Youre Thoughts U.S.A

[Ack-Ack]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb_jqsg13wY&eurl=http://www.twittlefrance.com/topic/3279202/1/Discussions/Eurofighter-Typhoon-beat-the-F-22-raptor.html&feature=player_embedded
 
^claims in 2006 they went head to head and typhoon won. the source is in the video, but I havent been able to locate it in black and white.
can anyone else find it?

Believe this has already been hashed out before and I recall that it was pretty much made up.  I'm sure you can find the thread again, just will have search pretty good for it.


ack-ack

[Infidelz]

Well lets see if we can get a raptor pilot on here to cough up some seriously classified information for an eastern block type troll. Any takers? How about a contractor that would like to lose their security clearance? Still no takers? Gosh, well go fish.

INFIDEL>

[Die Hard]

Believe this has already been hashed out before and I recall that it was pretty much made up.  I'm sure you can find the thread again, just will have search pretty good for it.


ack-ack

Please do.

[Ack-Ack]

Please do.

By all means search for it, it was posted in the OC forum about 2-3 years ago.  Good luck.


ack-ack

[Die Hard]

I don't think so. Thanks anyway.

[Bronk]

It's "Porsche".... Porsche's are fun... Too expensive. My Shelby GLHS was a Porsche killer in its day. Its day was 1986.. Only the 911 Turbo Carrera was faster... At many times the price.




My regards,

Widewing

Omni or Charger?

[Mace2004]

You can't believe any of these "stories" about which airplane beat which. Without knowing the conditions these report are pure nonsense. I flew in red flag as a bad guy. The USAF gave the F15s AMRAAM. We got AIM9 G/H. These are rear quarter IR seekers only. We got pretty beat up pretty quick. One of our guys took his division low and outside the area. They popped up in the middle of the tanker tracks and wasted most of the F15 and two tankers. So which plane is better?  The F14 or F15?  Sort of depends on which side of the story you hear.

[CAP1]

You can't believe any of these "stories" about which airplane beat which. Without knowing the conditions these report are pure nonsense. I flew in red flag as a bad guy. The USAF gave the F15s AMRAAM. We got AIM9 G/H. These are rear quarter IR seekers only. We got pretty beat up pretty quick. One of our guys took his division low and outside the area. They popped up in the middle of the tanker tracks and wasted most of the F15 and two tankers. So which plane is better?  The F14 or F15?  Sort of depends on which side of the story you hear.

i had often thought that things like this happen. they kind of stack the cards in the "good guys" favor.

[yankedudel]

On another message forum there was a discussion about the Iranian F-14s and many said that they wouldn't get off the ground.  Then a voice of reason, much like Mace, a USAF F-15 driver noted that you never underestimate your opponent.  He stated he was waxed in an F-15 by an early model F-14 and conversely waxed a newer generation F-15 with a T-38.
Like Mace said it all depends of the circumstances.  Would I bet against the Raptor...NO but depending on the circumstances, i.e. the Typhie was allowed to get in close it could have a chance.
Just my $.02
Regards,
YAF1

[USCH]

i cant say nothing about British cars since i own a  99 Chrysler Neon (yes they do sell them in the uk)
And What about The Shelby Mustang GT500  no way does that car suck.

Key words are Shelby and GT500... someone had to take a production car and make it better (thats not how it should go)..... it should be a production car is the best (they have the most cash)

[Mace2004]

Key words are Shelby and GT500... someone had to take a production car and make it better (thats not how it should go)..... it should be a production car is the best (they have the most cash)

The Shelby GT500 IS a production car.

[Widewing]

Omni or Charger?

1986 was Omni.... 1987 GLHS Charger was heavier with more front and rear overhang, which hurt its slalom numbers.

The GLHS was a street legal race car... And just about as unreliable too. But, in its day, it was extremely formidable. Even today, they often dominate SCCA Solo events.


My regards,

Widewing

[1pLUs44]

It's "Porsche".... Porsche's are fun... Too expensive. My Shelby GLHS was a Porsche killer in its day. Its day was 1986.. Only the 911 Turbo Carrera was faster... At many times the price.

I work with a guy who drives a '07 Boxster S. I've driven it a few times. Good handling, decent power, but my S2000 was nipping at its heels.

However, my Jeep is far more useful. I can go damn near anywhere. Roads are optional. Top off, doors off enjoying the weather. It's a Jeep thing and no other vehicle can match that. Current Wranglers are the most capable off road vehicles you can buy off of a showroom.

As I explained to my co-worker, The Jeep has an advantage in parking too... I can park my Jeep ON his Porsche..


My regards,

Widewing

+1, my friend has a Jeep, and it's a very good ranch vehicle.

[Angus]

As an odd speculation perhaps, but I can see (?) some factors making the Raptor obsolete if met by a force of an advanced nation.
1. Links. The modern fighters are all relying on links. Data needs to be fed to them if they cannot acquire the data by their own radar. Scramble issue. In a rough case, high alt nuke will toast...a lot of stuff. (computers)
2. Tracking by other sources than radar. Okay. The Raptor is about invisible to radar. But it does give some IR signal. And it is visible. And sound. And perhaps transmission. (radio, onboard radar, etc). Even tracking from top (Satellite looking at aircraft on-top, be it IR or visual). As soon as tracked...SAM's and such are fast on the road.
3. Daylight. Yes, it may be invisible to the human eye like a bullet, but not to modern equipment.

So, it is, in case spotted, a formidable adversary. The worst scenario is being locked into a close combat with multiple adversaries of similar equipment. Hence, threat 4:

4. Now, I ponder on RC fighters, which would be easier to build than Raptors, and may be in some years to come, a naughty surprize. And while many a supporter for the necessity of a manned fighter base their logics on the "must" of a ground link, - today, no fighter will do so much without one. (interception most important). Imagine the nightmare, - RC/AI light aircraft, interceptors/special air defence capable of more G's than any human, yet possibly powered by one, no life at stake (since the pilot is in his...bunker). Tracking could be done by the same equipment as a fighter, with further processing at the user's handle (which has no weight restrictions).
As a brighter side for the Raptor, it could have such...as an escort. Or decoy....

I got those ideas after watching a program on the History channel (I think) on future air combat. It almost looked like an F22 ad. Unforunately I cannot find it. It was like 90 minutes in 9 parts if I recall.

[Rich46yo]

1, Ever hear of EMP hardening? We design aircraft to fling nukes and then survive the EMP blast.

2, Getting close enough to track IR doesnt help you much when youv already been dead for 5 mins.

3, Your saying what? The eye can see it during day or modern equipment can? Iceland has no military right?

4, There isnt any single adversaries of similiar equipment so how can there be multiples?

5, If remote fighters were ever to be a possibility then I doubt any country other then America will be first to field them. Actually we already do, at least the recon/attack type. Dont worry Angus, nobody is going to be able to challenge NATO in our lifetimes.

As an odd speculation perhaps, but I can see (?) some factors making the Raptor obsolete if met by a force of an advanced nation.
1. Links. The modern fighters are all relying on links. Data needs to be fed to them if they cannot acquire the data by their own radar. Scramble issue. In a rough case, high alt nuke will toast...a lot of stuff. (computers)
2. Tracking by other sources than radar. Okay. The Raptor is about invisible to radar. But it does give some IR signal. And it is visible. And sound. And perhaps transmission. (radio, onboard radar, etc). Even tracking from top (Satellite looking at aircraft on-top, be it IR or visual). As soon as tracked...SAM's and such are fast on the road.
3. Daylight. Yes, it may be invisible to the human eye like a bullet, but not to modern equipment.

So, it is, in case spotted, a formidable adversary. The worst scenario is being locked into a close combat with multiple adversaries of similar equipment. Hence, threat 4:

4. Now, I ponder on RC fighters, which would be easier to build than Raptors, and may be in some years to come, a naughty surprize. And while many a supporter for the necessity of a manned fighter base their logics on the "must" of a ground link, - today, no fighter will do so much without one. (interception most important). Imagine the nightmare, - RC/AI light aircraft, interceptors/special air defence capable of more G's than any human, yet possibly powered by one, no life at stake (since the pilot is in his...bunker). Tracking could be done by the same equipment as a fighter, with further processing at the user's handle (which has no weight restrictions).
As a brighter side for the Raptor, it could have such...as an escort. Or decoy....

I got those ideas after watching a program on the History channel (I think) on future air combat. It almost looked like an F22 ad. Unforunately I cannot find it. It was like 90 minutes in 9 parts if I recall.