out for! :aok
Like Yeager, I remember the F-15 and 16 when it was new... Hell, I remember when the F-86, F-80, F-100, F-101 were brand new. Barely remember the F-51 being phased out. Man, those were the days, my friends!
Oh, and if you're still reading this, Nellis AFB has a very impressive FIREPOWER display about every three months out in Nevada that's open to the public. Well worth the seeing if you happen to be near Vegas.
-
I remeber flying in a Red Flag a couple of years ago (when the F-22 was in OT&E), they sent out 1 F-22 vs 4 F-15C's with Weapon School IP's in the Eagles and a relatively "new" F-22 pilot in the Raptor. The 15's all died within minutes and the only time they ever saw the 22 was when he blew by them on the way home. They never once saw him on radar or visually, yet he killed them all without ever seeing them. The Grippen may be more maneuverable, but the 22 and then 35 have the HUGE leap in Sensor technology and data link capability.
I have been in the USAF for 22+ years, 10 as a crew chief on fighters, 10 as a helicopter flight engineer and now these past 2 years as a Global Hawk sensor operator and the 22 impresses the hell outta me(I am blown away by the capabilities of the F-35).
These days it's about who finds who first.
J
-
If you ask me, it is highly unlikely that any nato plane will fight another nato supported jet.Or at least in the near future.
Rather try comparing some other countries jets vs these.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
With AWACS in the area? F-15.
Who's AWACS? Brit or Yank?
Back to the original post - all I learned from the film is the Russion plane stalls. Just like any other plane. Name a current combat aircraft in use with just about any airforce and I can find you a film that's just as impressive. Jeez - you can even find films that makes the Tornado F3 look good.
The other thing to remember is that as good as the Russian planes get, if the country flying them neglects to tell their pilots what all the buttons do, or forgets to order the translated-from-cyrillic version of the instruction book, you can expect to see them high tail it for air bases in Iran the first time they are threatened with combat.
-
Originally posted by wooley
The other thing to remember is that as good as the Russian planes get, if the country flying them neglects to tell their pilots what all the buttons do, or forgets to order the translated-from-cyrillic version of the instruction book, you can expect to see them high tail it for air bases in Iran the first time they are threatened with combat.
What do you think, other countries don't do training on planes?.They wouldn't spent billions on jets just to put pilots in them without adequate training.Geez...
-
Originally posted by jollyFE
...I am blown away by the capabilities of the F-35...
Have the 35's weight issues been resolved?
-
Originally posted by croduh
What do you think, other countries don't do training on planes?.They wouldn't spent billions on jets just to put pilots in them without adequate training.Geez...
Actually, that's precisely what many of them (edit :- appear to) do.
-
Hmm, name one.
Btw, i am so in the mood for internet purse fight!
-
Originally posted by croduh
Hmm, name one.
Btw, i am so in the mood for internet purse fight!
Put some rolls of coins in your purse and you'll hit harder with it. :D
-
:rofl
-
shot of an f22 I took today in RI!
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c279/PCmofo/f22.jpg)
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
FYI... I did find stuff about an exercise in Alaska, where a Gripen squadron came over and ACM'd an F22 squadron to a kill ratio of 20:1... but I can't confirm it anywhere....There was a link to a defense newsletter, but the link came up down.
Originally posted by Odee
Seen the same report... It was the F-22 that had the 20:1 kill ratio.
According to the Swedish Air Force not a single Gripen was ”lost” to enemy ”fire” from either surface or air threats during last year’s Red Flag exercise ”Coop Thunder” in Alaska. That is the only time Gripens have participated in NATO exercises so far. They also achieved a 99% readiness rating with only one sortie aborting the mission out of 221 sorties (the plane’s LITENING pod failed). They also demonstrated the Gripen’s amazing 10 minute turn around with engines running on the ground while being refueled and rearmed.
US Air Force TV did a short article on the Swedes before the exercise:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7872900982252943411
-
Originally posted by Stratocaster
shot of an f22 I took today in RI!
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c279/PCmofo/f22.jpg)
Crap another Rhody.
:noid :noid :noid
Bronk
-
Originally posted by jollyFE
I remeber flying in a Red Flag a couple of years ago (when the F-22 was in OT&E), they sent out 1 F-22 vs 4 F-15C's with Weapon School IP's in the Eagles and a relatively "new" F-22 pilot in the Raptor. The 15's all died within minutes and the only time they ever saw the 22 was when he blew by them on the way home. They never once saw him on radar or visually, yet he killed them all without ever seeing them. The Grippen may be more maneuverable, but the 22 and then 35 have the HUGE leap in Sensor technology and data link capability.
The problem is that the gripen, and other new gen fighters coming out of europe are looking towards features like off-bore-sight-IR targeting, which is potentially the F-22's weakness.
I was watching some very interesting stuff about the 'fight mafia' guys behind the design of the F-15 and F-16, and they had some very different opinions of the F-22.
-
Ah yes, the hyper-expensive F-22 "Raptor" stealth superfighter!
most of the shown manouevers are looking great at the airshow,
but in reality they are "sitting ducks".
It's nice that the F22 is a stealthy airplane, but while it's in stealthy mode,
it can't even use its own radar for fear of giving its position away,
thusly, any attempt to use said radar array to transfer data is going to generate
much the same result, a very unstealthy F22 ;)
Last week i read about the former balkan war, the Serbians used their GSM
network disturbances for detecting stealth, which allowed them to deploy
their NATO countermeasure, usually a doorless 650Watt microwave
oven with *a very long mains lead* for 'painting' the F-117's, perhaps
lighting up the threat warning whilst an SA-3 came from another direction.
Imagine the F-22 superjets could act as flying Wi-Fi hotspots! ;)
talking about close dogfight i'l take a Eurofighter Typhoon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZfftwmq9Os) anyday! ;)
This beast can turn allmost on place.
-
Having just come back from the annual Salthill airshow. I was mightily impressed by the Typhoon (Eurofighter). I swear it turns better than the Spit 16. I don't have a video but here's one on utube. I throw that into the mix. It is an incredibly noisy aircraft though.
I can't help feeling it's all a bit academic now anyway with reliable BVR missiles. It's all very well being manoeuverable if the undetected F22, shoots you down from 50 miles away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APiiKsH0dR4&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APiiKsH0dR4&mode=related&search=)
By the way, the Thunderbirds were there too on the first leg of their European tour. Mighty impressive. I never knew they used music to accompany their display. Finally the Irish flag gets to appear among all the other flags on their fuselage.
The only bad note was when the RAF dropped a door on some spectators. Could have been nasty but only minor injuries. I was standing about 100 feet away. A video here: Thunderbirds feature in it too.
http://www.rte.ie/news/9news/
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I can't help feeling it's all a bit academic now anyway with reliable BVR missiles.[/URL]
Reliable in 'tests' or combat?
-
and i forgott to say, F-22 is looking so ugly compared to the Typhoon :lol
-
I think the F-22 is beautiful and rather mean looking, which is a plus for a warplane.
-
Originally posted by wooley
Who's AWACS? Brit or Yank?
I don't believe Brits have AWACS....or JSTARS
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
it can't even use its own radar for fear of giving its position away,
thusly, any attempt to use said radar array to transfer data is going to generate
much the same result, a very unstealthy F22 ;)
They use them in pairs of 2. One with radar on...it locks on and sends data to the other, the other fires the missile...enemy plane go boom...
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
and i forgott to say, F-22 is looking so ugly compared to the Typhoon :lol
I think the Euro-Phanbois_Kool-aid is kicking in ;)
I think they're both beautiful.
(http://people.timezone.com/mdisher/basel06/tutima/typhoon_lg.jpg)
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-19990601-f-0000l-001.jpg)
-
only reason the f22 looks a lil ugly is because of the top...
Hey, ugly isnt bad...A-10 Warthog is ugly...but PWNs all tanks...
-
Originally posted by Stratocaster
shot of an f22 I took today in RI!
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c279/PCmofo/f22.jpg)
Nice pic, Strato! :aok
-
The fighter that should have been.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/yf-23_4.jpg)
(http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~animal/military.pl/samoloty/yf-23_black_widow_2/f-23-6.jpg)
I think this is a very nice looking AC.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by SpikesX
only reason the f22 looks a lil ugly is because of the top...
Hey, ugly isnt bad...A-10 Warthog is ugly...but PWNs all tanks...
Exterior appeasement aside, I'll take top secret statistics over visual aspect any day. ;)
Speed: Mach 1.58 without afterburner; over Mach 2.3 with afterburners. Actual max speed unreleased by gov't.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
The fighter that should have been.
I think this is a very nice looking AC.
Bronk
From what I recall, pretty much beat the competition in almost every catagory....but Boeing (Ooops, sorry, MD, which was bought by Boeing ;) )was getting all the military contracts at that time (Starwars chit), sooooo, fairness and all. ;)
-
The usual hyper-tech babbling we get from modern fighter "debates".
First off, none of you know the capabilities of the a/c involved because they are all highly classified (F-22, Eurofighter, Su-30), so I find it hard to accept how you would know X beats Y unless your real life job is something to do with having that kind of intel.
Secondly, nobody ever looks at the affordability, or deployability of a lot of these systems. Its only the manufacturers say so thats quoted which is almost always proven to be overly opimistic.
Lastly, modern air campaigns are not fought with 1 vs 1 "duels" in clinical "fair" fights.
You can look at all the air combats since 1945, none of the victors were dependant on super-high-tech.
Command and control, servicability, STRATEGY AND TACTICS, support, pilot skill, weapon reliability, will count more than wether your pretty 300 million dollar fighter (any of them) does well.
That and wether you can even afford enough of them, when the companies seem hell bent on producing fighters today for a ridiculous price, but then they are beholden to their shareholders, not the Air Force.
-
Originally posted by Squire
The usual hyper-tech babbling we get from modern fighter "debates".
First off, none of you know the capabilities of the a/c involved because they are all highly classified (F-22, Eurofighter, Su-30), so I find it hard to accept how you would know X beats Y unless your real life job is something to do with having that kind of intel.
Secondly, nobody ever looks at the affordability, or deployability of a lot of these systems. Its only the manufacturers say so thats quoted which is almost always proven to be overly opimistic.
Lastly, modern air campaigns are not fought with 1 vs 1 "duels" in clinical "fair" fights.
You can look at all the air combats since 1945, none of the victors were dependant on super-high-tech.
Command and control, servicability, STRATEGY AND TACTICS, support, pilot skill, weapon reliability, will count more than wether your pretty 300 million dollar fighter (any of them) does well.
That and wether you can even afford enough of them, when the companies seem hell bent on producing fighters today for a ridiculous price, but then they are beholden to their shareholders, not the Air Force.
Damn all I posted was I thought the YF 23 was nice looking.:confused:
Bronk
-
Originally posted by SpikesX
I don't believe Brits have AWACS....
They do. They've got 7 E-3's, France got 4, NATO got another 17 stationed in Germany. USAF got 32. So 32 AWACS are controlling the skies over North America and other US territories, while 28 AWACS are controlling the skies of Europe (not counting the Russian AWACS aircraft).
Other nations with AWACS aircraft include: Russia, China, India, Israel, Saudi-Arabia, Australia, Turkey, South-Korea, Pakistan, Sweden, and Singapore. I may have forgot some.
In addition the US Navy, Royal Navy and French Navy have a number of AWACS aircraft for carrier use.
A simple google would have alleviated your ignorance.
-
Oh, for the record, the F-22 looks just fine. ;)
-
Originally posted by Viking
A simple google would have alleviated your ignorance.
Are you going for a 2nd ban? Geez. Have a drink, have a smoke. Relax.
-
Originally posted by Viking
They do. They've got 7 E-3's, France got 4, NATO got another 17 stationed in Germany. USAF got 32. So 32 AWACS are controlling the skies over North America and other US territories, while 28 AWACS are controlling the skies of Europe (not counting the Russian AWACS aircraft).
Other nations with AWACS aircraft include: Russia, China, India, Israel, Saudi-Arabia, Australia, Turkey, South-Korea, Pakistan, Sweden, and Singapore. I may have forgot some.
In addition the US Navy, Royal Navy and French Navy have a number of AWACS aircraft for carrier use.
A simple google would have alleviated your ignorance.
And they all have a secret response to our secret we don't like you any more button. ;)
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
it can't even use its own radar for fear of giving its position away,
thusly, any attempt to use said radar array to transfer data is going to generate
much the same result, a very unstealthy F22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 22 can take a data link from awacs or any other fighter capable of sending radar data and use it to guide its missiles without ever turning on its own radar. The only warning the bad guy gets is when the amraam starts x-mitting in close. and by then its usually too late.
When I was stationed at Osan, my flight chief had just come from working the atf program (f22 vs F23). In his opinion the 23 was a better plane, but Northrop had the huge money cow B-2 that the politicians figure that they should throw a fat juicy contract to Lockheed-Martin.
Anyways, if you do some research on the F22 radar it's quite nasty in itself. One was here at Beale a few weeks ago and the crewchiefs wouldn't let us take pics on the ground from directly front or rear of the acft(no idea why) seems you can find them anywhere. Talking to those guys, it's a sweet machine from the maintenance aspect. We should give a few to the Israelis (sp?) and let them have fun.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Snip...
talking about close dogfight i'l take a Eurofighter Typhoon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZfftwmq9Os) anyday! ;)
This beast can turn allmost on place.
...and you'd probably come out SECOND BEST (http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/tech.php) .
-
This has been posted before:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=185595&highlight=modern
If you want quality F-22 jet porn you gotta see the clip from "Modern Marvels".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBUmRd4hKlg
P.S. Hey Jolly!
"You think I wanna hold this helmet bag all damn day?"
Regards,
Sun
-
Originally posted by Bronk
The fighter that should have been.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/yf-23_4.jpg)
(http://venus.ci.uw.edu.pl/~animal/military.pl/samoloty/yf-23_black_widow_2/f-23-6.jpg)
I think this is a very nice looking AC.
Bronk
See I heard the F-23 out preformed the f-22 in all areas.
Just Lockheed got the inside edge because of past works.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
From what I recall, pretty much beat the competition in almost every catagory....but Boeing (Ooops, sorry, MD, which was bought by Boeing ;) )was getting all the military contracts at that time (Starwars chit), sooooo, fairness and all. ;)
sorry didnt read this. My bad!
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Stealth
The F–22 is not a Stealthy Aircraft.
Stealth means the proper suppression of all its important “signatures”—Visual Signature, Radar Signature, Infrared Signature, Electromagnetic Emissions, and Sound.
Visually—The F–22, one of the world’s largest, most identifiable fighters, cannot hide in daylight. Its role is in daylight. Stealth operations are night operations. Unfortunately stealth against radar invariably increases the size of a fighter making it more visible.
Mmm, not sure if this Colonel is correct. Size does not dictate radar cross section, shape does. If you took an F-117, and doubled its size while maintaining the same shape, the radar cross section will be the same.
Hell, you can design a submarine that won't return active sonar pings, and an aircraft carrier with an RCS the size of a dinghy if you wanted to. That's at least according to the former head of Skunkworks Ben Rich. I'd think him & his mathematicians know what they're talking about.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Are you going for a 2nd ban? Geez. Have a drink, have a smoke. Relax.
I'm completely relaxed and my previous post should be read in a calm friendly manner. 2nd ban? 2nd? I don't think so.
Originally posted by AKIron
And they all have a secret response to our secret we don't like you any more button. ;)
Yeah I wouldn't be surprised at all if they did. ;) (The French do that to some of their export stuff too.)
-
Originally posted by indy007
Mmm, not sure if this Colonel is correct. Size does not dictate radar cross section, shape does.
He's not talking about radar cross section, but visibile size ... as in eyeball mk. I.
-
According to this topic, some people really have been suffering past years of the yet another monotonic F16/15/18 shows vs Russian birds a breath taking displays.
Finally US has a fighter which can give a somewhat equal shows. WTG
BTW Now we surely start hearing from another side of the bond, HOW important the modern fighter sub-sonic ultra high AoA agility quality's actually are...
Flame resistant :) here
-
Originally posted by Squire
The usual hyper-tech babbling we get from modern fighter "debates".
First off, none of you know the capabilities of the a/c involved because they are all highly classified (F-22, Eurofighter, Su-30), so I find it hard to accept how you would know X beats Y unless your real life job is something to do with having that kind of intel.
Ahem.
:noid
-
Originally posted by Viking
He's not talking about radar cross section, but visibile size ... as in eyeball mk. I.
Well those crappy detectors don't work in BVR engagements, and really suck once the sun goes down.
-
Please read again what you quoted in your previous post.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Ahem.
:noid
LOL, I was so hoping you'd respond to that comment!
No wait, you're biased because you LIKE the F-15. Yea. Yea, that's the ticket.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
LOL, I was so hoping you'd respond to that comment!
No wait, you're biased because you LIKE the F-15. Yea. Yea, that's the ticket.
Phffft! He's just flying with potential jet jockey's in trainers these days. :p
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/261977012.jpg)
-
Ha! A BD-5...probably being used the safest way possible.
Nice find! I do sorta miss mine....that is, to sit inside and make jet noises in :)
-
Originally posted by indy007
Mmm, not sure if this Colonel is correct. Size does not dictate radar cross section, shape does. If you took an F-117, and doubled its size while maintaining the same shape, the radar cross section will be the same.
Hell, you can design a submarine that won't return active sonar pings, and an aircraft carrier with an RCS the size of a dinghy if you wanted to. That's at least according to the former head of Skunkworks Ben Rich. I'd think him & his mathematicians know what they're talking about.
Errr well....
Colonel Everest E. Riccioni has had an extraordinarily illustrious career. After he began flight training for the United States Army in 1943, he learned to be a test pilot at the knee of Chuck Yeager; was a flight test engineer and experimental test flight pilot instructor in the experimental test pilot school; and taught the most advanced engineering course at the Air Force Academy. He then went on to command both prototype and flight mechanics divisions of the Flight Dynamics Lab at Wright-Patterson and pioneered the first supersonic cruise fighter design conference in history. Riccioni was one of the three legendary "Fighter Mafia" mavericks who forced the Pentagon to produce the F-16 to improve the military's air superiority and completed several stints as a fighter pilot flying 55 different types of military aircraft throughout his career. After retiring from the Air Force in 1976, he worked for Northrop Corporation for 17 years managing aircraft programs, including managing operational studies on the B-2 bomber. Most recently, until his 1997 retirement, Colonel Riccioni consulted with the GAO, the United States Navy, and the Air Force.
And his comments match exactly what I heard from Pierre Sprey, another member of the 'fighter mafia'. Read what his thoughts are here: http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00197
-
Originally posted by Viking
They do. They've got 7 E-3's, France got 4, NATO got another 17 stationed in Germany. USAF got 32. So 32 AWACS are controlling the skies over North America and other US territories, while 28 AWACS are controlling the skies of Europe (not counting the Russian AWACS aircraft).
Other nations with AWACS aircraft include: Russia, China, India, Israel, Saudi-Arabia, Australia, Turkey, South-Korea, Pakistan, Sweden, and Singapore. I may have forgot some.
In addition the US Navy, Royal Navy and French Navy have a number of AWACS aircraft for carrier use.
A simple google would have alleviated your ignorance.
The Royal Navy don't have AWACS but would have access to the RAF ones if required. The only AEW the RN have are Sea King AEW helicopters.
Going back to SpikesX, the UK doesn't have JSTARS but do have ASTOR & Nimrod R.1 which operate under a similar role.
UK AWACS were among the first to use Link 16 to provide full radar coverage to friendly aircraft during Red Flag (several years ago) which enabled RAF Tornado F.3s to defeat USAF F16 & F15 aircraft (the Tornado used the Link 16 to locate the targets without having to use its own radar hence reducing its radar signature). So, it's not what you've got but how you use it ;)
-
i recently talked to a freind who is a f15i pilot and went to red flag said that it was fun but they did very well against others,.... btw israel has prob the most advanced f15 and 16 varients in the world fyi and we invented the new f16 shoulder tank mod thats now bieng exported by usa
-
I believe that the Israeli F15 wasn't BVR capable but no doubt that they have upgraded theirs since purchasing them from the US?
-
I watched the designing and building of the X-35 and X-32 fighter planes on PBS, and I must say, it was a great competition between the two. But the fact that they even show this to the public means that they have a newer and better plane in the works, that will blow the F-35 away. Here is the link to the competition: Battle of the X-Planes (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/).
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Mehh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Q6Vb9xJM0
Bronk
Imagine if HTC spit out a modern fighters sim?
Have heat seeking missles for scenarios & an MA with just cannons & mg's.
That Raptor is friggin' amazing.!
-
and me in my Sr-71 in near stratosphere,daring anyone to try to get me :noid
i still like the Su-27 :D
-
The SR-71 Blackbird reconnasaince jet? You would eventually have to come down for fuel. And then you would be a sitting duck. No machine guns, no missiles, what would you do, shoot us to death with your camera?
-
i would land at the farthest away Base..and the ack(missiles would kill you before you get me ):D
-
I gotta say this much... I am astonished at the amount of egotistical imbeciles here all touting their favorite aircraft. The only one I know of here that I have any reason to believe his opinions is Eagl. Frankly he is the only one here that has ever been in an F-15 as PIC and more than likely has a better understanding than anyone, of the capabilities of most aircraft of any genre currently fielded by any air force or navy in the world.
Cripes guys, put the friggen egos in check... :rolleyes:
-
(http://people.timezone.com/mdisher/basel06/tutima/typhoon_lg.jpg)
Looks like a F-16/Gripen love child.
-
Originally posted by evenhaim
i recently talked to a freind who is a f15i pilot and went to red flag said that it was fun but they did very well against others,.... btw israel has prob the most advanced f15 and 16 varients in the world fyi and we invented the new f16 shoulder tank mod thats now bieng exported by usa
DOn't you know what happened to a MiG-21 upgrade programm with new Russian engine and Israely electronics? IIRC India was seriously thinking of upgrading their MiGs, it gave old "balalaika" capabilities compared or even superior to Pakistanian F-16 at maybe 10% of a price.