PDA

View Full Version : F15vsSu27



nsteense
08-19-2008, 12:59 AM
Not considering anything political, or how close to reality this really is and so on, this is quite a nice piece of work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Mmp7RVeLU

nsteense
08-19-2008, 12:59 AM
Not considering anything political, or how close to reality this really is and so on, this is quite a nice piece of work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Mmp7RVeLU

Dolemite-
08-19-2008, 01:29 AM
That was worse than Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor

LEXX_Luthor
08-19-2008, 02:44 AM
Great, "matrix" style in The Sims. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

F15, Su27: they both look the same.

LEXX_Luthor
08-19-2008, 02:48 AM
Now this (top) is a real launch, and my amatuer attempt (bottom) to slip it into The Sims...

...and the airplane actually looks different.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Siberian%20Sky%20Grafix/2xF-106.jpg

Schwarz.13
08-19-2008, 04:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dolemite-:
That was worse than Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While this excellent little movie may be far more artistic than realistic, IMO it is one of the best Machinima films i've seen! It's superbly edited - the sims, film stock and music are put together brilliantly.

TBH if you think you could do better, then let's see it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
F15, Su27: they both look the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errm, no they don't. That's like saying a Fw-190A and a Wildcat look the same http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I thought you were an aviation fan Lexx - that sounds like something my mother would say! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-19-2008, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I thought you were an aviation fan Lexx </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Both are made by the post-Cold War Grumman/Sukhoi/McDonnell/MiG corporate merger. I can't tell the difference (nor can the general public, unlike in the past), but then I'm a fan of military aviation and that ended about 1960, stopped dead, at the birth of McNamara, Sandys, Kruschev, ya know the fellas. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
08-19-2008, 08:41 AM
Designs of the 70ies post cold war? Thought that one ended in 89. And the F-15 and the Su-27 are not similar at all, not more than a Wildcat and a Fw 190. The general public couldn't tell the difference between these two apart as well...

Well, both sure do have two wings...so maybe they are very similar after all.

Jaws2002
08-19-2008, 09:46 AM
LEXX_Luthor is aviation amish. He was not able to keep up with the evolution. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/157_0_Su-27.jpg

Sex on wings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Jaws2002
08-19-2008, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Now this (top) is a real launch, and my amatuer attempt (bottom) to slip it into The Sims...

...and the airplane actually looks different.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Siberian%20Sky%20Grafix/2xF-106.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you realize that not even Bush wanted to fly that thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Flying it must have been pretty darn boring to make him give up flying for politics. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-19-2008, 10:13 AM
*gack* Jaws that MiGrumDonnelkhoi F-15 pic is proof of devolution flying today. Twin fins, bubble canopy, angled side intakes, cropped delta wings wouldn't be so bad if they all didn't have them. Red stars on F-15...? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

JtD
08-19-2008, 12:32 PM
Single fins, high rear fuselage, V-12 engine, straight wings with rounded wing tips. That describes half the fighters used in early WW2. No less similar than todays jets.

I don't get how someone can have problems to see differences between a F-15, Su-27 and MiG-29. The Su-27 in particular is unique in appearance.

RAF_OldBuzzard
08-19-2008, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002: ...Do you realize that not even Bush wanted to fly that thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Flying it must have been pretty darn boring to make him give up flying for politics. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

UH, that pic is of an F-106, President Bush flew F0102's. REAL easy to tell the difference. The 102's fin came to a point, the 106's is flat at the top.

As for boring? The F-102 was a real handful, and had one of, if not the highest incident rates of any modern aircraft in the USAF's inventory. There were a LOT of pilots that were 'afraid' of the F-02, and for good reason.

Warrington_Wolf
08-19-2008, 03:12 PM
I looked at this topic and I have to admit that I groaned a bit when I saw it. I thought that this is the same topic that has been discussed to death a thousands of times before on the Lock On forum.
Even though it wasn't realistic I still found it entertaining, the guy who made it did a good job.
If that has whet your appetite then here are some videos which are made using Lock On, they are made by a guy who I only know as Glowing Amraam and his videos are usually very good.

Hot Zone (Ground targets get shafted by a MiG-29)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vu5t8JmP_s

The Chase (F/A-18, Su-27, MiG-29s, F-15s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HJ_Moir7M8

Speed (This is my favourite one.flight of Su-27 Vs flight of F-15s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TXqjzBABbM

Tomcat Tribute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSkzo6GejGY

Operation Southern Cross (a trailer for a campaign that was later cancelled)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W16NJHBngdE

Jaws2002
08-19-2008, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002: ...Do you realize that not even Bush wanted to fly that thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Flying it must have been pretty darn boring to make him give up flying for politics. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

UH, that pic is of an F-106, President Bush flew F0102's. REAL easy to tell the difference. The 102's fin came to a point, the 106's is flat at the top.

As for boring? The F-102 was a real handful, and had one of, if not the highest incident rates of any modern aircraft in the USAF's inventory. There were a LOT of pilots that were 'afraid' of the F-02, and for good reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You party pooper. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Schwarz.13
08-19-2008, 06:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warrington_Wolf:
Operation Southern Cross (a trailer for a campaign that was later cancelled)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W16NJHBngdE </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one seems to have taken on a whole new significance! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif :

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/1007/georgiaga2.png

When and why was this campaign cancelled just out of interest?

Thanks for posting those vids anyway Wolf - i'm gonna be buying Lock-On:Gold soon, just want to get HOTAS first. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's just a pity the Hornet, Viper or Mirage are not flyable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

TX-Gunslinger
08-19-2008, 07:15 PM
Thanks!

Outstanding video

S~

Gunny

Tab_Flettner
08-19-2008, 07:35 PM
Simpsons did it better.

ElAurens
08-19-2008, 10:33 PM
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/4743/f22ik1.jpg

The winner, be sure.

I_KG100_Prien
08-19-2008, 11:11 PM
Yes, in future battles the F-22 will bring apocalyptic level destruction against all that oppose it. It will even perform "P's Cobra" in close dogfights to swat down annoying opponents like flies.

Dogfights told me so. It was on the History Channel so it must be true....

Not that the F-22 isn't an amazing piece of engineering and technology. I'll wait until it gets an actual combat record against an opposing force before any declaration of superiority.

mortoma
08-19-2008, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Now this (top) is a real launch, and my amatuer attempt (bottom) to slip it into The Sims...

...and the airplane actually looks different.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Siberian%20Sky%20Grafix/2xF-106.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you realize that not even Bush wanted to fly that thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Flying it must have been pretty darn boring to make him give up flying for politics. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Bush did not fly that thing. That is a F-106, Bush flew the F-102 which is similar but less advanced. Also F-102 had a pointy vertical stabilizer, not like the flat topped one on the F-106.

DaddyAck
08-20-2008, 12:30 AM
Dad gummit, I think I am having dejavu...

nsteense
08-20-2008, 01:03 AM
Seems to me that I have chosen an misleading topic title...
I only thought of it as a well made video.

WTE_Galway
08-20-2008, 01:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
Yes, in future battles the F-22 will bring apocalyptic level destruction against all that oppose it. It will even perform "P's Cobra" in close dogfights to swat down annoying opponents like flies.

Dogfights told me so. It was on the History Channel so it must be true....

Not that the F-22 isn't an amazing piece of engineering and technology. I'll wait until it gets an actual combat record against an opposing force before any declaration of superiority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention the fact that the planned original procurement of 750 ATFs eventually turned into a possible 180 odd actual F22's if the budget does not get cut again.

Assuming they can keep 75% of those in the air under combat conditions that is not a lot of planes in the air to spread about in a major conflict.

ElAurens
08-20-2008, 05:33 AM
The F22's superiority has nothing to do with it's dogfighting ability. If you think that they you really don't understand the aircraft, or it's capabilities, at all.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
08-20-2008, 06:02 AM
The F-22 could also carry bombs not many, just enough to replace the F-117, which in turn wasn't exactly known for it's spectacular bombload.

The idea is that those fighters could penetrate heavyly defended airspace almost without notice and strike pinpoint targets.

What has worked against Iraq and Serbia, however, does not necessaryly work against contries with higher tweaking- and develloping-capabilities in their defense-system.

That apart from the Chinese and Russians having (and surely selling should there be any reason for them) SA-20s.

I mean, there's not much a Patriot could do to be cmpared with an SA-20.
The SA-20 just outclasses the Patriot.
Even the SA-10, on which the SA-20 is based, was a heavy blow on the Patriot.
What the Russians lacked in aircraft-capability, they usually re-balanced by their SAM-units.

Currently, the F-22 reigns pretty much supreme in BVR, being equalled by the Typhoon on WVR.

Ollivaan
08-20-2008, 09:07 AM
And what about Su-37.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Bremspropeller
08-20-2008, 09:36 AM
Smokin hole in the ground...

TheHammerOfGod
08-20-2008, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ollivaan:
And what about Su-37.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No such mammal

The T10M-11 prototype was used as the Su-37MR (Mulitrole) testbed, a multirole variant of the Su-35 marketed to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) air force. The UAE preffered the Mirage 2000-9 so it was decided to use the T10M-11 as flying test-bed for the engine thrust vector control (TVC) system. The Su-37 designation was retained.

The Su-37's life ended when T10M-11 (serial 711) was lost in a crash on flying a ferry flight in Russia. The aircraft was not fitted with the TVC engines at the time of the crash. No other Su-35s have been converted to Su-37 specifications, nor has the Su-37 design entered production. The Su-37 was never an official designation recognized by the Russian Air Force. The crash of 711 effectively means the end of the Su-37, although future Su-35 developments will be more like the Su-37 of 1996 than the original Su-35. The possibility remains that the designation Su-37 will be used again in the future for other TVC-engine powered Flanker variants.

Jaws2002
08-20-2008, 10:59 AM
There won't be any new models based on the Su-27 airframe for Russian Airforce.
The Russians are already working on two completely new stealth fighters to counter the F-22 and F-35.
All the work on Su-30 versions is for export only.

BoCfuss
08-20-2008, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The F-22 could also carry bombs not many, just enough to replace the F-117, which in turn wasn't exactly known for it's spectacular bombload.

The idea is that those fighters could penetrate heavyly defended airspace almost without notice and strike pinpoint targets.

What has worked against Iraq and Serbia, however, does not necessaryly work against contries with higher tweaking- and develloping-capabilities in their defense-system.

That apart from the Chinese and Russians having (and surely selling should there be any reason for them) SA-20s.

I mean, there's not much a Patriot could do to be cmpared with an SA-20.
The SA-20 just outclasses the Patriot.
Even the SA-10, on which the SA-20 is based, was a heavy blow on the Patriot.
What the Russians lacked in aircraft-capability, they usually re-balanced by their SAM-units.

Currently, the F-22 reigns pretty much supreme in BVR, being equalled by the Typhoon on WVR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How on earth could the Typhoon ever be at an advantage at the merge? I just don't understand how that would be possible other then by luck, so I guess it could happen.

The S-400 vs Pac3 Patriot is very interesting, the way the Russians are trying to sell it, it won't be long before there is one set up in Nevada, right next to the the S-300s. Its a threat for sure, but not unbeatable, and anything with that kind of radar is begging to be removed from the battle field.

Bremspropeller
08-21-2008, 04:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How on earth could the Typhoon ever be at an advantage at the merge? I just don't understand how that would be possible other then by luck, so I guess it could happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It's not that the Euros are too stupid to build highly-maneuverable fighters that don't need TVC to attain maneuvering-capabilites that other a/c only attain by using TVC. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DACT has shown that RAF Tiffies were on par with F-22s in WVR.

BoCfuss
08-21-2008, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How on earth could the Typhoon ever be at an advantage at the merge? I just don't understand how that would be possible other then by luck, so I guess it could happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It's not that the Euros are too stupid to build highly-maneuverable fighters that don't need TVC to attain maneuvering-capabilites that other a/c only attain by using TVC. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DACT has shown that RAF Tiffies were on par with F-22s in WVR. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Americans are stupid. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I guess the Typhoons are half as good as the raptor. I'll take the raptor.

ElAurens
08-21-2008, 06:10 PM
Typhoons will never meet Raptors in real combat anyway, so who cares?

Both are capable aircraft that will do well in their respective air services.

Too bad about the Fleet Air Arm though, being stuck with a subsonic, short range, ground support aircraft till the JSF materializes.

Honestly you Brits should sack your MoD. What on earth are they thinking?

Xiolablu3
08-21-2008, 06:25 PM
It would be quite easy for the Typhoon to be at an advantage at the merge.

Possibly thte F22 fires a missile at BVR, the Typhoon counters the missile with counter measures using its advanced systems.

Now he knows where the F22. (A F22 gives away its position when it fires a missile) &gt; A dogfight develops.

In vietnam they deleted the guns off aircraft because they decided there would be no more dogfighting/close in combat.

No doubt now they are relying on stealth and there will once again be declared 'there will be no more dogfights'


No doubt every country (particularly Russia) is working feverishly on Radars that can detect stealth aircraft, and I am 100% sure that there are working RADAR systems in many countries and probably in many planes by now.


Stealth will have a very short life,its been beaten already, however against 'low technology' enemies, such as Iran etc, it is very useful.

Good read from 2001 when British Researchers used Mobile phone masts to defeat stealth :-

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N63/Stealth.63f.html

ElAurens
08-21-2008, 07:01 PM
The F22 has a gun.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jaws2002
08-21-2008, 07:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
The F22 has a gun.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think that having a heavy six barell gun on F-22 is just as short sighted as not having one on the F4 back in Vietnam.

Back then the missiles were expected to miss more they would hit. having a gun was a good idea.
Tmes changed and the missiles of today are extremely deadly toys.

F-22 is a stealth 150 millions plane designed to operate and kill undetected from long ranges. Why would you bring a plane like the F-22, that has all the advantages at long ranges, at a distance of one mile from the enemy, where all his stealth means nothing?
They should have used that space and weight for two extra AMRAAMs.
Let the knife fight to the knife fighters. Keep the stealthy sniper out there at long range and let him do what he does best.

ElAurens
08-21-2008, 08:21 PM
The beauty of the F22 is that it can do both, and also act as a forward AWACS when it's munitions are expended.

BoCfuss
08-21-2008, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
It would be quite easy for the Typhoon to be at an advantage at the merge.

Possibly thte F22 fires a missile at BVR, the Typhoon counters the missile with counter measures using its advanced systems.

Now he knows where the F22. (A F22 gives away its position when it fires a missile) &gt; A dogfight develops.

In vietnam they deleted the guns off aircraft because they decided there would be no more dogfighting/close in combat.

No doubt now they are relying on stealth and there will once again be declared 'there will be no more dogfights'


No doubt every country (particularly Russia) is working feverishly on Radars that can detect stealth aircraft, and I am 100% sure that there are working RADAR systems in many countries and probably in many planes by now.


Stealth will have a very short life,its been beaten already, however against 'low technology' enemies, such as Iran etc, it is very useful.

Good read from 2001 when British Researchers used Mobile phone masts to defeat stealth :-

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N63/Stealth.63f.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stealth is just coming into its own. It has and will be around for a very very long time, maybe not in the form of odd shapes and EW, but in new different ways. I'm sure there are ways to detect stealth aircraft, locking onto them is another matter. If you have no idea which direction they are coming from is also a very big advantage to the stealth aircraft. Besides, take away the stealth from the F-22 and it still owns. If Russia has figured it all out, why are they developing stealth aircraft?

Schwarz.13
08-21-2008, 09:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BoCfuss:
If Russia has figured it all out, why are they developing stealth aircraft? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the UK, a few years ago, a certain bank started charging for withdrawing cash from their ATMs - good way to make more profits i suppose. So then all the other banks followed suit - they didn't want to be left out. Then, a certain other bank advertises FREE withdrawals from their ATMs - good advertising, new customers etc. So then, ALL the other banks follow suit (again).

My point is, there seems to be no originality of thought - a case of "let's do what the competition are doing, because if they're doing it, then we should be!" It doesn't matter if it's the high street or the battlefield http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In the UK we call it "Keeping up with the Jones's" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So what i'm saying is: just because the US seem to be leading the way with stealth fighters, doesn't mean that the US have a monopoly over stealth tactics , nor that it actually matters (for there is no actual war between the perceived sides, at the moment anyway). So all the "my trump card tops your trump card" stuff is purely hypothetical so far (and tends to reek of flagwaving IMO). Also, the F-22, until there is such a time when it can prove itself in combat, and in it's limited numbers, is also somewhat of a hypothetical fighter!

Jaws2002
08-21-2008, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
Also, the F-22, until there is such a time when it can prove itself in combat, and in it's limited numbers, is also somewhat of a hypothetical fighter! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is not Hypothetical. If you can make your plane show a heck of a lot smaller on the radar is good. You increase your chance to be detected a lot later in the fight and maybe not even detected.
Sure there are systems that can find and track a stealth plane but until you have those systems (if you can ever put them) on your fighter, the stealth plane has the advantage.
You may have an idea where he is when he already launched a missile your way but at that point you are in defensive and you know what they used to say: If you got him on defensive you got him leaking before you even pulled the trigger.
Is one thing to get some info from the ground controller telling you that there's a bad guy coming somewhere behind you and another thing to detect it yourself and know exactly where he is.
Doesn't matter if the ground controller knows where the bad guy is, you still can't get a lock on him.

Schwarz.13
08-21-2008, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
Also, the F-22, until there is such a time when it can prove itself in combat, and in it's limited numbers, is also somewhat of a hypothetical fighter! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is not Hypothetical. If you can make your plane show a heck of a lot smaller on the radar is good. You increase your chance to be detected a lot later in the fight and maybe not even detected.
Sure there are systems that can find and track a stealth plane but until you have those systems (if you can ever put them) on your fighter, the stealth plane has the advantage.
You may have an idea where he is when he already launched a missile your way but at that point you are in defensive and you know what they used to say: If you got him on defensive you got him leaking before you even pulled the trigger.
Is one thing to get some info from the ground controller telling you that there's a bad guy coming somewhere behind you and another thing to detect it yourself and know exactly where he is.
Doesn't matter if the ground controller knows where the bad guy is, you still can't get a lock on him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand what you're saying Jaws and TBH i don't know that much about the tactical application of the latest technology.

What i do know though is, that just as man is as old as the hills, any military innovation is usually met, just as soon, by counter-innovation, and that other factors usually play a more decisive factor in the eventual outcome...

I_KG100_Prien
08-22-2008, 02:04 AM
F-22 is certainly an amazing piece of technology. I don't at all doubt it's capabilities- but I'm with the camp that right now it's yet to be really battle tested.

By that I mean- against a decently equipped and trained opponent. Not whipping it up on an Air Force that is using poorly maintained aircraft flown by poorly trained pilots.

The theory craft on it's performance in battle is why I had to shut off the Dogfights episode that was doing hypothetical battle scenarios set 40 years in the future. It was going off the assumption that no other country by that time will have developed next-gen aircraft.

Thats where my "Pugachev's Cobra" comment came from in my first post- one of the scenarios involved WVR engagement against Rafales.. Raptor has Rafale on six, Raptor "cobras" and shoots Rafale down. Something that is laughed at when people mention a Russian A/C doing the same maneuver in a combat environment. Something about a huge waste of energy etc. etc.

So there does seem to be some flag-waving in regards to the F-22. Again, not at all slamming it as an aircraft. All I'm questioning is the assumption that it's going to dominate in any fight that it gets into... based at this point entirely on speculation.

Though, quite frankly I hope nothing boils over to the point where it has to prove itself on that level. That would mean some serious dookie hit the air circulation device.

BoCfuss
08-22-2008, 10:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
F-22 is certainly an amazing piece of technology. I don't at all doubt it's capabilities- but I'm with the camp that right now it's yet to be really battle tested.

By that I mean- against a decently equipped and trained opponent. Not whipping it up on an Air Force that is using poorly maintained aircraft flown by poorly trained pilots.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That pretty much leaves out everyone except Israel and the U.S. I guess we'll never know. Not to mention it faces the most capable air force in the world everyday. I guess that doesn't count.

I_KG100_Prien
08-23-2008, 02:18 AM
Just because it doesn't have direct chalk-board competition yet doesn't mean it won't later down the road.

That's all I'm getting at. Since there is a lot of speculating going on it can be fun to ponder other possibilities.

Every so often I understand why people think we Americans have a bit of an ego problem.