F-22. The most advanced fighter the world has ever seen.

[otispunkmeyer]

this will probably be the last time such craft are developed i reckon

with AA ground defenses gettin better all the time, and the advent of un-manned vehicles i dont think there'll be room for a super expensive state of the art manned aircraft such as this. so i thinks we should be enjoying its amazing qualities while we can.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
The new russian su39 shows it up pretty bad.

never under estimate the russians, they are a supremely clever bunch in a mad kinda way and its amazing what they can do despite not appearing to have the budget or resources the US has.

though i just googled sukhoi su39 and it doesnt look terribly sophisticated lol. engines mounted in pods along the fuselage, weapons hanging old skool style on pylons etc.

non of the swanky concealed weapons bays like the F22 has

and OMG insane skills in an su27

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1994695142386399860

 

[HannibalX]

My uncle worked on the engines for that jet.

 

[irishScott]

Only problem is the price tag, but that's where the F-35 comes in

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: PHiuR
lol, there is a difference between destroying land and controlling the country.

Very true. But we don't have to control Iran, don't we?

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
this will probably be the last time such craft are developed i reckon.

Wrong. They are already working on something better.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The problem with the Raptor may be that if any foreign object interferes with the flight surface/control, the plane becomes a flying brick.

The Eagle and Falcon can take hits and keep on rolling.

While the Raptor is an impressive aircraft, it has to be treated as a long range standoff weapon. It requires computer control, the pilot can not fly it alone.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
The new russian su39 shows it up pretty bad.

never under estimate the russians, they are a supremely clever bunch in a mad kinda way and its amazing what they can do despite not appearing to have the budget or resources the US has.

though i just googled sukhoi su39 and it doesnt look terribly sophisticated lol. engines mounted in pods along the fuselage, weapons hanging old skool style on pylons etc.

non of the swanky concealed weapons bays like the F22 has

and OMG insane skills in an su27

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1994695142386399860

That's pretty sweet. The real problem, though, is that those skills are better for air shows than they are for air combat. It's very dangerous to get into low speed conditions like that as, while the Su-27 might be agile, it isn't more agile than a missile.

The Su-27 has some other neat features if I remember correctly. Helmet-mounted targeting system is a big one. I *think* the raptor is getting a similar system. The idea would be that you could look anywhere around you and fire an AIM-9X in any direction, even behind you.

But you never know. Many thought that the missile would end dogfighting until Vietnam when the US started putting guns back on planes.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

cliffs!?!?!?!

And I think commetns from one of Lockhee Martin's ex-CEOs will prove this tech to not be the best right now.
Sometihng like:
"People's imaginations 50 years from now won't be able to fathom what's out here now"
BOLD STATMENT. Think about all those UFO specials and realize that the objects are real ... jsut under the realm of black projects.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Rebasxer
The new russian su39 shows it up pretty bad.

Oh, and the Russians have it in production already? :roll: There's a difference between a hangar queen/airshow prototype and a production aircraft produced in quantity. But let's not have facts cloud our fanboy-ism!

F-22 is an amazing aircraft in every way. Unfortunately, I cannot talk about most of it.

 

[oogabooga]

In regards to the eurofighter

Critics have suggested that the Eurofighter is only useful for air-to-air combat, and not for supporting troops on the ground.

And they have complained that it was not designed to evade radar, like the latest generation of US stealth fighters.

In fact the Eurofighter was designed from outset to be a fighter-bomber that could switch from dog-fighting in the air to attacking targets on the ground all during the same mission.

Some observers have claimed that many criticisms of the fighter plane have come from US aerospace companies alarmed at the prospect of losing customers to the Eurofighter.

Also, designing a fighter to be stealthy can sometimes mean tradeoffs when it comes to manoeuvring performance.

Is it just me or would I rather be blowing you up with a missile you don't see coming vs being able to slightly out maneuver the craft that fired the missile that just blew me outa the sky?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: oogabooga
In regards to the eurofighter

Critics have suggested that the Eurofighter is only useful for air-to-air combat, and not for supporting troops on the ground.

And they have complained that it was not designed to evade radar, like the latest generation of US stealth fighters.

In fact the Eurofighter was designed from outset to be a fighter-bomber that could switch from dog-fighting in the air to attacking targets on the ground all during the same mission.

Some observers have claimed that many criticisms of the fighter plane have come from US aerospace companies alarmed at the prospect of losing customers to the Eurofighter.

Also, designing a fighter to be stealthy can sometimes mean tradeoffs when it comes to manoeuvring performance.

Is it just me or would I rather be blowing you up with a missile you don't see coming vs being able to slightly out maneuver the craft that fired the missile that just blew me outa the sky?

If an aircraft is carry bombs it affects the flight profile in air-air combat.
That is one reason why drop tanks are punched when going into combat.

 

[KingGheedora]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Martin
That's cool. You can go and attack Iran now, and get your asses kicked by AK47s for the third time.

I don't know man... F22 verses AK47s... I would think the F22 would blow away the AK47 to smithereens. I think F22 fire missiles and bombs while AK47... well, they only fire the 7.62x39 bullets..

We should do an experiment.. line up a bunch of ak47s facing a bunch of F22's... I wonder who would win

I think you miss the point.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
...It requires computer control, the pilot can not fly it alone.

Same with the F-16, almost any Airbus. Nothing new.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The problem with the Raptor may be that if any foreign object interferes with the flight surface/control, the plane becomes a flying brick.

The Eagle and Falcon can take hits and keep on rolling.

While the Raptor is an impressive aircraft, it has to be treated as a long range standoff weapon. It requires computer control, the pilot can not fly it alone.

No modern fighter flies w/o computer help

 

[silverpig]

Seems like a strategically deployed EMP could turn one into a flying brick... and those don't have to be directional.

 

[beemercer]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Seems like a strategically deployed EMP could turn one into a flying brick... and those don't have to be directional.

Besides detonating a nuke in the upper atmosphere, how do you propose to create a EMP. It would also seem to me that whoever sets off the EMp would be at risk of damaging their own assets if the F-22 are in their airspace.

 

[Jawo]

I would put the JSF and the F-22 against any other pair in the world! Its hard to destroy something you can't see!

 

[Scarpozzi]

Now if they can only come up with a weapons system that's capable of killing ONLY guerillas that are hiding amongst civilians, I'll be impressed.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Now if they can only come up with a weapons system that's capable of killing ONLY guerillas that are hiding amongst civilians, I'll be impressed.

The future of warfare is not solely insurgencies. To plan for that alone is the pinnacle of irresponsibility.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: dirtylimey
I had read that the F22 had been outperformed in dogfights with the Eurofighter :/

If you're a fighter pilot and you find yourself in a dogfight, you're doing something wrong. Radar can pick enemy aircraft up from over a hundred miles away.

This is what the F-22 is made for... its powerful radar can detect non-stealthy aircraft like the Eurofighter from great distances, while its own stealthiness prevents enemy aircraft from detecting it until it's too late.

Obviously stealth features isn't going to make it totally invisible to radar, but if it means that you can get radar lock on your enemy from 20 miles out while he can only get a lock on you from 10 miles out, you're in a very advantageous position. With that advantage, tailor your tactics accordingly.

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Now if they can only come up with a weapons system that's capable of killing ONLY guerillas that are hiding amongst civilians, I'll be impressed.

The future of warfare is not solely insurgencies. To plan for that alone is the pinnacle of irresponsibility.

We no longer have warfare that is "gentleman like." To pour so much money into creating weapons that are made to kill other ARMYs is irresponsible.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: dirtylimey
F22 = PS3
Eurofighter = Wii

BBC News Article

The US Air Force has already begun to take delivery of another superjet, the F-22 Raptor.

This is very stealthy but costs twice the price of the Eurofighter, and reports suggest that RAF's Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US.

That doesn't really tell us anything as far as factual information goes.

Originally posted by: foghorn67

inter-country wargames are really skewed.

Yeah they are.

Also, consider the fact that the US and the England/Germany are allies and any competition between the F-22 and the Eurofighter would probably be more to market the aircraft to their respective countries than anything else.

The US or England don't have much to gain by proving that the F-22/Eurofighter can beat its ally's aircraft. On the other hand, they have a lot to gain by proving to their country's taxpayers that their aircraft is very capable and well worth the money.

 

[slackwarelinux]

?you have a great day if you lose only 10 percent of your forces."

Eh? :Q

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The problem with the Raptor may be that if any foreign object interferes with the flight surface/control, the plane becomes a flying brick.

The Eagle and Falcon can take hits and keep on rolling.

While the Raptor is an impressive aircraft, it has to be treated as a long range standoff weapon. It requires computer control, the pilot can not fly it alone.

You do know that the F-16 requires a computer to fly, don't you?

Just about any fighter designed in the last 30 years is inherently unstable and requires a computerized FCS.