Originally posted by: sandorski
Ya, no contest, but how cool is it that such a small country keeps pumping out decent Fighters? I doubt Sweden and the US are on a collision course to war, so they have no worries there. I think they'd be able to match anything the rest of Europe and Russia have though and that's likely all they really need to worry about.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Ya, no contest, but how cool is it that such a small country keeps pumping out decent Fighters? I doubt Sweden and the US are on a collision course to war, so they have no worries there. I think they'd be able to match anything the rest of Europe and Russia have though and that's likely all they really need to worry about.
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
A Gripen isn't going to match a Mig-29 or an Su-27 (or its derivatives)
you obviously missed the memoOriginally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: JEDI
Originally posted by: IHAVEAQUESTION
Just saw a short clip on youtube about the JAS 39 Gripen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C37RZlONho&mode=related&search=
What's the US equivalent to this fighter?
More vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX_yCErNKZ0&mode=related&search=
couldnt watch past the 1st minute of 1st video.
2nd video was meh. was hoping it'll explain how it keep costs/functionality ratio low as the years go by.
edit:
"raptor is a bloated waste of money in which our military will never see a return on their investment"
yup.. yeah Bush
What does Bush have to do with this? The F-22 program started in 1981.
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
The Typhoon will be a closer match to the F-22. It is regarded as many as a better air-to-air fighter then the f-22 but would likely be shot down due to f-22 stealth.
Ignoring the unsupported declaratory statement, doesn't the fact that the Raptor would shoot down the Typhoon mean it's the better air-to-air fighter? Just curious.
The griffen seems to be a much more practical and efficient aircraft for the modern battlefield.
For those who cannot afford something like the F/A-22 or even the Eurofighter. The Swedes provide a decent, low cost alternative to US fighters and an alternative to buying from the Russians or the Chinese at a higher cost. Sure, it'll work, but it will die against the Raptor or probably even against the Su-30MK series. Given that fact, which would you rather fly?
Also, no one here knows the full capabilities of the Raptor, and there's no discussion of the power of the AESA radar onboard, especially compared to the current mechanically scanned array of the Gripen. If you don't think that matters, then you should just not bother to post in this thread.
Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
They're not so much rigged as they are inherently unfair. The F22 has such a range advantage over those planes that it can shoot them down before they even know the F22 is there. You could write it up as 1,000,000-0, but it's kind of pointless; sort of like saying that putting an F15 against propeller planes would have a 108-0 kill ratio if supplied with enough ammo.Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Agreed. The US should've pulled the plug on the F-22 project long ago. And I'm sure the so called "combat excercises" where the f22 got a 108-0 kill ratio against f-15s and su's were rigged.
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
The Typhoon will be a closer match to the F-22. It is regarded as many as a better air-to-air fighter then the f-22 but would likely be shot down due to f-22 stealth.
Ignoring the unsupported declaratory statement, doesn't the fact that the Raptor would shoot down the Typhoon mean it's the better air-to-air fighter? Just curious.
The griffen seems to be a much more practical and efficient aircraft for the modern battlefield.
For those who cannot afford something like the F/A-22 or even the Eurofighter. The Swedes provide a decent, low cost alternative to US fighters and an alternative to buying from the Russians or the Chinese at a higher cost. Sure, it'll work, but it will die against the Raptor or probably even against the Su-30MK series. Given that fact, which would you rather fly?
Also, no one here knows the full capabilities of the Raptor, and there's no discussion of the power of the AESA radar onboard, especially compared to the current mechanically scanned array of the Gripen. If you don't think that matters, then you should just not bother to post in this thread.
Blah blah blah.. every freaking nerd these days is an armchair general. How many countries are flying F/A-22s and Eurofighters? I didn't see Saddam send any of those up!
Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Stealth is overrated. It does not make an aircraft invisible to radar, just more difficult to detect. Stealth is already much less effective then it was during the first gulf war due to advances to radar systems. There are many technologies being researched to better detect stealth, including other types of radar, detecting the wake/turbulence of an aircraft, and detecting the infrared heat signal from the engines. The more time passes, the less effective stealth will be.
On top of that, the F22 isn't even that stealthy. It's stealthyness is most on the front, while from the sides and back it is much easier to detect.
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
The Typhoon will be a closer match to the F-22. It is regarded as many as a better air-to-air fighter then the f-22 but would likely be shot down due to f-22 stealth.
Ignoring the unsupported declaratory statement, doesn't the fact that the Raptor would shoot down the Typhoon mean it's the better air-to-air fighter? Just curious.
The griffen seems to be a much more practical and efficient aircraft for the modern battlefield.
For those who cannot afford something like the F/A-22 or even the Eurofighter. The Swedes provide a decent, low cost alternative to US fighters and an alternative to buying from the Russians or the Chinese at a higher cost. Sure, it'll work, but it will die against the Raptor or probably even against the Su-30MK series. Given that fact, which would you rather fly?
Also, no one here knows the full capabilities of the Raptor, and there's no discussion of the power of the AESA radar onboard, especially compared to the current mechanically scanned array of the Gripen. If you don't think that matters, then you should just not bother to post in this thread.
Blah blah blah.. every freaking nerd these days is an armchair general. How many countries are flying F/A-22s and Eurofighters? I didn't see Saddam send any of those up!
Hey, numbnuts, this is my job so look in the mirror when you're talking about nerds and armchair generals. :roll:
As for your question, 1 for the F/A-22 and 4 for the Typhoon. Saddam didn't launch any aircraft, but if you always fight the last war, you'll get a lot of people killed. Basing our defense plans solely on the last few years is sheer idiocy.
You will find ATOT to be full of people that claim to know more about something than people that work in that particular field.