If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   US Air Force: The stealthy, fifth-generation, $400 million F-22 Raptor is the undisputed king of the skies. German Luftwaffe: Ja, about that   (wired.com) divider line 207
    More: Interesting, Toronto Raptors, air forces, mock combat, U.S. Air Force  
•       •       •

22836 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2012 at 10:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-31 06:47:14 AM
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
 
2012-07-31 09:50:21 AM
The big advantages the F-22 has over other aircraft is stealth, supercruise, and it's electronic warfare system....if you put it in a situation where it can't use any of those advantages, yeah, other aircraft have a shot.
 
2012-07-31 10:03:26 AM
I can't believe the USAF is still farking the chicken of long range missile "dogfighters" after all this time.
They were useless in the 1960s, and they're useless today.
 
2012-07-31 10:25:36 AM

DjangoStonereaver: I can't believe the USAF is still farking the chicken of long range missile "dogfighters" after all this time.
They were useless in the 1960s, and they're useless today.


At least they remembered to put a cannon on this one.
 
2012-07-31 10:46:17 AM
You mean it's not invincible and it doesn't have the secret of life and it won't teach us the secret of eternal youth?

Why did we pay all this money, then?!
 
2012-07-31 10:46:53 AM
Hee-Haw!

/Too smart and expensive by half, as usual.
 
2012-07-31 10:47:51 AM
The F-22 is a rehash of the F-4. Most likely, just like the F-4, it'll get better.

DjangoStonereaver: I can't believe the USAF is still farking the chicken of long range missile "dogfighters" after all this time.
They were useless in the 1960s, and they're useless today.


Dammit, you said it better.
 
2012-07-31 10:48:02 AM
The F22 was designed on a premise, destroy the target before reaching visual range, that has never been tested in war and wasn't backed up with much independent research. It isn't surprising they lost in close range dog fights since they were never designed to win them

The DoD argues that missile technology has improved so much since the 1960s there is no reason to get close during air battles. Until there is a war with an opponent who can actually challenge the US for air dominance no one will know if their multibillion dollar gamble paid off.
 
2012-07-31 10:49:10 AM
In other words, in a real fight, all German planes would be destroyed before they ever even saw the Raptors.
 
2012-07-31 10:50:03 AM
People seem to think the F-22 has to fly right over a target to hit it. Thanks Hollywood.
 
2012-07-31 10:50:16 AM

Carth: The F22 was designed on a premise, destroy the target before reaching visual range, that has never been tested in war and wasn't backed up with much independent research. It isn't surprising they lost in close range dog fights since they were never designed to win them

The DoD argues that missile technology has improved so much since the 1960s there is no reason to get close during air battles. Until there is a war with an opponent who can actually challenge the US for air dominance no one will know if their multibillion dollar gamble paid off.


Ive read scenarios where the Air Force has considered using B1B's with over-the-horizon Air-to-air missiles, being led to their target by spotter planes or AWACS.

No use for a fighter at all. Just spot the enemy and send a few missiles that direction.
 
2012-07-31 10:50:39 AM
Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.
 
2012-07-31 10:51:25 AM
download.gamezone.com
Ja! About as stealthy as a beer fart in church!
 
2012-07-31 10:52:08 AM
I honestly though that the US had given up on the F-22!?!?
 
2012-07-31 10:52:42 AM
You mean artificially taking away every advantage the F-22 was built for puts it on an even playing field!!?

Thanks Rick Romero.
 
2012-07-31 10:53:43 AM
This doesn't surprise me. The Typhoon is specifically designed to perform tight, unusual maneuvers that would appear as the aircraft being out of control. In fact, it can be put in to situations where it is momentarily out of control and it's attitude control computers can recover it in seconds. You can't do that with an F-22. But then, the F-22 would probably never need to engage in close combat. It is designed to take a target out well before engaging.
 
2012-07-31 10:53:44 AM
So the F22 is evenly matched *IF* you can get close enough to furball? Yeah, good luck with that. The whole point is that this plane will kill you before you even know it's in your hemisphere.
 
2012-07-31 10:54:38 AM
From TFA:
In a 2008 study (big file!), the Air Force-funded think tank RAND warned against assuming long-range missiles will work. RAND looked at 588 air-to-air shoot-downs since the 1950s and counted just 24 that occurred with the attacker firing from beyond visual range. Historically, American long-range air-to-air missiles have been 90-percent less effective than predicted, RAND asserted.

Why, that's terrible! Wait... "Since the 1950s"? That's a big range... As it turns out, if you go to slide 24 of the linked study, it turns out that 4 of that 24 were pre-1991, along with 527 of the shoot-downs. Since 1991, it's 20 out of 61. So, take it with a grain of salt.
 
2012-07-31 10:55:03 AM
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Reminds me of doing torpedo exercises back in the '70s. The older officers would do a WW2 periscope approach to launch a Mark 48 torpedo that had an effective range of over 5 miles. It could out-run just about anything in the water and could re-attack if it missed the first time.
 
2012-07-31 10:55:55 AM
With all due respect to the study, analyzing tactics from the dogfights of the 1950's and 70's (i.e, Korean and Vietnam era) isn't nearly as applicable as the 90's. The Iraqi wars did feature a lot more long-range kills than in the past. If the US ever went up against China or Russia... it will be on the back of EWACS support, unlike four decades ago.

/which is not to say the F-22 is great, given all of the other problems.
 
Ehh
2012-07-31 10:56:08 AM
neritz: DjangoStonereaver: I can't believe the USAF is still farking the chicken of long range missile "dogfighters" after all this time. They were useless in the 1960s, and they're useless today.

At least they remembered to put a cannon on this one.


But they kinda let the whole "don't make a plane that kills its pilot" thing escape their expensive attentions.

USA! USA!
 
2012-07-31 10:56:20 AM
Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?
 
2012-07-31 10:56:35 AM
i149.photobucket.com
Yeah - the CF-22 might be an oonse over-budget.
We asked the DSS to make out a cheque with the amount line left blank.

/Canuckian humour
//the extra `u' means extra yuks
 
2012-07-31 10:56:48 AM

Dynascape: Carth: The F22 was designed on a premise, destroy the target before reaching visual range, that has never been tested in war and wasn't backed up with much independent research. It isn't surprising they lost in close range dog fights since they were never designed to win them

The DoD argues that missile technology has improved so much since the 1960s there is no reason to get close during air battles. Until there is a war with an opponent who can actually challenge the US for air dominance no one will know if their multibillion dollar gamble paid off.

Ive read scenarios where the Air Force has considered using B1B's with over-the-horizon Air-to-air missiles, being led to their target by spotter planes or AWACS.

No use for a fighter at all. Just spot the enemy and send a few missiles that direction.


Someone's been reading too many Dale Brown novels.
 
2012-07-31 10:57:47 AM
I went one-on-one with an F-22 at the joint exercise they're talking about. The German Typhoon pilot got me in close enough to jump onto its back. Hand over hand, I crawled up the fuselage as we streaked through the air at 750 knots. When I got to the front, I used a rock to smash the cockpit window, pulled the pilot out, and took control of the plane. I then put it into a nose dive using my belt to secure the stick before bailing out. I was the hero of the day.
 
2012-07-31 10:58:05 AM

Ehh: neritz: DjangoStonereaver: I can't believe the USAF is still farking the chicken of long range missile "dogfighters" after all this time. They were useless in the 1960s, and they're useless today.

At least they remembered to put a cannon on this one.

But they kinda let the whole "don't make a plane that kills its pilot" thing escape their expensive attentions.

USA! USA!


Pfft....Small details.
 
2012-07-31 11:00:47 AM

Thunderpipes: In other words, in a real fight, all German planes would be destroyed before they ever even saw the Raptors.


Yeah, but isn't that something you can also do with a helicopter and a couple of ground stations?
 
2012-07-31 11:00:59 AM

ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?


Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.
 
2012-07-31 11:01:08 AM

natmar_76: Why did we pay all this money, then?!


img2.bdbphotos.com

Your president calls my father and says, "I've got unemployment in Texas, Kansas, Washington State". One phone call later and we're stealing out of our social programs to buy overpriced airplanes.
 
2012-07-31 11:01:17 AM
There is a long history of old aircraft claiming they can compete with the higher-tech stuff based on pilot skill or whatever small advantages but in actual combat they have rarely won in the end. MiG-15 versus F-86, MiG-21 versus F-4, MiG-29 versus F-15, etc. It's true the lower-end aircraft have some advantages at times, especially in the early stages of a new design like the F-22 there are often critical flaws. However, it's not enough to overcome the overall better stuff, especially after it has been tuned.

Everyone wants an underdog to win, especially when they're the underdog.
 
2012-07-31 11:01:32 AM

JackieRabbit: it's attitude control computers can recover it in seconds.


Check your apostrophe control computers.
 
2012-07-31 11:02:01 AM

Theaetetus: From TFA:
In a 2008 study (big file!), the Air Force-funded think tank RAND warned against assuming long-range missiles will work. RAND looked at 588 air-to-air shoot-downs since the 1950s and counted just 24 that occurred with the attacker firing from beyond visual range. Historically, American long-range air-to-air missiles have been 90-percent less effective than predicted, RAND asserted.

Why, that's terrible! Wait... "Since the 1950s"? That's a big range... As it turns out, if you go to slide 24 of the linked study, it turns out that 4 of that 24 were pre-1991, along with 527 of the shoot-downs. Since 1991, it's 20 out of 61. So, take it with a grain of salt.


Since then what have they been shooting down? A bunch of crappy iraqi planes flying from bombed out runways?
 
2012-07-31 11:02:39 AM
Well when the Germans have Maverick in their Top Gun program I'll get worried.
 
2012-07-31 11:02:49 AM
To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.
 
2012-07-31 11:03:02 AM
Modern fighters are limited by the ability of humans to stay conscious and that is a hard limit on ALL close-up fighting by aircraft. So in short, almost any aircraft that has hit that limit - and it was hit by the previous generation - will perform about the same.

The next generation of air superiority fighter will be unmanned.
 
2012-07-31 11:03:38 AM
I have also found that my Keurig makes much better coffee than the F22. Good job, DoD.
 
2012-07-31 11:03:55 AM

Theaetetus: As it turns out, if you go to slide 24 of the linked study, it turns out


Tell me more
 
2012-07-31 11:04:11 AM
Another way to take out the F-22? Take out the power at the base. Without the servers, the computer controlled aircraft forms can't be cleared and the jet won't start if there is a red X in the forms.
 
2012-07-31 11:04:39 AM

ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?


I'm not sure about your point, but here's something for you.
Link
 
2012-07-31 11:04:56 AM
Honestly, this all sounds like it goes back to pilot training and a replay of the attitude that the AF had about missiles back in the 60's. Missiles were supposed to end the day of the close-in dogfight. But with primitive radar and crappy IFF, pilots had to get closer to make sure what they were shooting at was in fact their enemy. It was the whole reason that the Top Gun school was opened; to teach actual fighter tactics again.

So, it sounds like the Air Force has come back to that mentality and the F-22 pilot training is focusing more on systems management than actual maneuvering in close.

/The more things change...
 
2012-07-31 11:05:07 AM
I say we get our shiat together and stop them before they bomb Pearl Harbor again!
 
2012-07-31 11:05:50 AM

oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.


We don't like war...unless we start it.
 
2012-07-31 11:06:31 AM

trappedspirit: Theaetetus: As it turns out, if you go to slide 24 of the linked study, it turns out

Tell me more


You'd be surprised what turns out.
 
2012-07-31 11:06:44 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: Yeah, but isn't that something you can also do with a helicopter and a couple of ground stations?


Yeah but then you can't keep the fear theater propaganda going, nor the massive corporate welfare pork flowing.
 
2012-07-31 11:07:47 AM
In a real world scenario, if you get close enough to see a Raptor, you are either part of its ground crew, the pilot, or you are drifting in your chute after your ride got shot out from underneath you.

That said...

Cutting production was criminally stupid. They should have at least continued to produce them at a rate that justifies keeping the line open. In an actual shooting war against an air force more capable than the likes of the Iraqis, the Iranians, or vaunted Somali air corps (likely converted crop duster with a guy with an AK-47 sitting in the back seat), the Raptor will pick off the first wave of enemy, have to return to base to reload, and while that's going on the second wave (made up of far more capable aircraft) will pop on the scene, kill the drones the Americans use for recon and light attack, and make life miserable for the American ground forces.

You can't simply decide to produce a high tech aircraft from a cold start. We'll be scrambling through the boneyards in the desert looking to reactivate F-15s and F-16s in order to get enough planes in the air and then there is the small problem of not having nearly enough qualified fighter pilots. farked only begins to describe it.
 
2012-07-31 11:08:51 AM

neritz: oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.

We don't like war...unless we start it.


Plus one would think the British Empire (upon which the sun never sets) and Friends, could handle one pissant nation state in Central Europe. Yet they kept proving us wrong.
 
2012-07-31 11:09:39 AM

traylor: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

I'm not sure about your point, but here's something for you.
Link


ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-07-31 11:10:20 AM

oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.


At least when we join the fight people know it. Unlike Canadia.
 
2012-07-31 11:11:01 AM
The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a combat success rate of around 17%.

The F-22 continues to kill and poison the pilots that fly it.

If an F-22 crashes, Fire Rescue has been told to not approach the burning plane under any circumstances, the burning fibres in the aircraft create fumes that are both toxic and caustic, so they will eat through any protection you may be wearing.

The EF-2000, Rafale, Gripen, F/A-18 Growth Hornet, SU-35, Mig-35, F-15SE Silent Eagle etc, are all better aircraft then the F-22 for their versatility, cost-effectiveness, and ease of maintenance relative to the expensive and maintenance intensive raptor.

The F-35 is the F-22 but worse in every possible area.

And the Marines had an F-18 shoot down the F-22 in a dogfight years ago. And not even a super bug, a classic bug. The Brits did it to the F-22 with the Eurofighter, the Indians did it with the SU-33 flanker. The F-22 is not some wonder weapon, it is a very expensive air dominance fighter that doesn't represent a significant leap over other weapons platforms.
 
2012-07-31 11:11:19 AM

hdhale: In a real world scenario, if you get close enough to see a Raptor, you are either part of its ground crew, the pilot, or you are drifting in your chute after your ride got shot out from underneath you.

That said...

Cutting production was criminally stupid. They should have at least continued to produce them at a rate that justifies keeping the line open. In an actual shooting war against an air force more capable than the likes of the Iraqis, the Iranians, or vaunted Somali air corps (likely converted crop duster with a guy with an AK-47 sitting in the back seat), the Raptor will pick off the first wave of enemy, have to return to base to reload, and while that's going on the second wave (made up of far more capable aircraft) will pop on the scene, kill the drones the Americans use for recon and light attack, and make life miserable for the American ground forces.

You can't simply decide to produce a high tech aircraft from a cold start. We'll be scrambling through the boneyards in the desert looking to reactivate F-15s and F-16s in order to get enough planes in the air and then there is the small problem of not having nearly enough qualified fighter pilots. farked only begins to describe it.


What countries would those be? The only ones that come to mind would be China or Russia and if that happens the lack of F22s will be the least of our worries.

The F22s were made for third generation warfare completely ignoring the trillions of dollars we've already spent on forth generation. Not only should they have stopped production sooner the damn things should never have been built.
 
2012-07-31 11:12:28 AM
LOL...the premise of this article is that the Typhoons can somehow magically teleport into dogfighting range. Modern air warfare is BVR now. They would never get close enough to dogfight.

Also...read the comments section of that article. Several users point out serious flaws. The F-22s are literally fighting with one hand tied behind their back.
 
2012-07-31 11:13:13 AM

ha-ha-guy: neritz: oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.

We don't like war...unless we start it.

Plus one would think the British Empire (upon which the sun never sets) and Friends, could handle one pissant nation state in Central Europe. Yet they kept proving us wrong.


Sorry aboot that. We were used to fighting the French (with one hand - while sitting).
 
2012-07-31 11:14:05 AM
US Air Force: The stealthy, fifth-generation, $400 million F-22 Raptor is the undisputed king of the skies. German Luftwaffe: Ja, about that

So obviously we need to spend another $100 billion on defense contractor welfare!
 
2012-07-31 11:14:16 AM
Totes worth 400million a pop.
 
2012-07-31 11:14:30 AM
It still is the king of the skies. Being able to dominate the airspace over a larger range than the enemy while maintaining stealth. Yeah, it totally sucks. Get back to me when the Grippen can find a way to get into range without getting blown out of the sky.

You are a sniper. You are heavily camo'ed on an open battlefield. You have the benefit of optics and a long range large caliber rifle.

Your enemy is carrying a standard military rifle.

You can see him from far away and he is in your range while you are not in his. He cannot see you, but he knows your general direction.

Who would win in that scenario?
 
2012-07-31 11:14:31 AM

crab66: oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.

At least when we join the fight people know it. Unlike Canadia.


Yup - all that Spanish flu AND those STDs.
 
2012-07-31 11:14:41 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: Yeah, but isn't that something you can also do with a helicopter and a couple of ground stations?


how well do those helicopters and ground stations do stealth and supercruise, btw?
 
2012-07-31 11:14:57 AM
I thought we learned this lesson in Vietnam with the F4. Fighters are for fighting up close, not lobbing missiles from a hundred miles away. It's a grand idea and all - it just doesn't work in reality.
 
2012-07-31 11:15:37 AM

oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.


Not our fault that we're all the way over here and you're all the way over there. Hell, most of the time you tell us you like it that way.
 
2012-07-31 11:15:55 AM

ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?


Goering was a a shiat head, so there's that.
 
2012-07-31 11:16:57 AM
 
2012-07-31 11:19:43 AM
I wonder how much it would cost per unit for the Air Force to buy a few dozen 737s, equip them with AWAC-like radar, add a massive fire control system - and fill the belly with racks of AIM120s. Fly toward hostile air - detect enemy aircraft, unload a hundred AA missiles and leave. Land, reload, and repeat. If we are looking for a mobile AA missile launcher, there have GOT to be cheaper methods.
 
2012-07-31 11:19:48 AM

you have pee hands: oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.

Not our fault that we're all the way over here and you're all the way over there. Hell, most of the time you tell us you like it that way.


Yup - there's a vast ocean between 'merikuh & Canuckistan. Was Sarah Palin in your geography class?
 
2012-07-31 11:19:54 AM
I live next to Wright Patterson AFB.

...there's actually a Bong Rd. right next to the base. Its on a really high post because people steal the signs.
 
2012-07-31 11:19:59 AM

oldfarthenry: [i149.photobucket.com image 364x244]
Yeah - the CF-22 might be an oonse over-budget.
We asked the DSS to make out a cheque with the amount line left blank.

/Canuckian humour
//the extra `u' means extra yuks


They should be ready about the same time as we get our "new" helicopters to replace the aging Sea Kings.

.
..
...
Again, you'd have to be Canadian to get that.
 
2012-07-31 11:20:41 AM

you have pee hands: oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.

Not our fault that we're all the way over here and you're all the way over there. Hell, most of the time you tell us you like it that way.


Actually he's just up there. Or in my case down there since I have to drive south to cross into Canada.

/Michigan, America's first line of defense against Canada
 
2012-07-31 11:22:11 AM
It would be an evil person indeed who would attack the U.S's airshow superiority fighter.
 
2012-07-31 11:22:36 AM
So the chimps at Wired found a report from another magazine, that doesn't quote any data, that says the Eurofighter is good at slow speed dogfights. Not better than the F-22, just good. Yeah, no kidding. That's been expected for years. Actually, since Air Force Gen. Jumper flew the Eurofighter in 2005:

-------------------
"The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive," he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. -- all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."

The F/A-22 performs in much the same way as the Eurofighter, General Jumper said. But it has additional capabilities that allow it to perform the Air Force's unique missions.

"The F/A-22 Raptor has stealth and supercruise," he said. "It has the ability to penetrate virtually undetected because of (those) capabilities. It is designed to be a penetrating airplane. It can maneuver with the best of them if it has to, but what you want to be able to do is get into contested airspace no matter where it is."
------------------------

The Wired chimps make the jump that the Eurofighter is actually better,though not justified. But they've had a boner for the F-22 for years. They need to go cover stuff they have some knowledge of, like which athlete tweeted the latest racial slur at the Olympics.
 
2012-07-31 11:22:59 AM

hp6sa: With all due respect to the study, analyzing tactics from the dogfights of the 1950's and 70's (i.e, Korean and Vietnam era) isn't nearly as applicable as the 90's. The Iraqi wars did feature a lot more long-range kills than in the past. If the US ever went up against China or Russia... it will be on the back of EWACS support, unlike four decades ago.

/which is not to say the F-22 is great, given all of the other problems.


Please, do tell me about its silent engines with cold burning fuel. Just because America is in-love with radar doesn't mean the rest of the world is. You know what, don't bother. Someday a dark-horse, outta left field technocrat dictator is going to teach us a bloody lesson and I wont be in the mood to say "I told you so."
 
2012-07-31 11:23:13 AM
Attrition will eventually rid the US inventory of the F-22 problem. The F-35 will likely be around to kill its pilots, occupy the maintenance hanger and leave those it's supposed to be supporting hung out to dry a lot longer. Meanwhile the Air Force will continue to field F-16's and what F-15's they can keep airworthy and pray that it's enough.
 
2012-07-31 11:23:38 AM

indarwinsshadow: oldfarthenry: [i149.photobucket.com image 364x244]
Yeah - the CF-22 might be an oonse over-budget.
We asked the DSS to make out a cheque with the amount line left blank.

/Canuckian humour
//the extra `u' means extra yuks

They should be ready about the same time as we get our "new" helicopters to replace the aging Sea Kings.

.
..
...
Again, you'd have to be Canadian to get that.


Well to be fair, it isn't like you have submarines for those ASW helicopters to practice hunting.

/well maybe the ones at that mall, they have a decent uptime
 
2012-07-31 11:25:10 AM

JeffDenver: LOL...the premise of this article is that the Typhoons can somehow magically teleport into dogfighting range. Modern air warfare is BVR now. They would never get close enough to dogfight.

Also...read the comments section of that article. Several users point out serious flaws. The F-22s are literally fighting with one hand tied behind their back.


when the F-22 pilot is blacking out intermittently and is drowsy from oxygen deprivation, i bet it does seem like the typhoons are teleporting. thats a nifty little feature the krauts put in ther...oh wait
 
2012-07-31 11:26:05 AM
No Top Gun Quotes here? Son, I am dissapoint.

During the Korean War, the Navy kill ratio was twelve-to-one. We shot down twelve of their jets for every one of ours. In Vietnam, this ratio fell to three-to-one. Our pilots depended on missles. They lost their dogfighting skills.

Sound Familiar?
 
2012-07-31 11:27:04 AM

DjangoStonereaver: I can't believe the USAF is still farking the chicken of long range missile "dogfighters" after all this time.
They were useless in the 1960s, and they're useless today.


AIM-7E != AIM-120C

1960s air to air missiles were at the begining of that technology. AIM-7Es had VACUUM TUBES in their guidance systems. Compare a 1960s computer to a 2010s computer, will you base your opinion of the present state of the art on what was available 50 years ago? F-15s using '90s technology have a very good kill ratio with missiles. F-22s are even better. F-35s will have even greater capability given their further developed electronics.
 
2012-07-31 11:27:24 AM

JeffDenver: LOL...the premise of this article is that the Typhoons can somehow magically teleport into dogfighting range. Modern air warfare is BVR now. They would never get close enough to dogfight.


You can't really do BVR without radar, and you can't really use RADAR while being stealthy. That is the big flaw in the F-22 stealth argument. Even at the insanely 'hypothetical' range of an AIM-120D (50~60 miles), with the closure range of modern aircraft, you are looking at dog fighting ranges in about 1.5 minutes, so closing the gap between aircraft is not a difficult task to accomplish. And that 1.5 minutes is assuming a subsonic intercept, in supersonic closing, the time drops to about 45 seconds to knife fight range.

There is a persistent myth that BVR is what all warfare is about when it comes to ATA tactics, but the reality is that the range will close, and you will be stuck in a turning engagement. Year after year of exercises and training missions have shown this, and yet some desk force general somewhere insists that dogfighting ended in 1945.
 
2012-07-31 11:28:33 AM
Why is it that fighter jets don't have rockets that face backwards?
 
2012-07-31 11:30:32 AM

hdhale: In a real world scenario, if you get close enough to see a Raptor, you are either part of its ground crew, the pilot, or you are drifting in your chute after your ride got shot out from underneath you.

That said...

Cutting production was criminally stupid. They should have at least continued to produce them at a rate that justifies keeping the line open. In an actual shooting war against an air force more capable than the likes of the Iraqis, the Iranians, or vaunted Somali air corps (likely converted crop duster with a guy with an AK-47 sitting in the back seat), the Raptor will pick off the first wave of enemy, have to return to base to reload, and while that's going on the second wave (made up of far more capable aircraft) will pop on the scene, kill the drones the Americans use for recon and light attack, and make life miserable for the American ground forces.

You can't simply decide to produce a high tech aircraft from a cold start. We'll be scrambling through the boneyards in the desert looking to reactivate F-15s and F-16s in order to get enough planes in the air and then there is the small problem of not having nearly enough qualified fighter pilots. farked only begins to describe it.


I agree that the USAF needs more raptors than it has in order to maintain air superiority in a contested theatre but in your scenerio(like Desert Storm 1 and 2) the first wave is a barrage of tomahawks from sea based platforms that cripple command and control and destroy airfields meaning there is no second wave of enemy fighters and a general lack of coordinated resistance.

/Whether that would work against China is a completely seperate issue
 
2012-07-31 11:31:53 AM

Slaves2Darkness: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.


Which is kind of the opposite of what we are doing now. We're building airplanes that are too expensive to be able to be manufactured quickly enough to replace losses, and we're betting on the fact that we won't lose too many.
 
2012-07-31 11:33:20 AM

oldfarthenry: Yup - there's a vast ocean between 'merikuh & Canuckistan. Was Sarah Palin in your geography class?


Profile clicking is hard work, and I have it on good account the Brits used to have a bunch of Henrys.
 
2012-07-31 11:33:26 AM
So if you take away all the F-22 advantages and severly restrict what the pilots can do because of the oxygen issues THEN the Typhoon is on a level playing field?

Well I for one am outraged!
 
2012-07-31 11:34:01 AM

Voiceofreason01: /Whether that would work against China is a completely seperate issue


We have minimal desire for air superiority over China. We aren't landing ground troops to occupy a country of 1.3 billion. It's more about using cruise missiles to fry their infrastructure. As for the bombers, they'll be stealth flying wings (the B-2 replacement project) and won't really need air escorts. The F-22s are more to help the ROK, Japan, and Taiwan kill any fighters or bombers the Chinese send their way. It's mostly a missile show though, as China is planning to do the exact same thing to our airfields in the ROK and Japan.
 
2012-07-31 11:34:25 AM
So the F-22s are the Tau of the world's airforce?
www.gobiel.com
 
2012-07-31 11:35:56 AM

PYROY: Why is it that fighter jets don't have rockets that face backwards?


The French variant of the Typhoon does.
 
2012-07-31 11:37:02 AM

you have pee hands: oldfarthenry: Yup - there's a vast ocean between 'merikuh & Canuckistan. Was Sarah Palin in your geography class?

Profile clicking is hard work, and I have it on good account the Brits used to have a bunch of Henrys.


To be fair, I was exiled from Britain to the colonies. Your point is still valid.
 
2012-07-31 11:37:36 AM

tiiger: You can't really do BVR without radar, and you can't really use RADAR while being stealthy. That is the big flaw in the F-22 stealth argument.


Yep.

What happens if Doofistan develops an air-to-air HARM-style missile that homes in on that radar until it's close enough to go to passive infrared?

What if they make it with a low enough radar cross-section that while it's not technically "stealthy", it will be within infrared range before the radar can detect it and get shut down? Hell, you might not even notice it electronically. First warning the F-22 pilot would have is the sight of the missile's smoke/contrail heading towards him.
 
2012-07-31 11:39:16 AM
Those new Eurofighter/Typhoons sure are noisy though, have had them circling around here a few times and it sounds like Thor in a bad mood even from many miles away.
 
2012-07-31 11:40:01 AM

hdhale: In a real world scenario, if you get close enough to see a Raptor, you are either part of its ground crew, the pilot, or you are drifting in your chute after your ride got shot out from underneath you.




oyster.ignimgs.com
/sympathises with having your ride shot out from underneath you
 
2012-07-31 11:40:55 AM
Germany -0-
USA 2

/done
 
2012-07-31 11:41:08 AM

PYROY: Why is it that fighter jets don't have rockets that face backwards?


The smart ass answer is that planes fire guided missiles, not unguided rockets.
The real answer is that aerodynamically, it makes sense to mount missiles facing forward (less drag, or less weight if you have to put a cowling over them.) and a forward firing missile is not wasting thrust counteracting the momentum and velocity of the aircraft that launched it, decreasing to zero relative motion, then trying to build it all back up again (this requires a huge motor, relatively speaking, which adds tons of weight to a weapon.)

The cool thing is that some missiles, like the Python 4 (Israel) AIM-9X (alledgedly) and the AA-11 Archer (Russia) have 150~180 off boresight capability, so they can literally detach from the plane forwards and then rotate in the air in a quick 20+ g turn to hit something behind the aircraft. They are very, very cool to see launch, as they peel away from the wing, swoop around and nail some target 1~5 km behind the launching aircraft. Dynamically they make more sense then a rearward launching missile.
 
2012-07-31 11:42:55 AM

dittybopper: tiiger: You can't really do BVR without radar, and you can't really use RADAR while being stealthy. That is the big flaw in the F-22 stealth argument.

Yep.

What happens if Doofistan develops an air-to-air HARM-style missile that homes in on that radar until it's close enough to go to passive infrared?

What if they make it with a low enough radar cross-section that while it's not technically "stealthy", it will be within infrared range before the radar can detect it and get shut down? Hell, you might not even notice it electronically. First warning the F-22 pilot would have is the sight of the missile's smoke/contrail heading towards him.


Supposedly the big dished radar planes will uplink to the F-22s so they wont have to emit much. But this pretends that only we get to use electronic warfare, stealth, and drones. I hate to talk about it over the internet, but air-to-air drones are much simpler to develop than people who fly planes like to make them out to be.
 
2012-07-31 11:43:38 AM

Carth: The F22 was designed on a premise, destroy the target before reaching visual range, that has never been tested in war and wasn't backed up with much independent research.


Maybe not, but damn if it doesn't sound good, huh? Think about it Chief, we take 'em out before they even know we're there! We'll have air supremacy at all times and there's nothing they can do about it. Yeah, this is the ship for us. Let's get a thousand of 'em right away, and another two thousand after that. We can't wait for testing, besides, they'll eliminate any threats before they're in visual, says so right here in the white paper.
 
2012-07-31 11:43:45 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.


Exactly. And we will do it again.

/glad they never got the Me262 up with their best pilots early in the war.
 
2012-07-31 11:44:02 AM
All we need are Stingers, machine guns and RPG's stored at every street corner. No one will attack us.
 
2012-07-31 11:46:25 AM

dittybopper:
Yep.
What happens if Doofistan develops an air-to-air HARM-style missile that homes in on that radar until it's close enough to go to passive infrared?
What if they make it with a low enough radar cross-section that while it's not technically "stealthy", it will be within infrared range before the radar can detect it and get shut down? Hell, you might not even notice it electronically. First warning the F-22 pilot would have is the sight of the missile's smoke/contrail heading towards him.


Not only does the missile you posit already exist, but it is a system that many ATA missiles have as well. Also, the missile would not leave a smoke or contrail as most ATA missiles only burn for a short period of time, they coast at high speed to the kill, so there would be nothing save a very small cross section to try and spot in that big blue sky. A SAM might leave a smoke trail, since they burn for longer.

Now, the F-22 does have a threat link with launch authority to AWACS aircraft, and other friendlies, so the F-22 could sneak nose cold in towards a group of spotted aircraft and launch using telemetry from the radar aircraft, but then you have to posit that in that scenario the radar aircraft is such a huge target you really wouldn't want to expose it near the front, given that unlike the west, the East has 160~190 nm missiles designed specifically to terminate AWACS and other similar ELINT aircraft. The Vympe R-33, 37, and Novator K-100 all come to mind as examples.
 
2012-07-31 11:46:50 AM
The F-22 was built to defeat the practical threat from small (read Middle-Eastern) air forces. Long-range stealth missions designed to deny enemy air support and maintain control of the area. It was not designed for a major offensive engagement with a superpower like China. China has 1,300 fighters and 600 bombers (Source). It is a war of numbers that we would lose no matter how advanced our technology.
 
2012-07-31 11:46:55 AM
"War is a Racket" Smedley Butler. All you need to know.
 
2012-07-31 11:47:07 AM
At the end of WWII, 1940 model Japanese Zeros could easily defeat Corsairs and Hellcats that were stupid enough to get into a slow turning fight with them.

The Raptor wasn't built to get into a slow, turning fight. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf war, Yugoslavia all proved the same thing.

Avionics are good, superior weapons are good, maneuverability is nice, but speed kills.

In every one of those conflicts, US aircraft achieved their massive success by exploiting boom and zoom tactics*. Scream in, take your shot, keep your energy up.

Don't get caught up in a furball if you can help it.

I'm not a bit shocked a Typhoon can kill a Raptor in a knife fight. What would shock me is if a Raptor driver decided to fore go his advantages in a real shooting situation.

*A notable exception was late war in Europe where German jets had a decided speed advantage. We shot them down by engaging them in slow turning fights - mostly as they took off or landed.
 
2012-07-31 11:49:27 AM

macadamnut: traylor: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

I'm not sure about your point, but here's something for you.
Link

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]


My wife laughs every time we drive past the Bong State Recreation Area. As an avid aviation history buff it takes me a few seconds to realize why it sounds funny. She practically busts a gut when I tell her his first name was Dick.

//Bong...Dick Bong
 
2012-07-31 11:49:57 AM

Dynascape: Ive read scenarios where the Air Force has considered using B1B's with over-the-horizon Air-to-air missiles, being led to their target by spotter planes or AWACS.


In fact they skipped 16 letters and went straight to the B1-R, or "Boner" for that one. I think it they just couldn't resist, way funnier than Bonec. Although they could have called it the D model and then say the enemy was Boned.
 
2012-07-31 11:50:33 AM

Clemkadidlefark:
Germany -0-
USA 2

Revisionist history class ignoring the `world' in 'world wars' - 10

/done

 
2012-07-31 11:51:32 AM

tiiger: PYROY: Why is it that fighter jets don't have rockets that face backwards?

The smart ass answer is that planes fire guided missiles, not unguided rockets.
The real answer is that aerodynamically, it makes sense to mount missiles facing forward (less drag, or less weight if you have to put a cowling over them.) and a forward firing missile is not wasting thrust counteracting the momentum and velocity of the aircraft that launched it, decreasing to zero relative motion, then trying to build it all back up again (this requires a huge motor, relatively speaking, which adds tons of weight to a weapon.)

The cool thing is that some missiles, like the Python 4 (Israel) AIM-9X (alledgedly) and the AA-11 Archer (Russia) have 150~180 off boresight capability, so they can literally detach from the plane forwards and then rotate in the air in a quick 20+ g turn to hit something behind the aircraft. They are very, very cool to see launch, as they peel away from the wing, swoop around and nail some target 1~5 km behind the launching aircraft. Dynamically they make more sense then a rearward launching missile.


Coming off the aircraft forwards and then turning around uses the same energy ("dynamically") as a missile that is turned around first then fired from the plane (launched backwards). There is little dynamic advantage to launching a missile forwards that doesn't have wings to turn with.

The problem with firinig backwards is making a control system that can keep the missile pointed backwards as it comes of the rails with negative airspeed. The control system has to manage the missile attitude as it's flying backwards, thru zero, then forward flight. No easy thing since the fins will act radically differently as the environment quickly changes.
 
2012-07-31 11:52:13 AM
So they put the Raptors in a specific scenario that the Typhoons could exploit the 22s weakness...and they were still only evenly matched. Had the F-22 not specifically allowed the Typhoon to visably aquire them, the Germans would have had no idea wtf was going on

Also,
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century
 
2012-07-31 11:52:33 AM

oldfarthenry: Clemkadidlefark:
Germany -0-
USA 2

Revisionist history class ignoring the `world' in 'world wars' - 10

/done


Come on fartknocker....

Anyone who's versed in history knows pretty damn positively that it was the Soviet Union that won WW2 in Europe.

It was all over in Europe after Stalingrad, and way WAY over by the time the Soviets launched Operation Bagration.
 
2012-07-31 11:53:19 AM

ha-ha-guy: indarwinsshadow: oldfarthenry: [i149.photobucket.com image 364x244]
Yeah - the CF-22 might be an oonse over-budget.
We asked the DSS to make out a cheque with the amount line left blank.

/Canuckian humour
//the extra `u' means extra yuks

They should be ready about the same time as we get our "new" helicopters to replace the aging Sea Kings.

.
..
...
Again, you'd have to be Canadian to get that.

Well to be fair, it isn't like you have submarines for those ASW helicopters to practice hunting.

/well maybe the ones at that mall, they have a decent uptime


Actually, the ones at the mall haven't been running in about 4 years, so for all intents and purposes, they might as well belong to the RCN.
 
2012-07-31 11:53:44 AM

ha-ha-guy: As for the bombers, they'll be stealth flying wings (the B-2 replacement project) and won't really need air escorts.


Or the aircraft that eventually grows out of the X-37 program launches from Whiteman, bombs beijing and returns in time for lunch.
 
2012-07-31 11:56:47 AM
tiiger: You can't really do BVR without radar, and you can't really use RADAR while being stealthy. That is the big flaw in the F-22 stealth argument.

It will expose you, but it will not make it any easier for them to lock weapons onto you. Stealth will still give the attacking F-22 an advantage. All that will change is that they will know someone is locking weapons onto them.

AESA makes it difficult or impossible for them to use the F-22's own radar to lock on to. Wikipedia explains why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically_Scanned_Array#Low_ P robability_of_Intercept.

BVR isn't a myth. I don't know why people keep saying that. Every major military in the world is investing in it...not just the US. What do they know that you don't?
 
2012-07-31 11:57:31 AM
Well, sure. Makes sense if you take away all of the F-22's advantages.

This is an aircraft that is meant to cruise around at Mach 0.8-1.2, well above 65,000 feet, lock on to a target +250km away with it's APG77 radar, fire multiple AIM-120 missiles then turn and burn at Mach +2.0.

The ability to data-link to other friendly aircrafts' radars such as the F-15, F-16 and AWACS while the F-22's radar is off and use those radars to lock onto and fire missiles against enemy aircraft.

Let's not mention the electronic warfare suite the of F-22. One aspect of the the F-22's EWS is rumored to be able to act like an EMP to an enemy aircraft's, disabling the 'fly-by-wire' systems and radar systems. Another aspect is ability to scan and classify the frequencies of an enemy aircrafts' search radars (or the radars of launched missiles), then feed bad data back to the radar making the F-22 appear elsewhere in the sky.

Also, the article fails to mention that the F-22's computer is designed to link-up and control/guide the X-45C UCAV (in the process of end-point development). An F-22 could loiter undetected at 70,000 feet and let a flock of UCAVs battle it out with conventional fighters...or tie up convention fighters while the F-22 itself could hunt down and destroy enemy AWACS without giving it's position away.

Finally, the F-22 is a multi-role fighter, meaning that the aircraft has been upgraded in it's software and hardware to be able to attack ground targets as well. The Typhoon does not have this ability.

All in all, the article is disingenuous (with a slew of weasle-words) and sounds more like an ad by EADS.
 
2012-07-31 11:59:12 AM
New Chinese Doctrine: If the Raptor has ten air-to-air missiles, send up 20 MIGs.

/You KNOW they're thinking that right now
 
2012-07-31 12:00:12 PM
Yea but heaven forbid we make sure kids in this country have decent farking healthcare...
 
2012-07-31 12:01:49 PM

1derful: It would be an evil person indeed who would attack the U.S's airshow superiority fighter.


You'll be receiving my medicals bills as a result of me accidentally inhaling a piece of gum, you laughter terrorist.
 
2012-07-31 12:03:35 PM

Nuc_E: It still is the king of the skies. Being able to dominate the airspace over a larger range than the enemy while maintaining stealth. Yeah, it totally sucks. Get back to me when the Grippen can find a way to get into range without getting blown out of the sky.

You are a sniper. You are heavily camo'ed on an open battlefield. You have the benefit of optics and a long range large caliber rifle.

Your enemy is carrying a standard military rifle.

You can see him from far away and he is in your range while you are not in his. He cannot see you, but he knows your general direction.

Who would win in that scenario?


Dysentery.
 
2012-07-31 12:04:29 PM
"Hey, if we get close a smaller, lighter aircraft can lake our a larger one."

No shiate.

The issue is, of course, getting close in the first place.
 
2012-07-31 12:05:59 PM

Funzo: I have also found that my Keurig makes much better coffee than the F22. Good job, DoD.


I've seen shopping carts that can make a tighter turn. Good job, DoD.
 
2012-07-31 12:06:31 PM

PYROY: Why is it that fighter jets don't have rockets that face backwards?


Oblig.: Why do you hate America?

/actually, this is a good question
//some fighters used to eject "chaff", basically strips of aluminum foil, to screw up the radar of pursuing planes. Same notion as a smoke screen on a battlefield or in a sea battle.
 
2012-07-31 12:07:56 PM
tiiger: The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a combat success rate of around 17%.

Combat success rate is actually around 50%, training success rate near 85% according to the internets

The F-22 continues to kill and poison the pilots that fly it.
It appears the latest issue is fixed, according to the Pentagon. And there have only been two pilots who have died in the 10 year history of the F-22, a test pilot, and a pilot from Alaska whose death was appently unrelated to the current issue (last four paragraphs of TFA).


If an F-22 crashes, Fire Rescue has been told to not approach the burning plane under any circumstances, the burning fibres in the aircraft create fumes that are both toxic and caustic, so they will eat through any protection you may be wearing. Couldn't find anything about this online. Do you have a source? Cause it sounds like BS to me.


The EF-2000, Rafale, Gripen, F/A-18 Growth Hornet, SU-35, Mig-35, F-15SE Silent Eagle etc, are all better aircraft then the F-22 for their versatility, cost-effectiveness, and ease of maintenance relative to the expensive and maintenance intensive raptor.
profile.ak.fbcdn.net


The F-35 is the F-22 but worse in every possible area. Ok, I'll give you that one.

And the Marines had an F-18 shoot down the F-22 in a dogfight years ago. And not even a super bug, a classic bug. The Brits did it to the F-22 with the Eurofighter, the Indians did it with the SU-33 flanker. The F-22 is not some wonder weapon, it is a very expensive air dominance fighter that doesn't represent a significant leap over other weapons platforms.
There are hundreds of F-22 training missions that go on every day, against each other, against all types of other jets. Sometimes the F-22s are setup to win, sometimes they're not, but the important thing is that they're TRAINING MISSIONS. The pilots set them up to be challenging, so if a mistake is made, the F-22 will be "shot down" and they can learn from it. I would think it would be just bad business practice to have the most challenging scenario ever faced be the first time an F-22 pilot goes to combat. But again, that's just like, my opinion man.
 
2012-07-31 12:12:00 PM

madgonad: Modern fighters are limited by the ability of humans to stay conscious and that is a hard limit on ALL close-up fighting by aircraft. So in short, almost any aircraft that has hit that limit - and it was hit by the previous generation - will perform about the same.

The next generation of air superiority fighter will be unmanned.


they should have skipped this generation completely and run with super hornets and eagles for another 25 years.
 
2012-07-31 12:12:21 PM

mugwump867: macadamnut: traylor: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

I'm not sure about your point, but here's something for you.
Link

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

My wife laughs every time we drive past the Bong State Recreation Area. As an avid aviation history buff it takes me a few seconds to realize why it sounds funny. She practically busts a gut when I tell her his first name was Dick.

//Bong...Dick Bong


She sounds like fun, and it's a rare woman indeed who will enjoy a 12 year old boy's level of humour. She probably laughs at surprise farts, amirite?
 
2012-07-31 12:13:00 PM
Dittybopper, et al hit it on the head. Parading these obscenely expensive, yet amusingly ineffective propaganda tools around is all well and good as long as we're just taking pot shots at nomads in goat skin tents for no particular reason and calling it "spreading freedom". But when the "freedom" hits the fan and we're faced with someone who has their act together, things may not go as planned.
 
2012-07-31 12:13:16 PM
Years and years ago, the USAF had the same belief with the F-15. With advanced air to air missiles, the F-15 and its powerful radar would allow pilots to shoot down enemy fighters before they could even know the US fighter was in the region.

It didn't work then either; in the same kind of simulated combat exercises mentioned in TFA, pilots flying F-5's got within visual range of the F-15 before being targeted, and the F-15's were shot down as often as the smaller, less sophisticated plane.

Basically, the USAF (and to some extent the USN) has pursued this belief, that technological advances can allow US pilots to shoot down the opposition without fear of being shot down themselves. Now it's stealth technology they are using to justify this belief, but again, simulated combat tests are showing the technology isn't a cure-all. Sure, if our F-22's have prior warning of approaching enemy planes and early radar locks, the Typhoon pilots are going to be in trouble. There are ways to avoid that; for example, flying close to the ground and "looking up" rather than flying at 35,000 feet.
 
2012-07-31 12:13:35 PM

ha-ha-guy: Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.


In a real war, the Typhoons are carrying MBDA Meteors and splash the E-3 long before they're in SAM range.

Actually, in a real war, we're part of NATO, so the Typhoons can escort the F-22s and watch their backs :P
 
2012-07-31 12:15:54 PM
Nuc_E: It still is the king of the skies. Being able to dominate the airspace over a larger range than the enemy while maintaining stealth. Yeah, it totally sucks. Get back to me when the Grippen can find a way to get into range without getting blown out of the sky.

You are a sniper. You are heavily camo'ed on an open battlefield. You have the benefit of optics and a long range large caliber rifle.

Your enemy is carrying a standard military rifle.

You can see him from far away and he is in your range while you are not in his. He cannot see you, but he knows your general direction.

Who would win in that scenario?


The guy flanking you because you were so damn sure of yourself.
 
2012-07-31 12:18:33 PM

Mishno: DjangoStonereaver: I can't believe the USAF is still farking the chicken of long range missile "dogfighters" after all this time.
They were useless in the 1960s, and they're useless today.
AIM-7E != AIM-120C
1960s air to air missiles were at the begining of that technology. AIM-7Es had VACUUM TUBES in their guidance systems.


At least those old missiles had a warm sound.
 
2012-07-31 12:19:30 PM

Gdalescrboz: So they put the Raptors in a specific scenario that the Typhoons could exploit the 22s weakness...and they were still only evenly matched. Had the F-22 not specifically allowed the Typhoon to visably aquire them, the Germans would have had no idea wtf was going on

Also,
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century


I'm on your side, but this is plain wrong. Many of those kills were BVR/AIM-9 and I think the Israelis even have a couple of gun kills.

Bschott007: Finally, the F-22 is a multi-role fighter, meaning that the aircraft has been upgraded in it's software and hardware to be able to attack ground targets as well. The Typhoon does not have this ability.


Again, as above I'm on your side but this statement is completely false. The Typhoon has been air-to-ground capable since Trache 1/Block 5. Trache 2 aircraft are compatible with a very wide range of PGMs and dumb weapons.

Fact is the Raptor's ground attack capability is very limited. It has external hardpoints, but they're rarely used. Mud moving capability was added merely to appease Washington. It is a pure air superiority fighter (as was the F-15 for much of its career).

The Typhoon is a much more capable multirole attack platform along the lines of the F-16.
 
2012-07-31 12:20:41 PM

improvius: So the F22 is evenly matched *IF* you can get close enough to furball? Yeah, good luck with that. The whole point is that this plane will kill you before you even know it's in your hemisphere.


I think lots of F-4 drivers thought the same thing before Vietnam.


/OK, lots of advancements since then
 
2012-07-31 12:22:56 PM
Meant to say not BVR/AiM-9
 
2012-07-31 12:23:53 PM

Bendal: Years and years ago, the USAF had the same belief with the F-15. With advanced air to air missiles, the F-15 and its powerful radar would allow pilots to shoot down enemy fighters before they could even know the US fighter was in the region.

It didn't work then either; in the same kind of simulated combat exercises mentioned in TFA, pilots flying F-5's got within visual range of the F-15 before being targeted, and the F-15's were shot down as often as the smaller, less sophisticated plane.



pretty sure the f-15 was designed for close in combat as well as long range because they thought the mig-25 was going to be a very numerable fighter. the phantom was designed for long range combat and therefore wasn't even given a gun. but even the phantom could have been effective at bvr combat, if it were not for the vietnam engagement rules that required visual confirmation before attack (and which basically nerfed what the plane was designed to do).
 
2012-07-31 12:23:59 PM

Bendal: Years and years ago, the USAF had the same belief with the F-15. With advanced air to air missiles, the F-15 and its powerful radar would allow pilots to shoot down enemy fighters before they could even know the US fighter was in the region.

It didn't work then either; in the same kind of simulated combat exercises mentioned in TFA, pilots flying F-5's got within visual range of the F-15 before being targeted, and the F-15's were shot down as often as the smaller, less sophisticated plane.

Basically, the USAF (and to some extent the USN) has pursued this belief, that technological advances can allow US pilots to shoot down the opposition without fear of being shot down themselves. Now it's stealth technology they are using to justify this belief, but again, simulated combat tests are showing the technology isn't a cure-all. Sure, if our F-22's have prior warning of approaching enemy planes and early radar locks, the Typhoon pilots are going to be in trouble. There are ways to avoid that; for example, flying close to the ground and "looking up" rather than flying at 35,000 feet.


Considering that in the real world, the F-15 has a 104-0 record in Air-to-Air combat I take issue with the validity of your post.
 
2012-07-31 12:24:29 PM
numerable-maneuverable.
 
2012-07-31 12:27:21 PM
Gleeman:improvius: So the F22 is evenly matched *IF* you can get close enough to furball? Yeah, good luck with that. The whole point is that this plane will kill you before you even know it's in your hemisphere.

I think lots of F-4 drivers thought the same thing before Vietnam.
/OK, lots of advancements since then


Not the least of which is stealth. It isn't just the missiles that have gotten better.
 
2012-07-31 12:28:13 PM

Gdalescrboz: Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century


About that. F-15 part starts around 7:00, relevant BVR miss is around 8:00. Continues in Part 5 of 5.

Not saying the Eagle isn't a great fighter, but most of it's kills have been in visual range. The ROE usually requires visual ID in most situations.

BVR missiles are still very unreliable: (From Wiki)

USAF F-15Cs vs. IRAF MiG-25s

Two IRAF MiG-25s fired missiles at a group of F-15Cs escorting a bombing run in Iraq (which were evaded by the F-15s). The F-15Cs give chase, but were forced to give up when the MiGs outran them. A total of 10 missiles were fired at the MiGs.[2]
 
2012-07-31 12:31:22 PM
So, uh, how many AIM-120s have been live-fired against fast, maneuvering targets flown by someone other than a scared Iraqi whose "training" was being allowed to fly twice a year?

I'm guessing the answer is "not many".
 
2012-07-31 12:31:34 PM
tiiger: The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a combat success rate of around 17%.

Combat success rate is actually around 50%, training success rate near 85% according to the internets

The F-22 continues to kill and poison the pilots that fly it.
It appears the latest issue is fixed, according to the Pentagon. And there have only been two pilots who have died in the 10 year history of the F-22, a test pilot, and a pilot from Alaska whose death was appently unrelated to the current issue (last four paragraphs of TFA).


If an F-22 crashes, Fire Rescue has been told to not approach the burning plane under any circumstances, the burning fibres in the aircraft create fumes that are both toxic and caustic, so they will eat through any protection you may be wearing. Couldn't find anything about this online. Do you have a source? Cause it sounds like BS to me.


The EF-2000, Rafale, Gripen, F/A-18 Growth Hornet, SU-35, Mig-35, F-15SE Silent Eagle etc, are all better aircraft then the F-22 for their versatility, cost-effectiveness, and ease of maintenance relative to the expensive and maintenance intensive raptor.
profile.ak.fbcdn.net


The F-35 is the F-22 but worse in every possible area. Ok, I'll give you that one.

And the Marines had an F-18 shoot down the F-22 in a dogfight years ago. And not even a super bug, a classic bug. The Brits did it to the F-22 with the Eurofighter, the Indians did it with the SU-33 flanker. The F-22 is not some wonder weapon, it is a very expensive air dominance fighter that doesn't represent a significant leap over other weapons platforms.
There are hundreds of F-22 training missions that go on every day, against each other, against all types of other jets. Sometimes the F-22s are setup to win, sometimes they're not, but the important thing is that they're TRAINING MISSIONS. The pilots set them up to be challenging, so if a mistake is made, the F-22 will be "shot down" and they can learn from it. I would think it would be just bad business practice to have the most challenging scenario ever faced be the first time an F-22 pilot goes to combat. But again, that's just like, my opinion man.
 
2012-07-31 12:32:59 PM

Thunderpipes: In other words, in a real fight, all German planes would be destroyed before they ever even saw the Raptors.


No, in other words that means the Raptor will loose to the Eurofighter Tycoon in any situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor

Having a small radar signature is not equal to no radar signature.
 
2012-07-31 12:39:36 PM
Realistically, though, the next major war is going to fought not by F-22s but by a hundred trillion drones.
 
2012-07-31 12:43:50 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.


The whole point of the article is that that would be a bad idea for the F-22.
 
2012-07-31 12:44:54 PM

JustGetItRight: Gdalescrboz: So they put the Raptors in a specific scenario that the Typhoons could exploit the 22s weakness...and they were still only evenly matched. Had the F-22 not specifically allowed the Typhoon to visably aquire them, the Germans would have had no idea wtf was going on

Also,
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century

I'm on your side, but this is plain wrong. Many of those kills were BVR/AIM-9 and I think the Israelis even have a couple of gun kills.

Bschott007: Finally, the F-22 is a multi-role fighter, meaning that the aircraft has been upgraded in it's software and hardware to be able to attack ground targets as well. The Typhoon does not have this ability.

Again, as above I'm on your side but this statement is completely false. The Typhoon has been air-to-ground capable since Trache 1/Block 5. Trache 2 aircraft are compatible with a very wide range of PGMs and dumb weapons.

Fact is the Raptor's ground attack capability is very limited. It has external hardpoints, but they're rarely used. Mud moving capability was added merely to appease Washington. It is a pure air superiority fighter (as was the F-15 for much of its career).

The Typhoon is a much more capable multirole attack platform along the lines of the F-16.


I did some checking and you are correct. The Typhoon does now have very limited AtG abilities, however in Libya the Typhoon failed to perform in an effective Air to Ground role. The Rafael and the Tornado bore the brunt of the ATG workload.

"In separate briefings, U.K. officials have been quoted as saying that the Typhoon flew 600 combat missions but surprisingly details of its offensive role in terms of enemy targets engaged have not been forthcoming. "

Mainly because the Rafael and the Tornado were the workhorses for AtG missions. The Typhoon was not used in the AtG role, which I pause to question. If the Typhoon Tranche 1/Block 5 airframes have AtG abilities, wouldn't Libya have been a great theatre to showcase this? Since the Tranche 2 airframes are still waiting for the Phase 1 Enhancements (some time in 2013), they are just an updated airframe with the limited Tranche 1/Block 5 AtG abilities.


"A Dassault executive who did not wish to be identified said that the Eurofighter Typhoon which is clearly not meant for a multi-mission role played at best a supporting role in the Libyan operations."

So, basically, until the Phase 1 Enhancements are delivered in 2013 (that's the delivery year...no mention on how long it would take to add/convert all current Tranche 2 airframes) the Typhoon is a great dogfighter, but not much else.
 
2012-07-31 12:47:13 PM
 
2012-07-31 12:50:34 PM

adgi13: tiiger: The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a combat success rate of around 17%.

Combat success rate is actually around 50%, training success rate near 85% according to the internets


From your own link:

"the US AIM-120A/B/C AMRAAM, has achieved a success rate inreal combat of around 50 per cent, but this has been against Third World targets without modern countermeasures, modern warning systems, or indeed pilot evasive skills." (emphasis mine)

The 85% training kill rate is against QF-4 target drones flying in straight lines.

In other words, even given the best possible environment and a massive handicap, the AMRAAM can't achieve anything close to 100% success. To tout its capabilities is like being proud of your kid for getting a B on an exam when you gave him the answer key!

Modern fighters flown by competent pilots, even Chinese ones, will be aware of the missile as soon as its motor fires, BVR or not (infrared carries a long way). This will be followed by ECM, chaff, and aggressive defensive maneuvering. When both sides are armed with BVR AAMs, the scenario has been described as something more akin to a game of chicken, than to clubbing baby seals.
 
2012-07-31 12:51:38 PM

Dynascape: oldfarthenry: Clemkadidlefark:
Germany -0-
USA 2

Revisionist history class ignoring the `world' in 'world wars' - 10

/done

Come on fartknocker....

Anyone who's versed in history knows pretty damn positively that it was the Soviet Union that won WW2 in Europe.

It was all over in Europe after Stalingrad, and way WAY over by the time the Soviets launched Operation Bagration.


The Russians may have paid in blood, but they would have had a much harder time without USA Lend-Lease. Let's say that Hitler had been smart enough to NOT declare war on the US, and we had put all our efforts into defeating the Japanese. Roosevelt could NEVER have kept Lend-Lease up, certainly not to the Soviets. The Russians would have been without the following (numbers are approximate):

350,000 light and heavy trucks
51,000 jeeps
8,000 tractors
10,000 tanks of all types
3,000 scout cars
2,000 half tracks
2,000 Bren carriers
11,000 fighter aircraft
3,000 bombers
6,000 anti-aircraft guns
400 Anti-Tank guns
317,000 tons of explosive materiel (the USSR only produced 600,000 tons during the war)
Millions of tons of steel, food, aluminum, and fuel.

Your fancy Red Army would have been a lot worse off without that stuff, and even more so if say, the Brits, fighting alone (also without Lend-Lease) had been forced to sign an armistice in say 1942 that would have freed up more troops for the eastern front. To say the Russians won WWII is just as stupid and ignorant as saying that the US did it all on it's own.

Here's another scenario Red Army fanatics don't like. What if the Japanese had declared war on the USSR along with the Germans, and those Siberian reinforcements that saved Moscow in the winter of 1941 had been fighting a Japanese Army in the far east?
 
Ehh
2012-07-31 12:53:40 PM
madgonad: I wonder how much it would cost per unit for the Air Force to buy a few dozen 737s, equip them with AWAC-like radar, add a massive fire control system - and fill the belly with racks of AIM120s. Fly toward hostile air - detect enemy aircraft, unload a hundred AA missiles and leave. Land, reload, and repeat. If we are looking for a mobile AA missile launcher, there have GOT to be cheaper methods.


It ain't about winning fights. It's about spending money on shiny toys.
 
2012-07-31 12:56:27 PM

My Bologna Has A Maiden Name: Dittybopper, et al hit it on the head. Parading these obscenely expensive, yet amusingly ineffective propaganda tools around is all well and good as long as we're just taking pot shots at nomads in goat skin tents for no particular reason and calling it "spreading freedom".


Actually, stuff like this "isn't particularly useful against an insurgency".
 
2012-07-31 12:59:19 PM
www.mikelynaugh.com



Your cannons are no match for our hand to hand combat.....
 
2012-07-31 01:01:12 PM

oldfarthenry: [download.gamezone.com image 600x250]
Ja! About as stealthy as a beer fart in church!


That's fine, we can end the Meteorblitzkrieg with some A-10s and the U.S.S. George W Bush from space.

Y'all thank me for it later.
 
2012-07-31 01:02:49 PM
The F-22 is designed to do something that only 2 other aircraft ever fielded can do - survive in a high threat environment. The other 2 aircraft that have actually been deployed with this capability were the F-117 and B2. Pulling a high G turn to try to out maneuver a SAM is second seat to the SAM not being able to lock on to you.

Plus we have a very proficient AWACS platform we didn't have in 'Nam. Add the Lacrosse, FIA, and NGEO space based radar sat constellation to provide BVR targeting that we didn't have 20 years ago and the BVR game has changed significantly.

There's a reason the Russians and Chinese are spending so much money to try to build their own when they already have an arguably better dog fighter in the J-10 and MiG-35.
 
2012-07-31 01:05:37 PM

devildog123: Your fancy Red Army would have been a lot worse off without that stuff, and even more so if say, the Brits, fighting alone (also without Lend-Lease) had been forced to sign an armistice in say 1942 that would have freed up more troops for the eastern front. To say the Russians won WWII is just as stupid and ignorant as saying that the US did it all on it's own.


Also, this:

Location Of German Divisions In June Of Each Year
Country 1941 1942 1943 1944
USSR 34 171 179 157
France, Belgium & Holland 38 27 42 56
Norway & Finland 13 16 16 16
Balkans 7 8 17 20
Italy 0 0 0 22
Denmark 1 1 2 3
North Africa 2 3 0 0

And this:

Luftwaffe Aircraft Used Only Against Allied Bombers
Month Year Percentage
June 1940 0%
June 1941 7%
June 1942 17%
June 1943 21%
June 1944 29%
January1945 50%

Everyone contributed.

IRT the topic, I'm all for supplementing the Raptor with the Silent Eagle for numbers.
 
2012-07-31 01:08:34 PM
I know its already been said, but from the article:

Eight times during the two-week war game, individual German Typhoons flew against single F-22s in basic fighter maneuvers meant to simulate a close-range dogfight.

The F-22 is not supposed to ever be in a dog fight. They kill your entire group long before you even have a clue that they're in the air, and they do it from very far away.

Its like complaining about a bolt action rifle being bad at winning fist fights. That just isnt the point of the device.
 
2012-07-31 01:12:56 PM

MustTryHarder: Realistically, though, the next major war is going to fought not by F-22s but by against a hundred trillion drones.


FTFY
 
2012-07-31 01:12:59 PM

MadMattressMack: Plus we have a very proficient AWACS platform we didn't have in 'Nam.


Things have surely improved, but I think the E-2 Hawkeye (1961, still in use today), EC-121, PIRAZ picket ships and Teaball/EC-121K Rivet Tops comm intercepts had things covered pretty well.
 
2012-07-31 01:22:43 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: adgi13: tiiger: The AIM-120 AMRAAM has a combat success rate of around 17%.

Combat success rate is actually around 50%, training success rate near 85% according to the internets

From your own link:

"the US AIM-120A/B/C AMRAAM, has achieved a success rate inreal combat of around 50 per cent, but this has been against Third World targets without modern countermeasures, modern warning systems, or indeed pilot evasive skills." (emphasis mine)

The 85% training kill rate is against QF-4 target drones flying in straight lines.

In other words, even given the best possible environment and a massive handicap, the AMRAAM can't achieve anything close to 100% success. To tout its capabilities is like being proud of your kid for getting a B on an exam when you gave him the answer key!

Modern fighters flown by competent pilots, even Chinese ones, will be aware of the missile as soon as its motor fires, BVR or not (infrared carries a long way). This will be followed by ECM, chaff, and aggressive defensive maneuvering. When both sides are armed with BVR AAMs, the scenario has been described as something more akin to a game of chicken, than to clubbing baby seals.


I never assumed nor claimed the AMRAAM could achieve a 100% sucess, I was merely disputing your claim of 17%. And if I am in a stealth airframe, flying agains a non-stealth airframe, even one being piloted by the most competant of aviators, I will be able to fire a BVR weapon against the target that I can see, before he (or she, for my female aviation enthusiests) can fire one against the target that he cannot see. If he subsequently begins "aggressive defensive maneuvering", which I'm assuming would mean turning tail and running, then I have achieved a strategic advantage in that he is now running away from me, with me pointed at him. Unless he is Clint Eastwood and flying a Firefox, I am now in a position of advantage, and he still has to turn around and try to find me before he can then shoot me with his BVR AAMs.
 
2012-07-31 01:24:01 PM

Gleeman: Gdalescrboz: Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century

About that. F-15 part starts around 7:00, relevant BVR miss is around 8:00. Continues in Part 5 of 5.

Not saying the Eagle isn't a great fighter, but most of it's kills have been in visual range. The ROE usually requires visual ID in most situations.

BVR missiles are still very unreliable: (From Wiki)

USAF F-15Cs vs. IRAF MiG-25s
(which were evaded by the F-15s). The F-15Cs give chase, but were forced to give up when the MiGs outran them. A total of 10 missiles were fired at the MiGs.[2]


That example doesn't show that BVR missiles are unreliable. It shows what I said earlier regarding the importance of speed. The weapons didn't fail, the Foxbats just outran the shots. They lived because they refused to be drawn into a turning engagement and the Eagles couldn't catch them (the -25 is wicked fast).

In a shooting war, that's how a Raptor will fight. High altitude coming downhill at a very high rate of speed. Take the shot, fly through, come around and do it again. Just like the Flying Tigers of WWII except that engagements won't be spanning miles, they'll span hundreds of miles.

The opponent won't get a shot in because he's too busy evading the Raptor's shot. He won't be able to chase because the Raptor's running out at supersonic speed but using normal thrust. If he flees, the Raptor's going to simply run him out of fuel and then kill him.

One final note - the Meteor (when it actually enters service and if it lives up to its specs) isn't a super weapon. In fact, it's published range is very similar to the AIM-120C5 already in service and far less than the published range of the AIM-120D.
 
2012-07-31 01:26:12 PM

madgonad: Modern fighters are limited by the ability of humans to stay conscious and that is a hard limit on ALL close-up fighting by aircraft. So in short, almost any aircraft that has hit that limit - and it was hit by the previous generation - will perform about the same.

The next generation of air superiority fighter will be unmanned.


This.
 
2012-07-31 01:43:23 PM

Gleeman: MadMattressMack: Plus we have a very proficient AWACS platform we didn't have in 'Nam.

Things have surely improved, but I think the E-2 Hawkeye (1961, still in use today), EC-121, PIRAZ picket ships and Teaball/EC-121K Rivet Tops comm intercepts had things covered pretty well.


I said that wrong: the platforms are still there, but what they're hauling has changed quite a bit. Plus the E3 was added in after that.
 
2012-07-31 01:45:29 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: JackieRabbit: it's attitude control computers can recover it in seconds.

Check your apostrophe control computers.


I thought this was completely anal, then I read your account name and lol'd
 
2012-07-31 01:47:53 PM
Seriously nobody has posted this? What have you become, fark?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-31 01:51:31 PM

spentmiles: I went one-on-one with an F-22 at the joint exercise they're talking about. The German Typhoon pilot got me in close enough to jump onto its back. Hand over hand, I crawled up the fuselage as we streaked through the air at 750 knots. When I got to the front, I used a rock to smash the cockpit window, pulled the pilot out, and took control of the plane. I then put it into a nose dive using my belt to secure the stick before bailing out. I was the hero of the day.



I highlight your posts and look forward to them daily.
 
2012-07-31 01:55:50 PM
For those of you sucking the AWACS' nose cone, you obviously have never shared the sky with one of them. They aren't this omniscient eye in the sky that sees all and knows all. Without good ISR assets all they see are dots on a screen. AWACS is not - I repeat, NOT - an intel platform. In spite of how they're portrayed in movies, that is.
 
2012-07-31 01:58:53 PM

Bschott007: "A Dassault executive who did not wish to be identified said that the Eurofighter Typhoon which is clearly not meant for a multi-mission role played at best a supporting role in the Libyan operations."


Color me shocked that a Dassault executive would have something negative to say about his company's chief competitor for a huge fighter order.

As far as the rest goes, a Tornado SHOULD do better - it is a well tested, dedicated attack aircraft. It is also far cheaper. Why would you risk your new, modern fighter to a golden BB when you've got loads of older, cheaper aircraft purpose-built for the job of moving mud? Maybe they learned from our F-117 Panama fiasco and decided getting the job done was more important than showing off the shiny new toy.

The Rafale is also older and more mature, but you'll note that the Dassault press release masquerading as a news story also fails to differentiate between weapons delivered by Mirage 2000s and Rafales. I strongly suspect the French also took care to keep their new fighters safe too and used them to deliver high altitude and stand off weapons - a capability the RAF isn't in a big hurry to add to its current Typhoon fleet because they've got the Tornado. It might also be worth asking if the Rafale's such a proficient strike aircraft, why does the De Gaulle's air wing still contain the Super Etendard?

Typhoon's already a good platform. It will mature into a fantastic multi-role aircraft capable of fighting and winning - as long as it isn't fighting Raptors. Conversely, if you see Raptors being seriously used to move mud in a real war any time before around 2050, you'd better start fine tuning your Mandarin.
 
2012-07-31 02:05:36 PM

Slaves2Darkness: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.


And a crapload of Russian infantry.
 
2012-07-31 02:06:45 PM

PunGent: Slaves2Darkness: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.

And a crapload of Russian infantry.


Riding in American gear, eating American food, and firing American ammo.
 
2012-07-31 02:09:39 PM
JustGetItRight
Gdalescrboz: So they put the Raptors in a specific scenario that the Typhoons could exploit the 22s weakness...and they were still only evenly matched. Had the F-22 not specifically allowed the Typhoon to visably aquire them, the Germans would have had no idea wtf was going on

Also,
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century

I'm on your side, but this is plain wrong. Many of those kills were BVR/AIM-9 and I think the Israelis even have a couple of gun kills.


Don't tell me I'm wrong about them being BVR shots, then proceed to tell me they were BVR AIM-9 shots. BVR is BVR. Then say you go on to tell me you THINK xxxxx. Pro tip, don't tell someone they are wrong and then say you think it's because you THINK xxxx.
 
2012-07-31 02:14:45 PM

devildog123: Dynascape: oldfarthenry: Clemkadidlefark:
Germany -0-
USA 2

Revisionist history class ignoring the `world' in 'world wars' - 10

/done

Come on fartknocker....

Anyone who's versed in history knows pretty damn positively that it was the Soviet Union that won WW2 in Europe.

It was all over in Europe after Stalingrad, and way WAY over by the time the Soviets launched Operation Bagration.

The Russians may have paid in blood, but they would have had a much harder time without USA Lend-Lease. Let's say that Hitler had been smart enough to NOT declare war on the US, and we had put all our efforts into defeating the Japanese. Roosevelt could NEVER have kept Lend-Lease up, certainly not to the Soviets. The Russians would have been without the following (numbers are approximate):

350,000 light and heavy trucks
51,000 jeeps
8,000 tractors
10,000 tanks of all types
3,000 scout cars
2,000 half tracks
2,000 Bren carriers
11,000 fighter aircraft
3,000 bombers
6,000 anti-aircraft guns
400 Anti-Tank guns
317,000 tons of explosive materiel (the USSR only produced 600,000 tons during the war)
Millions of tons of steel, food, aluminum, and fuel.

Your fancy Red Army would have been a lot worse off without that stuff, and even more so if say, the Brits, fighting alone (also without Lend-Lease) had been forced to sign an armistice in say 1942 that would have freed up more troops for the eastern front. To say the Russians won WWII is just as stupid and ignorant as saying that the US did it all on it's own.

Here's another scenario Red Army fanatics don't like. What if the Japanese had declared war on the USSR along with the Germans, and those Siberian reinforcements that saved Moscow in the winter of 1941 had been fighting a Japanese Army in the far east?


Lend Lease DEFINITELY helped.

But the Japanese learned in the 30s not to tangle with Russia...they got their asses handed to them when they tried...forget the battle off the top of my head.

The Japanies Navy was quite good, but their Army was best at beating up on Chinese armed with rusty rifles, unarmed natives, and sleepy, poorly-led Colonial troops. Without serious armor, AT guns, or heavy arty? Competitive...barely...in heavy jungle...in open terrain, they got butchered.

Hell, our Stuart light tanks put up 10 - 1 kill ratios against their tankettes...a single T34 could've held off a Japanese regiment.
 
2012-07-31 02:19:48 PM
If you can get in really close, a caveman with a club could bash an F-22 to bits.
 
2012-07-31 02:21:52 PM
I'm sure this will all be vitally important information when the United States goes to war with Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, or Saudi Arabia in the next 50 years.
 
2012-07-31 02:25:43 PM

Bschott007:

Considering that in the real world, the F-15 has a 104-0 record in Air-to-Air combat I take issue with the validity of your post.


People keep saying that like it means something. Only the Israeli's used their F-15's against adversaries which actually fired back/posed a threat, and that was before any conflict the US deployed their Eagles to. The Eagle was a bit of an unknown quantity at that point in time, good on paper, but not tested in a real situation.

All engagements afterwards faced little to no resistance. Desert Storm represented the first use of the AMRAAM, and featured a multitude of engagements using ageing Sparrow's. Same story with Allied Force vs Serbia (mainly AMRAAMS in this case).

Although I personally believe that in an all-out-war the BVR engagement rules are a bit of a pipe-dream, when sufficient air superiority is fielded against a decidedly weaker opponent, a lot of the engagements will be performed at BVR ranges.
 
2012-07-31 02:32:34 PM

ha-ha-guy: Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.


And the Typhoons won't shoot down the huge, lumbering, slow, totally non-stealthy 707 that is transmitting a huge radar signature because.....?
 
2012-07-31 02:38:44 PM

spentmiles: I went one-on-one with an F-22 at the joint exercise they're talking about. The German Typhoon pilot got me in close enough to jump onto its back. Hand over hand, I crawled up the fuselage as we streaked through the air at 750 knots. When I got to the front, I used a rock to smash the cockpit window, pulled the pilot out, and took control of the plane. I then put it into a nose dive using my belt to secure the stick before bailing out. I was the hero of the day.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
 
2012-07-31 02:41:41 PM

Dheiner: spentmiles: I went one-on-one with an F-22 at the joint exercise they're talking about. The German Typhoon pilot got me in close enough to jump onto its back. Hand over hand, I crawled up the fuselage as we streaked through the air at 750 knots. When I got to the front, I used a rock to smash the cockpit window, pulled the pilot out, and took control of the plane. I then put it into a nose dive using my belt to secure the stick before bailing out. I was the hero of the day.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.


I know. What was holding his pants up if he used his belt to tie the controls?
 
2012-07-31 02:41:41 PM
I would not be surprised if it could be defeated with $12 worth of stuff from Toys-R-Us.
 
2012-07-31 02:42:19 PM

Zembla: Bschott007:

Considering that in the real world, the F-15 has a 104-0 record in Air-to-Air combat I take issue with the validity of your post.

People keep saying that like it means something. Only the Israeli's used their F-15's against adversaries which actually fired back/posed a threat, and that was before any conflict the US deployed their Eagles to. The Eagle was a bit of an unknown quantity at that point in time, good on paper, but not tested in a real situation.

All engagements afterwards faced little to no resistance. Desert Storm represented the first use of the AMRAAM, and featured a multitude of engagements using ageing Sparrow's. Same story with Allied Force vs Serbia (mainly AMRAAMS in this case).

Although I personally believe that in an all-out-war the BVR engagement rules are a bit of a pipe-dream, when sufficient air superiority is fielded against a decidedly weaker opponent, a lot of the engagements will be performed at BVR ranges.


The Eagle's reputation still stands. I also wish to point out that I never mentioned BRV in regards to the F-15. I stated the F-15 has 104-0 Kill ratio in ALL air-to-air combat. That is an impressive record. I believe the US has only lost one air-to-air battle since Vietnam (an F-18 lost in Desert Storm 1).

I can not speak to combat losses of F-16's, F-18's (beyond the lost one during Desert Storm 1) or any other allied/enemy airframe since Vietnam as I do not have that data.
 
2012-07-31 02:43:45 PM

Flint Ironstag: ha-ha-guy: Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.

And the Typhoons won't shoot down the huge, lumbering, slow, totally non-stealthy 707 that is transmitting a huge radar signature because.....?


Because in order to get to the huge, lumbering, slow, totally non-stealthy 707 that is transmitting a huge radar signature, you have to get through the F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, and (eventually) F-35s that are being vectored by it, and that are guarding it. Taking out the general is a great idea in war, it leaves you facing a headless army... but you have to get through that army to get to the general.
 
2012-07-31 02:44:49 PM

ha-ha-guy: neritz: oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.

We don't like war...unless we start it.

Plus one would think the British Empire (upon which the sun never sets) and Friends, could handle one pissant nation state in Central Europe. Yet they kept proving us wrong.


They could have....If France quit surrendering.
 
2012-07-31 02:51:22 PM

devildog123: Flint Ironstag: ha-ha-guy: Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.

And the Typhoons won't shoot down the huge, lumbering, slow, totally non-stealthy 707 that is transmitting a huge radar signature because.....?

Because in order to get to the huge, lumbering, slow, totally non-stealthy 707 that is transmitting a huge radar signature, you have to get through the F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, and (eventually) F-35s that are being vectored by it, and that are guarding it. Taking out the general is a great idea in war, it leaves you facing a headless army... but you have to get through that army to get to the general.


This. Or more simply put: The 707's operational range allows it to remain far beyond the range that enemies can engage it at.
 
2012-07-31 03:03:53 PM

Flint Ironstag: Dheiner: spentmiles: I went one-on-one with an F-22 at the joint exercise they're talking about. The German Typhoon pilot got me in close enough to jump onto its back. Hand over hand, I crawled up the fuselage as we streaked through the air at 750 knots. When I got to the front, I used a rock to smash the cockpit window, pulled the pilot out, and took control of the plane. I then put it into a nose dive using my belt to secure the stick before bailing out. I was the hero of the day.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I know. What was holding his pants up if he used his belt to tie the controls?


Sheer manly friction?
 
2012-07-31 03:06:16 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Germany -0-
USA 2

/done


Where did that "2" come from? As far as I know I'd be speaking Russian if the US never bothered to show up. The Russians were first to Berlin, Canada and the UK were the prime forces liberating The Netherlands and the US? They were lagging behind somewhere. Sure, you helped defeating the Nazi empire but don't kid yourself and think that you did anything other than speeding up the inevitable. You only joined the fighting out of self interest, you needed a market to sell stuff and having communists roll over Europe was something you couldn't allow because zOMG capitalism and democracy.
 
2012-07-31 03:14:20 PM

Flint Ironstag: ha-ha-guy: Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.

And the Typhoons won't shoot down the huge, lumbering, slow, totally non-stealthy 707 that is transmitting a huge radar signature because.....?


As others have pointed out that we don't put our Command and Control Assets on the front lines, I will simple ask.

Are you really that farking retarded?
 
2012-07-31 03:20:02 PM

Gdalescrboz: JustGetItRight
Gdalescrboz: So they put the Raptors in a specific scenario that the Typhoons could exploit the 22s weakness...and they were still only evenly matched. Had the F-22 not specifically allowed the Typhoon to visably aquire them, the Germans would have had no idea wtf was going on

Also,
"But there's evidence that, in reality, most air combat occurs at close distance, despite air arms' wishful thinking."

Tell that to the F-15s which are 100-0 air-to-air engagements, all BVR. Welcome to the 21st century

I'm on your side, but this is plain wrong. Many of those kills were BVR/AIM-9 and I think the Israelis even have a couple of gun kills.

Don't tell me I'm wrong about them being BVR shots, then proceed to tell me they were BVR AIM-9 shots. BVR is BVR. Then say you go on to tell me you THINK xxxxx. Pro tip, don't tell someone they are wrong and then say you think it's because you THINK xxxx.


First, you'll note I followed my post with a correction. I left out the NOT that went before BVR.

But since you wanted some facts, here's a neat comparison of first gulf war kills. Notice how the VR list outnumbers the BVR by almost 2:1.

Now finally, here's a real pro tip. Know what you're talking about before you challenge someone else.

Here's a list of all Israeli air to air victories since 1974. It happens to include the weapon used (when known). There are two F-15 and numerous F-16 gun kills against supersonic fighters listed.
 
2012-07-31 03:36:35 PM

devildog123: PunGent: Slaves2Darkness: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.

And a crapload of Russian infantry.

Riding in American gear, eating American food, and firing American ammo.


Most of which would've been useless for the first years of the war, sitting in warehouses while we desperately tried to train our guys. Check out our standing army in the 30s...farkin' tiny. We'd have had trouble invading Mexico, let alone Festung Europa.

Yes, Lend Lease helped, but it's silly pretending it was anything but a joint effort.
 
2012-07-31 03:40:05 PM

Bschott007: Zembla: Bschott007:

Considering that in the real world, the F-15 has a 104-0 record in Air-to-Air combat I take issue with the validity of your post.

People keep saying that like it means something. Only the Israeli's used their F-15's against adversaries which actually fired back/posed a threat, and that was before any conflict the US deployed their Eagles to. The Eagle was a bit of an unknown quantity at that point in time, good on paper, but not tested in a real situation.

All engagements afterwards faced little to no resistance. Desert Storm represented the first use of the AMRAAM, and featured a multitude of engagements using ageing Sparrow's. Same story with Allied Force vs Serbia (mainly AMRAAMS in this case).

Although I personally believe that in an all-out-war the BVR engagement rules are a bit of a pipe-dream, when sufficient air superiority is fielded against a decidedly weaker opponent, a lot of the engagements will be performed at BVR ranges.

The Eagle's reputation still stands. I also wish to point out that I never mentioned BRV in regards to the F-15. I stated the F-15 has 104-0 Kill ratio in ALL air-to-air combat. That is an impressive record. I believe the US has only lost one air-to-air battle since Vietnam (an F-18 lost in Desert Storm 1).

I can not speak to combat losses of F-16's, F-18's (beyond the lost one during Desert Storm 1) or any other allied/enemy airframe since Vietnam as I do not have that data.


It was weird seeing that downed "Lucky Devil" on TV. Good lord those guys dropped so much ordinence. Some kind of record.

401st TFW, FTW!

/462
 
2012-07-31 04:15:59 PM

ha-ha-guy: Flint Ironstag: ha-ha-guy: Yes and in a real war, the E-3 Sentry sees the Typhoon coming in and passes the word over to a Patriot missile battery and scratch the Typhoons. Or a pair of F-22s fires from beyond visual range using targeting from the Sentry.

The entire point of the F-22 is it sneaks up on you and frags you before you know it is there (with AWACS guiding them, so they never even turn their radar on). Everyone knew from Day 1 the Typhoon was a better gunfighter. Heck the MiG-29 is a better gunfighter than a F-15, but in most tests (we bought some MiG airframes post cold war), the MiGs died before they got within 40km of the F-15s.

And the Typhoons won't shoot down the huge, lumbering, slow, totally non-stealthy 707 that is transmitting a huge radar signature because.....?

As others have pointed out that we don't put our Command and Control Assets on the front lines, I will simple ask.

Are you really that farking retarded?


A radar platform, and I have been on an AWAC and flown the simulator BTW, has to be pretty close to the front line. Even at altitude the curvature of the Earth creates a huge blind spot that enemy aircraft can hide in. Having an AWAC well behind the front line greatly reduces its coverage and greatly increases the area an enemy aircraft can hide in ready to attack your forward aircraft, including the F-22 which won't want to turn on its radar because that's a huge beacon saying "Yohoo! I'm right here!" Not to mention that the radar signature from an AWAC can be detected from well outside the range where the AWAC can detect you.

And a Patriot missile unit is just as likely to take out a friendly Tornado. US forces have a rep for friendly fire. Giving them a weapon that can shoot at aircraft well BVR, where they can see if it is friend or foe, is pretty scary. The Vincennes shot down an Airbus in a climb thinking it was a fighter in a dive. God help their allies if they ever get involved in a war with F-22s flying around shooting at anything that comes into range...
 
2012-07-31 04:19:51 PM
Meanwhile, back on the front:

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-07-31 04:57:17 PM

oldfarthenry: To be historically accurate/fair, the Germans usually have three or four years to f**k-up the planet before you star-spanglers notice there's a world war going on.



To be historically accurate/fair, we tend to mind our own business until people can't handle their own problems and it over-flows into our realm of influence.



/It only becomes a world war when we get involved along with everyone else
 
2012-07-31 05:11:32 PM

mojofinger: The big advantages the F-22 has over other aircraft is stealth, supercruise, and it's electronic warfare system....if you put it in a situation where it can't use any of those advantages, yeah, other aircraft have a shot.


If you read the article you will find that the other aircraft don't simplyl have a shot, they kick the F22's ass.
 
2012-07-31 05:17:13 PM

natmar_76: You mean it's not invincible and it doesn't have the secret of life and it won't teach us the secret of eternal youth?

Why did we pay all this money, then?!


It's not as much as not having the secret of life, but more of not doing the job everyone has been boasting boasting it would do for about a couple of decades.
 
2012-07-31 05:22:51 PM

improvius: So the F22 is evenly matched *IF* you can get close enough to furball? Yeah, good luck with that. The whole point is that this plane will kill you before you even know it's in your hemisphere.


So, you better inform all the potential enemies to always put their planes far away from any F22, and while they are at it also stay still in the crosshairs.
 
2012-07-31 05:54:17 PM

Thunderpipes: In other words, in a real fight, all German planes would be destroyed before they ever even saw the Raptors.


Well, They would have a problem with their typhoons.....See when you try to deploy one without an air craft carrier....it just kind of sinks when it rolls into the water.....

SO in a hypothetical situation where we were very very close to germany, like in their airspace, and they decided to attack us, and we were at very low altitude, then yeah, they could engage us in a dogfight...... For everywhere else in the world..... the German Typhoon is like the AutoBahn..... a very expensive way to get from point A to point B in Germany, but not really much good to anyone else in the world.....
 
2012-07-31 06:41:36 PM

macadamnut: traylor: ManRay: Didn't the Germans have superior planes in WWII? And how did that work out?

I'm not sure about your point, but here's something for you.
Link

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]


My mother lived in a house right next to where he crashed in N. Hollywood, so close she thought her house had been hit. She mentioned Major Bong, although I didn't know he was an ace.
 
2012-07-31 06:45:54 PM

Flint Ironstag: including the F-22 which won't want to turn on its radar because that's a huge beacon saying "Yohoo! I'm right here!"


That isn't what would happen. The F-22 uses the AN/APG-77 radar which isn't like other aircraft radars. It is an AESA radar or phased radar array. It scatters the radar signal over a wide spectrum and hides in the background noise. The F-22 could have their radar on and an enemy aircraft would never know they were being painted. AESA radars do not trigger the RWR systems in other aircraft.

/the more you know.
 
2012-07-31 07:13:37 PM

Bschott007: Flint Ironstag: including the F-22 which won't want to turn on its radar because that's a huge beacon saying "Yohoo! I'm right here!"

That isn't what would happen. The F-22 uses the AN/APG-77 radar which isn't like other aircraft radars. It is an AESA radar or phased radar array. It scatters the radar signal over a wide spectrum and hides in the background noise. The F-22 could have their radar on and an enemy aircraft would never know they were being painted. AESA radars do not trigger the RWR systems in other aircraft.

/the more you know.


Less likely to be jammed, but just because it's phased array doesn't mean it's undetectable, you're still sending out thousands of watts of EM energy that isn't there in the normal environment.

There's a reason the Navy's SPY-1 (Aegis phased array) radars are included under EMCON restrictions, we don't just go around blasting it out and saying "nah nah you can't detect us from hundred of miles beyond the radar's range". All radars operate in specific frequency bands, that is one way to tell if you're about to get a blue on blue.

IRT the Raptor:

Getting a Raptor into a turning fight is like fighting at low altitude in a P-47 Thunderbolt or at high altitude in a P-40 Warhawk, not the fight you want but it did/can happen.
 
2012-07-31 07:49:36 PM

Slaves2Darkness:

Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.


An old Wehrmacht soldier told me once, "We ran out of 88 shells before you ran out of tanks."
 
2012-07-31 09:17:19 PM
The F-22 and F-35 are complete wastes of money.

Just re-fit new electronics into F-15 F-16 and F-18s and there you go. Air superiority for less than half the cost
 
2012-07-31 11:16:10 PM

threadjackistan: dittybopper: tiiger: You can't really do BVR without radar, and you can't really use RADAR while being stealthy. That is the big flaw in the F-22 stealth argument.

Yep.

What happens if Doofistan develops an air-to-air HARM-style missile that homes in on that radar until it's close enough to go to passive infrared?

What if they make it with a low enough radar cross-section that while it's not technically "stealthy", it will be within infrared range before the radar can detect it and get shut down? Hell, you might not even notice it electronically. First warning the F-22 pilot would have is the sight of the missile's smoke/contrail heading towards him.

Supposedly the big dished radar planes will uplink to the F-22s so they wont have to emit much. But this pretends that only we get to use electronic warfare, stealth, and drones. I hate to talk about it over the internet, but air-to-air drones are much simpler to develop than people who fly planes like to make them out to be.


Something like the Phantom Ray perhaps? Remote piloted drones are easy, autonomous aircraft is hard.
 
2012-08-01 01:08:18 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.


That, and the Soviets were inflicting something like 5x as many casualties on them as we were.

I know it's not cool to acknowledge the russkies, but we couldn't have beat the nazis without them. Historical revisionism sucks, even when it means giving credit to people you'd rather not.
 
2012-08-01 01:16:01 AM
I think the entire point of the article which sadly many of you missed, is that the Typhoon will cream the F-22 WVR...I think even the article writer knows that in BVR the Raptor has an advantage but in air combat you have to take into consideration the possibility of a knifefight as well.
The AMRAAM while good is not exactly invincible. If the Raptor has exhausted all his AMRAAMS or couple of them jammed or misfire and have to go into a fight with just sidewinders and cannons, it will be at a huge disadvantage.
It's like a sniper and a guy/guys with AK-47s... if for whatever reason you missed and he/they come within say 400 or 500 yards and moving closer odds are you'll lose in the shootout.
Stealth does not make a plane invincible.. it merely makes the detection range shorter than it otherwise would be..
A typhoon's radar can probably detect an F-22 signature from 30 or 40 miles out so the Raptor better hope he takes all of them out before then and if they are actually close enough that the other pilot can see it with his eyes than buh-buye F-22 for sure.
 
2012-08-01 06:58:43 AM

devildog123: To say the Russians won WWII is just as stupid and ignorant as saying that the US did it all on it's own.



The USSR is the only reason Germany was defeated in Europe. Period. America faced 1/10th the forces and by the time they landed in France, the Soviets were already pushing Germany back on their own soil.
 
2012-08-01 08:00:46 AM

Bschott007: It scatters the radar signal over a wide spectrum and hides in the background noise. The F-22 could have their radar on and an enemy aircraft would never know they were being painted. AESA radars do not trigger the RWR systems in other aircraft.


If it radiates, you can detect it. You may need to design new RWR receivers, but you can't paint something with RF and not have it be detectable somehow.

/TMYK.
 
2012-08-01 08:15:05 AM
We spent $63.2 billion on state-of-the-art aircraft that use 20 year old missiles. Brilliant!
 
2012-08-01 09:59:17 AM

Nuc_E: You can see him from far away and he is in your range while you are not in his. He cannot see you, but he knows your general direction.


there are 40 guys hunting your sniper, and your sniper costs as much to train as 100 guys on the other side.

enemy does not have to defeat you, you defeat yourself
 
2012-08-01 10:31:56 AM

Bschott007: Flint Ironstag: including the F-22 which won't want to turn on its radar because that's a huge beacon saying "Yohoo! I'm right here!"

That isn't what would happen. The F-22 uses the AN/APG-77 radar which isn't like other aircraft radars. It is an AESA radar or phased radar array. It scatters the radar signal over a wide spectrum and hides in the background noise. The F-22 could have their radar on and an enemy aircraft would never know they were being painted. AESA radars do not trigger the RWR systems in other aircraft.

/the more you know.


Really? Lots of aircraft use AESA systems, including the Typhoon. The Typhoon isn't as mechanically stealthy as the F-22, but its radar is as stealthy. Also, phased array isn't the same as AESA as you imply. AESA are phased arrays but not all phased arrays are AESA.
 
2012-08-01 10:50:26 AM

mojofinger: The big advantages the F-22 has over other aircraft is stealth, supercruise, and it's electronic warfare system....if you put it in a situation where it can't use any of those advantages, yeah, other aircraft have a shot.


And the article says that happens 95% of the time. That's the farking point.
 
2012-08-01 11:00:49 AM

amoral: mojofinger: The big advantages the F-22 has over other aircraft is stealth, supercruise, and it's electronic warfare system....if you put it in a situation where it can't use any of those advantages, yeah, other aircraft have a shot.

And the article says that happens 95% of the time. That's the farking point.


True. Including times when the pilot is ordered to get WVR to identify the potential target or to intercept to "scare away" a potential threat. If either threat suddenly turns nasty then you are in a close up dogfight, like it or not. You can't say "Wait a minute guys, let me get a couple of hundfed miles away first..."

And remember a F-117 was shot down by a missile system that was designed in the sixties. The F-22 may be great from a couple of hundred miles away, but it can't get a couple of hundred miles away from the ground...
 
2012-08-01 11:20:38 AM

clyph: Slaves2Darkness: Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.

That, and the Soviets were inflicting something like 5x as many casualties on them as we were.

I know it's not cool to acknowledge the russkies, but we couldn't have beat the nazis without them. Historical revisionism sucks, even when it means giving credit to people you'd rather not.


You're still revising history. Your army didn't beat the nazis. Your army didn't help beat the nazis. It was not a team effort. The russians beat them. You did not participate until it was long over.
 
2012-08-01 11:42:30 AM

amoral: clyph: Slaves2Darkness: Worked out great, right up until they ran out of pilots, planes and resources. The Germans problem is that the US could and did build more planes, tanks, ships, and guns then they did. The Allies did not achieve victory over the Germans through superior technology, but superior numbers and just good enough technology.

That, and the Soviets were inflicting something like 5x as many casualties on them as we were.

I know it's not cool to acknowledge the russkies, but we couldn't have beat the nazis without them. Historical revisionism sucks, even when it means giving credit to people you'd rather not.

You're still revising history. Your army didn't beat the nazis. Your army didn't help beat the nazis. It was not a team effort. The Russians beat them. You did not participate until it was long over.


i.imgur.com
I keep looking and looking, but can't find any truth in your post.

The Soviet Union offered support to the partisans in many Wehrmacht-occupied countries in Central Europe, notably those in Slovakia, Poland and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In addition the Polish Armed Forces in the East, particularly the First and Second Polish armies, were armed and trained, and would eventually fight alongside the Red Army. The Free French forces also contributed to the Red Army by formation of GC3 (Groupe de Chasse 3 or 3rd Fighter Group) unit to fulfill the commitment of Charles de Gaulle, leader of the Free French, who thought that it was important for French servicemen to serve on all fronts. British and Commonwealth forces contributed directly to the fighting on the Eastern Front through their service in the convoys and training Red Air Force pilots, as well as in provision of early material and intelligence support. The later massive materiel support of the Lend-Lease by the United States and Canada played a significant part particularly in the logistics of the war.

I'm sure the allied bombing campaign did nothing to impede military production or transportation behind the eastern German lines, or dew the majority of the Luftwaffe's fighters away from the Eastern Front either.
 
2012-08-01 01:16:39 PM

SuperNinjaToad: I think the entire point of the article which sadly many of you missed, is that the Typhoon will cream the F-22 WVR...I think even the article writer knows that in BVR the Raptor has an advantage but in air combat you have to take into consideration the possibility of a knifefight as well.


'Cream' the F-22? Well if you believe 'evenly matched' equals 'creaming' then yeah.

FTFA: "The results were a surprise to the Germans and presumably the Americans, too. "We were evenly matched," Maj. Marc Gruene told Combat Aircraft's Jamie Hunter."

So the F-22 close in is an even match for the Typhoon. Also, the F-22 isn't using it's classified electronic warfare suite which is said to be able to interfere with and even damage an enemy aircraft's computers and fly-by-wire systems, not to mention the classified flare/chaff system which is said to work with the aircraft's EWS by allowing the EWS to detect and classify the radar/ir systems the enemy aircraft is using then adjust the flares/chaff to maximise their ability to act as decoys.

Take those rumored abilities away and you still have an evenly match aircraft for knife-fights and an aircraft that excels at BVR encounters.
 
2012-08-01 01:45:32 PM

Flint Ironstag: Bschott007: Flint Ironstag: including the F-22 which won't want to turn on its radar because that's a huge beacon saying "Yohoo! I'm right here!"

That isn't what would happen. The F-22 uses the AN/APG-77 radar which isn't like other aircraft radars. It is an AESA radar or phased radar array. It scatters the radar signal over a wide spectrum and hides in the background noise. The F-22 could have their radar on and an enemy aircraft would never know they were being painted. AESA radars do not trigger the RWR systems in other aircraft.

/the more you know.

Really? Lots of aircraft use AESA systems, including the Typhoon. The Typhoon isn't as mechanically stealthy as the F-22, but its radar is as stealthy. Also, phased array isn't the same as AESA as you imply. AESA are phased arrays but not all phased arrays are AESA.


Actually you are correct. Some Typhoons do have an AESA system (The second gen AESA, Captor-M) though the original models did not. The new Captor-E isn't scheduled for installation until 2015. The Typhoon's Captor-E radar is a third gen AESA while the F-22's current APG-77 is a fourth-gen AESA.

"After one year of industry funding, the Eurofighter and Euroradar consortia have received renewed strong support from the partner nations and have agreed to continue the full scale development programme of the next generation E-Scan radar, confirming the 2015 entry into service date," Eurofighter said in a statement last week.

Either way, I was incorrect. Some Typhoons do have the older AESA radars. Thank you for the correction.
 
2012-08-01 06:15:34 PM

Flint Ironstag: And remember a F-117 was shot down by a missile system that was designed in the sixties.


That was when the 117s were flying the same flight pattern every nite and after that incident, the ops group finally got their shiat together and realized stealth does not equal invincible. They created a special flight path analysis and planning system which mitigated that glaring oversight.
 
2012-08-01 10:13:04 PM
cache.gawkerassets.com

Bschott007: Flint Ironstag: Bschott007: Flint Ironstag: including the F-22 which won't want to turn on its radar because that's a huge beacon saying "Yohoo! I'm right here!"

That isn't what would happen. The F-22 uses the AN/APG-77 radar which isn't like other aircraft radars. It is an AESA radar or phased radar array. It scatters the radar signal over a wide spectrum and hides in the background noise. The F-22 could have their radar on and an enemy aircraft would never know they were being painted. AESA radars do not trigger the RWR systems in other aircraft.

/the more you know.

Really? Lots of aircraft use AESA systems, including the Typhoon. The Typhoon isn't as mechanically stealthy as the F-22, but its radar is as stealthy. Also, phased array isn't the same as AESA as you imply. AESA are phased arrays but not all phased arrays are AESA.

Actually you are correct. Some Typhoons do have an AESA system (The second gen AESA, Captor-M) though the original models did not. The new Captor-E isn't scheduled for installation until 2015. The Typhoon's Captor-E radar is a third gen AESA while the F-22's current APG-77 is a fourth-gen AESA.

"After one year of industry funding, the Eurofighter and Euroradar consortia have received renewed strong support from the partner nations and have agreed to continue the full scale development programme of the next generation E-Scan radar, confirming the 2015 entry into service date," Eurofighter said in a statement last week.

Either way, I was incorrect. Some Typhoons do have the older AESA radars. Thank you for the correction.


I HOPE NO ONE REMEMBERS THAT DIGITAL SOUND PROCESSING HAS IMPROVED WHILE YOU'RE BUSY PLAYING WITH YOUR "STEALTH" AIRPLANES.
 
2012-08-03 06:08:59 PM

DicksWii: Flint Ironstag: And remember a F-117 was shot down by a missile system that was designed in the sixties.

That was when the 117s were flying the same flight pattern every nite and after that incident, the ops group finally got their shiat together and realized stealth does not equal invincible. They created a special flight path analysis and planning system which mitigated that glaring oversight.


Stealthy doesnt mean "hole in the sky" if you intersect anything with a missile you will get a kill....Stealth is a factor in how easily you can intercept. If you put enough 1960's missiles in the air within a quarter mile of a plane you spotted with your eyes....you have a high chance of a kill.
 
Displayed 207 of 207 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report