PDA

View Full Version : OT: F22 Raptor



MO_JOJO
06-15-2006, 12:24 AM
I was just reading about the new US fighter and found this article:

F-22 bombs at supersonic speeds
By Tim McLaughlin
06/12/2006 2:20 pm
Boeing and Lockheed Martin said Monday the F-22 Raptor recently showed its ability to release bombs at supersonic speeds during a test at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Flying at Mach 1.5 and at 50,000 feet altitude, the F-22 released a 1,000-pound bomb and hit a ground target 24 miles away during a recent test, Boeing said.

How times have changed. It's fun to read about, but I still prefer old planes, and I think I always will. Just thought it made for a fun fact to know about the new joint strike/fighter.

MO_JOJO
06-15-2006, 12:24 AM
I was just reading about the new US fighter and found this article:

F-22 bombs at supersonic speeds
By Tim McLaughlin
06/12/2006 2:20 pm
Boeing and Lockheed Martin said Monday the F-22 Raptor recently showed its ability to release bombs at supersonic speeds during a test at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Flying at Mach 1.5 and at 50,000 feet altitude, the F-22 released a 1,000-pound bomb and hit a ground target 24 miles away during a recent test, Boeing said.

How times have changed. It's fun to read about, but I still prefer old planes, and I think I always will. Just thought it made for a fun fact to know about the new joint strike/fighter.

JG52Karaya-X
06-15-2006, 02:45 AM
The Joint Strike Fighter is the F35, not the F22 - which is btw referred to as the F/A-22, IIRC.

Megile_
06-15-2006, 03:20 AM
Very interesting that they have cracked that nut.. IIRC they always had problems with accuracy when dropping them over mach 1. 50K is pretty impressive also http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I assume it was an LGB?

JG52Karaya-X
06-15-2006, 03:29 AM
Lets try out what happens if we drop Megile from an F22s bomb bay at 1,5 Mach... aint gonna be nice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Megile_
06-15-2006, 03:43 AM
You're dangerous http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Badsight-
06-15-2006, 05:12 AM
its kill rate against Eagles , Falcons & Hornets prove its now the machine & not the pilot

basically its the safest fighter to be in , in a modern air war

OD_79
06-15-2006, 05:38 AM
Nothing is safe in the air when American troops have missiles, friendly or not! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OD.

RCAF_Irish_403
06-15-2006, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
Nothing is safe in the air when American troops have missiles, friendly or not!

OD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ouch! I resemble that remark

JG52Karaya-X
06-15-2006, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
You're dangerous http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You bet - I'm unstoppable (http://media.putfile.com/unstoppable-16)

To which your answer will be (http://media.putfile.com/WhickedSick)

BOOYA

ploughman
06-15-2006, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
Nothing is safe in the air when American troops have missiles, friendly or not!

OD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let us not forget that during the Falklands War the RN almost shot down a Brazilian Airliner it mistook for an Argentine B-707 recce plane, and did in fact shoot down one of its own helicopters.

Mistakes happen in war, it's fortunate that blue on blue incidents are reducing in overall numbers by a large margin, and that huge ammounts of money and time are spent trying to make sure none of the massive firepower available is miss-targeted. The fact that the US shot down a UK plane highlights, perhaps, the difficulties of intergrating different air forces into a single safe managed bit of airspace during a shooting war.

danjama
06-15-2006, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile_:
You're dangerous http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

O RLY?!

whiteladder
06-15-2006, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and did in fact shoot down one of its own helicopters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Really I wasn`t aware of that?

WOLFMondo
06-15-2006, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
Nothing is safe in the air when American troops have missiles, friendly or not!

OD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let us not forget that during the Falklands War the RN almost shot down a Brazilian Airliner it mistook for an Argentine B-707 recce plane, and did in fact shoot down one of its own helicopters.

Mistakes happen in war, it's fortunate that blue on blue incidents are reducing in overall numbers by a large margin, and that huge ammounts of money and time are spent trying to make sure none of the massive firepower available is miss-targeted. The fact that the US shot down a UK plane highlights, perhaps, the difficulties of intergrating different air forces into a single safe managed bit of airspace during a shooting war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the first Gulf War, more Brits were killed by 'freindly fire' than by enemy fire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ploughman
06-15-2006, 07:26 AM
9 of 24. Effing A-10. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Slickun
06-15-2006, 07:39 AM
First hand experience.

You guys would not believe all the safeguards the military has to try to avoid blue on blue, yet it still happens.

Artillery is almost obsessed with avoiding blue on blue, so many safeguards it inhibits engaging the enemy. Yet, we still manage to drop rounds on the wrong guys. An absolute tragedy, and heads roll.

We get better at avoiding it all the time, but it will never be eliminated as long as men go into harms way, ready to kill or be killed, with split seconds being the difference.

OD_79
06-15-2006, 08:19 AM
Even in peace time the US shoots down British aircraft. lol. During the Cold War they shot down two RAF Jaguars over Germany! Anyway it was just a poke at the F-22 being the safest aircraft in modern air war...it's not safe if it is supporting it's nations army...they seem to shoot at anything that has wings.

OD.

berg417448
06-15-2006, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
Even in peace time the US shoots down British aircraft. lol. During the Cold War they shot down two RAF Jaguars over Germany! Anyway it was just a poke at the F-22 being the safest aircraft in modern air war...it's not safe if it is supporting it's nations army...they seem to shoot at anything that has wings.

OD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Friendly fire' is hardly linked to just one country. Just a few examples more applicable to this forum:

During the Battle of Britain at least 36 RAF aircraft were shot down by other RAF aircraft.


In 1942 when Prime Minister Winston Churchill was returning to London from a summit in Washington that year the London air defenses fired on his plane, thinking it was a German bomber.

From 1939 to 1942, Twenty Blenheim aircraft were shot down by RAF pilots and anti-aircraft fire (7 were shot down by Hurricanes). This resulted in the deaths of thirty-two aircrew with seven others injured. Nineteen other aircraft were damaged by being fired upon by mistake.

In June and July 1942 RAF Typhoons suffered losses on combat missions when they were attacked and shot down by Spitfires who presumed them to be FW-190€s.

Blottogg
06-15-2006, 08:57 AM
Megile, it was a JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), basically a GPS guidance package and fins strapped to a Mk83 1000 lb bomb. Supersonic separation characteristics being what they are, a dumb bomb (especially from that altitude) wouldn't have hit anywhere close to the aimpoint, especially after being dropped from 50,000 feet. 24 miles downrange is pretty good for a weapon without a motor.

Karaya, in the continuing battle between marketing and common sense within the Pentagon, the aircraft was recently re-designated the F-22A, getting rid of the F/A designation.

berg417448
06-15-2006, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by whiteladder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and did in fact shoot down one of its own helicopters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really I wasn`t aware of that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


€œThe UK Ministry of Defence officially admitted that a British helicopter, shot down in the Falklands War with all four aboard killed, was downed by a Sea Dart missile from a British destroyer. On 6 June 1982, HMS Cardiff reported shooting down an Argentine helicopter flying in darkness toward Port Stanley. It was actually a British Army Gazelle on a resupply flight between Darwin and Mount Pleasant.€


Eight British soldiers were killed from fratricide and 22 more were wounded through friendly fire incidents in the Falklands.

JG52Karaya-X
06-15-2006, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blottogg:
Karaya, in the continuing battle between marketing and common sense within the Pentagon, the aircraft was recently re-designated the F-22A, getting rid of the F/A designation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgrt, good to know. The F/A designation was sheer eye-candy anyway - the F22 isn't any more of a strike aircraft than say an F16. And hell if even the F15E Strike Eagle retains its F designation then... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

whiteladder
06-15-2006, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The UK Ministry of Defence officially admitted that a British helicopter, shot down in the Falklands War with all four aboard killed, was downed by a Sea Dart missile from a British destroyer. On 6 June 1982, HMS Cardiff reported shooting down an Argentine helicopter flying in darkness toward Port Stanley. It was actually a British Army Gazelle on a resupply flight between Darwin and Mount Pleasant.€ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks Berg, I just found that my self searching google, I remember the incedent as it was intially reported well. At the time it was reported the Cardiff had engaged a Argentine Army Puma, that was carrying mortor rounds when it was hit by the Seadart.

Some of the reports say that the Gazelle was attacked because it was flying outside of the agreed flight envelope when it was engaged. I can understand how this coul;d have happened. If memory serves me right it was a manual procedure with Seadart, in that if a target doesn`t give a positive IFF response and it is outside of the agreed envelope then it could be considered for engagement. On the Seawolf this can be set as a automatic response i.e if a target is flying slower than 100 mph and below a certain hieght the system is inhibited from starting the engagement.

fordfan25
06-15-2006, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
Even in peace time the US shoots down British aircraft. lol. During the Cold War they shot down two RAF Jaguars over Germany! Anyway it was just a poke at the F-22 being the safest aircraft in modern air war...it's not safe if it is supporting it's nations army...they seem to shoot at anything that has wings.

OD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>well maby if you guys wernt so easy TO shoot down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WWSensei
06-15-2006, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And hell if even the F15E Strike Eagle retains its F designation then... Happy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Pfft, at least the Strike Eagle can carry air to air missiles.... I'm still trying to figure out the "F" designation on the 117...

ploughman
06-15-2006, 11:06 AM
When they first tried to sell the F-117 to the pilots they realised they needed to sex it up as nobody was going to be queueing up to fly a scummy tactical bomber, so they called it a fighter and the rayban brigade thought, 'cool, a stealth fighter. I'm going to get me some of that.' And they've been buggering about in the dark moving highly selective piles of mud ever since.

Suckers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
06-15-2006, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blottogg:
Supersonic separation characteristics being what they are, a dumb bomb (especially from that altitude) wouldn't have hit anywhere close to the aimpoint, especially after being dropped from 50,000 feet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Soviets didnt think so! There was MiG-25RB - recon/bomber variant of MiG-25 and its modus operandi was flying like, well MiG-25, i.e. HIGH and FAST and drop dumb bombs form quite a distance from target. Special bombs (FAB-500-M62T) were developed to withstand extensieve heating from high speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
06-15-2006, 01:45 PM
Allegedly, Iraqi Mig-25s lob bombed Iranianian oil facilities from 60 miles out by going supersonic. Not sure if they ever hit them.

cam1936
06-15-2006, 02:30 PM
4 canadians were killed in afganistan when an american plane dropped a bomb on them.

VW-IceFire
06-15-2006, 02:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And hell if even the F15E Strike Eagle retains its F designation then... Happy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Pfft, at least the Strike Eagle can carry air to air missiles.... I'm still trying to figure out the "F" designation on the 117... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pretty sure that was mostly to confuse everyone. It was a secret project and everyone was calling it the "Stealth Fighter" although its not a fighter at all. So calling it a fighter disguised its true nature.

BSS_CUDA
06-15-2006, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cam1936:
4 canadians were killed in afganistan when an american plane dropped a bomb on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your point is?????????

R988z
06-15-2006, 03:55 PM
I think one of the only times an F-16 has been shot down in air to air combat was when a Pakistani F-16 fired an AIM9 at a Russian aircraft and accidently shotdown his wingman!

And loads of airliners have been shotdown by many countries over the years, eg KAL007 and that iranian one shot down by the US warship are probably the better known ones.

As for the F-22, an F/A-18F managed to (highly controversially judging by the comments) bag one in an exercise recently, so there might be a bit of life left in the mk1 pilot yet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://www.alert5.com/2006/04/fa-18f-guns-down-f-22a-update.html

An idiot pilot or novice in an F-22 not flying correct tactics is still going to have a hard time against an experienced pilot in a lesser aircraft, just like a noob me262 pilot can be shot down by a P-39 if he doesn't fly or know the correct tactics.

This F-22 pilot was perhaps not as clever as he could have been (remember F-22 is still quite new and the pilots may not know it's limits yet or know the aircraft well), with the speed of the F-22 he could have easily out ran the F/A-18 and go back to base for more missiles, but he got greedy and went for the close combat kill (all this of course is entirely my speculation and it could be some close combat only thing) when he should have extended and got away using his F-22 to it's best advantage. I'm sure we have all done something similar in Il2 at some point, got greedy or target fixation and stayed too long in the combat area and got caught out.

Blottogg
06-15-2006, 06:42 PM
Nice HUD pic. I'm not smart enough to read all of the F/A-18E/F's symbology (too many slashes in that designation too, like model/actress...) but provided he turned the gun on in time (witness mark in the upper left hand corner), that looks like a valid snap-shot against the Raptor. Yet another example of why the air-to-air mantra for years has been DON'T GO TO THE MERGE. In this era of helmet mounted sights and high off-boresight heaters mounted on potential adversaries, equipping the U.S. jets with similar stuff merely guarantees two 'chutes post-merge instead of one.

That being said, the pilots still have to train for WVR combat, even if they don't plan to knife fight. I'm assuming this was taken from a mission where BFM was one of the training goals. Or maybe the Raptor pilot listened to Dos Gringos' "Goin' in for Guns" once too often. Good shot by the Hornet driver, and not necessarily embarrassing for the Raptor pilot. The learning curve is still pretty steep for that aircraft (the Super Bug is new too, but going from the C/D to the E/F is a smaller step WRT BFM than going from the Eagle to the Raptor.) If the Raptor guy got spanked again in the next setup, then that would be something to be embarrassed about.

It's also a good example of why they call it LO (Low Observable) technology and not NO (Not Observable.) Low RCS delays radar contact, it doesn't prevent it. Given a planform view from 1000', an air-to-air radar will apparently ring in just fine on a Raptor. The Sidewinder was probably growling, too.

Not that I'm looking to indict anyone, but anybody know how these HUD pics got posted? My HUD tapes were classified back in '93, and I don't assume the rules have gotten any more lax since then, especially when the two newest operational fighters in the U.S. inventory are concerned.

fordfan25
06-15-2006, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cam1936:
4 canadians were killed in afganistan when an american plane dropped a bomb on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your point is????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>that american's are bad and blah blah blah lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight-
06-15-2006, 11:17 PM
in an equal merge theres no US heavy fighter that can turn inside the Raptor . i know thw hornet up till now has been the tighest turning US fighter , but 3 years of combat training have proven the Raptor's total dominence .

he had to have had some kind of advantage to get guns on a Raptor at the beginning

FliegerAas
06-15-2006, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
in an equal merge theres no US heavy fighter that can turn inside the Raptor . i know thw hornet up till now has been the tighest turning US fighter , but 3 years of combat training have proven the Raptor's total dominence .

he had to have had some kind of advantage to get guns on a Raptor at the beginning </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How important is tight turning in modern air warfare anyways? I mean with thrust vectored missiles and all that stuff? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Badsight-
06-15-2006, 11:38 PM
they think that guns wouldnt be needed in the era of Missiles

but the Raptor carries 480 rounds into the air for its 20mm . sure its because it can get close without being detected , but the point is manouverability is never uneeded . its the reason the made the F15 fly as awesome as it does , & funnily the Eagle can out-accellerate the Raptor

if manouverability wasnt needed anymore - why add thrust vectoring ?

Badsight-
06-16-2006, 12:27 AM
Falcon flyers are not Hornet fans

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/alert5/114445821707695588/

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"gunning falcons" - if you are so hard over about making sure you brief the training rules, how about making sure some of your own follow the ****ing things every once in a while? You want to ***** about guys breaking the 9K pure pursuit rule, then don't be pulling lead for a gunshot (snap, at best) with a 16 aspect angle (or, I'm sorry, to use your back asswards terminology, within 20 degrees of the nose--way less than 45, schmuck) inside of the bubble!!! Its simple ***, don't break the rules, or if you do, don't whine about somebody else doing it to you next time.

As for the Raptor being a fireball, I'll believe it when I see the remaining frames. I don't know how the Super Snorer works, but since its the same gun, I'm assuming you need 15 frames for a guns kill. There ain't no way in hell the hack in that HUD's cockpit got it, not off that angle off/closure/out-of-plane combination. So how about you stop letting the internet morons think you are a hero, when you really got a snap, NOT sufficient for a kill, then were reversed on, and got HAMMERED by the Raptor for a full up track.

Wish we could see HIS HUD...oh wait, they follow other rules too, about not releasing HUD footage into the unclass realm...guess you boys missed security training too. Must be why we have all these leaks to the Av Mags...***.

Oh, and any time you want to meet me in my Block 50, I'll be glad to rumble it on against your can't-exceed-the-Mach-with-external-pylons, underpowered, overhyped, overpriced, piece of Supher ****, moron. Good thing you guys paint them such pretty colors to look good at airshows, 'cuz your freakin' worthless in combat.

SL - Time to go to your room, kiddo, Mom and Dad are talking here. Since you obviously have no practical experience, I'm cutting you a break before I call you a moron too.
Blue4 | 04.10.06 - 1:03 pm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>guess he likes his Falcon then . . . . . .

AWL_Spinner
06-16-2006, 01:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let us not forget that during the Falklands War the RN almost shot down a Brazilian Airliner it mistook for an Argentine B-707 recce plane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, let us not forget that! The operative word there is "almost" as it was deemed an unsafe identification and a missile was NOT fired!

Bit of a non point?

Blottogg
06-16-2006, 07:38 AM
Thanks for pulling that quote Badsight. Yeah, he likes the Viper (so do I), and he raises some of the same points I do, plus a couple I hadn't mentioned here yet.

Training rules for BFM are that you need 15 frames of HUD footage with a "hot" pipper (the trigger has been on for at least the bullet time of flight to that range) on the target for a valid guns kill. You call "kill" and have the guy kill remove, and you don't have 15 frames, you owe the snack fund $5 (for every bad kill call... it may be more with inflation these days.) Two valid "snap" shots are also a valid kill. Looking at the same parameters Blue4 mentions, I referred to the shot as a valid "snap", not a kill, and even there I had to assume the pipper had been on for TOF. Like our righteously indignant Block 50 driver, I'm doubting our squid friend got a second shot. And unless they briefed a 500' bubble (minimum range) the squid owes $5 for busting the standard 1000' bubble, kill call or not.

I know this sounds like cheezy whining, but to quote someone from the Navy's own PR flick "...rules are there for your safety and the safety of others. They are not flexible, and neither am I." Going cowboy in order to be the first guy to post (classified) images of a snap shot on an F-22 is a good way to trade paint, or worse. Plenty of aicraft (Air Force and Navy, U.S. and foreign) have hit eachother doing dumb s**t like this.

It also answers my question about how this got onto the 'Net in the first place. Some dumb squid managed a snap shot on a Raptor and started thinking (or kept thinking) with his d**k instead of his brain. I guess Super Bug drivers are feeling even more inadequate than I gave them credit for, to explain one of them doing something like this. I've (rightfully) slammed the F/A-18E/F before, so I won't go into the details again. Suffice it to say that it's a good avionics package in a very mediocre airframe. To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from Hot Shots: Part Deux, after the Navy's many fighter procurement screw-ups, the Super Bug was "the best of what's left." I rarely had a problem with F/A-18C/D's in my Block 30, and the C/D actually has better performance (other than range) than the E/F. Blue4 is right that he would have little trouble dealing with an E/F (at any range) in his Block 50. Of course I could have taken both of them out in my Block 30 big-mouth http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Badsight-
06-16-2006, 08:05 AM
just imagine if the F-16XL had got approved for production : )

this is just Raptor flames hype btw , "Raptor rah rah rah" , despite how dominent it is - theres only going to be what ? 80 of them in total ?

dont get me wrong , the Eagle is old & in need of a replacement . but the performance of the Raptor has come with a wicked price tag , the exceptional EF Typhoon is asking for a 1/4 of the price : O

Bremspropeller
06-16-2006, 08:05 AM
Kinda makes me think of the old F-16 guy bumper sticker:

"The F-16 will be doin better with one engine off than the F-18" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


@ Karaya: "F" is the designation for both, fighters and fighter-bombers (e.g. F-111). Same is for "Fighter Squadrons".


Blotto, from what I've read the F-16 will flame the Hornet as long as you stay above like 350 knots.
What about the AoA advantage of the -18 at low speeds ? AFAIK the -18 can hold about ten degs more than the -16, not having enough thrust to recover/ regain speed quickly enough though.

WOLFMondo
06-16-2006, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
just imagine if the F-16XL had got approved for production : )

this is just Raptor flames hype btw , "Raptor rah rah rah" , despite how dominent it is - theres only going to be what ? 80 of them in total ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost seems pointless. The only future adversary would be the Chinese. 80 Raptors won't even scratch the surface of there airforce.

berg417448
06-16-2006, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
just imagine if the F-16XL had got approved for production : )

this is just Raptor flames hype btw , "Raptor rah rah rah" , despite how dominent it is - theres only going to be what ? 80 of them in total ?

dont get me wrong , the Eagle is old & in need of a replacement . but the performance of the Raptor has come with a wicked price tag , the exceptional EF Typhoon is asking for a 1/4 of the price : O </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You forgot a digit...it is 183... right now:

http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1072/Air-Fo...-bomber-by-2018.html (http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/1072/Air-Force-settles-on-183-Raptors-plans-new-bomber-by-2018.html)

Badsight-
06-16-2006, 08:38 AM
& it cant fly at its max - inside it is a big flesh & blood limitation

be sure that unmanned strike A/C will be operated at a much lower cost , & can be sent up in swarms without fear of human operator loss

its only the industry that wants the huge R&D circus to continue

ploughman
06-16-2006, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let us not forget that during the Falklands War the RN almost shot down a Brazilian Airliner it mistook for an Argentine B-707 recce plane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, let us not forget that! The operative word there is "almost" as it was deemed an unsafe identification and a missile was NOT fired!

Bit of a non point? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. The decision to fire was made by some of the most senior commanders on the scene at the time. A junior officer then came up with an airline schedule that indicated that the target could be a scheduled airliner flying from South Africa to Brazil. My 'non point' is 'see how easy it is to get it wrong even if you're the best.'

If you read Woodward's account of this incident in his memoir "One Hundred Days" you will notice how the information coming in the bogey matched what the Task Force was expecting to see if they were being shadowed by the Argentine recce aircraft that had been visiting them over the previous few days. Woodward himself was shaken by how close they'd come to making a dreadful error. If you really think this incident has no relevance to unintentional shoot downs and blue on blue incidents then good for you.

9th_Spitin
06-16-2006, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
just imagine if the F-16XL had got approved for production : )

this is just Raptor flames hype btw , "Raptor rah rah rah" , despite how dominent it is - theres only going to be what ? 80 of them in total ?


dont get me wrong , the Eagle is old & in need of a replacement . but the performance of the Raptor has come with a wicked price tag , the exceptional EF Typhoon is asking for a 1/4 of the price : O </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Talked with a Raptor driver this weekend and he said there will be 148 F-22's built. As for the Raptor vs the F-15, this guy said he flew against a 15 in his Raptor, flew right past him at night and the 15 never knew he was there, also went against 4 F-16's and took all 4 out.

AWL_Spinner
06-16-2006, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My 'non point' is 'see how easy it is to get it wrong even if you're the best.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT: I had written a somewhat snippy response to this but life's too short. Suffice it to say I have a different view of this event but c'est la vie!

As a fellow fan of Woodward's book I will instead mention that I hope you are following the progess of the Jet Thunder Falklands/Malvinas project (http://www.thunder-works.com).

LStarosta
06-16-2006, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 9th_Spitin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
just imagine if the F-16XL had got approved for production : )

this is just Raptor flames hype btw , "Raptor rah rah rah" , despite how dominent it is - theres only going to be what ? 80 of them in total ?


dont get me wrong , the Eagle is old & in need of a replacement . but the performance of the Raptor has come with a wicked price tag , the exceptional EF Typhoon is asking for a 1/4 of the price : O </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Talked with a Raptor driver this weekend and he said there will be 148 F-22's built. As for the Raptor vs the F-15, this guy said he flew against a 15 in his Raptor, flew right past him at night and the 15 never knew he was there, also went against 4 F-16's and took all 4 out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And we ALL know that fighter pilots NEVER brag their asses off. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WWSensei
06-16-2006, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And we ALL know that fighter pilots NEVER brag their asses off. Roll Eyes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then how about the word from an Eagle driver and a Viper driver? I live near Langley AFB where the 1st Fighter Wing is stationed and they have the first Raptors. In a 2 on 8 engagement, with the 15s being the 8, my neighbor, an Eagle driver with nearly 600 hours of combat time in the Eagle (and one confirmed kill of a MiG-29 from the first Gulf War) who lead the flight said the following:

"I knew I was in the schoolyard when number 4 and 5 were scratched. We went defensive in a standard hi-lo split with the 4th flight covering egress. Well, they would have covered if they hadn't gone down as well. We were 40 seconds into the merge and I was down 4 ships and I still hadn't seen or painted the enemy. I was barely registering my wingman being scratched when my own alarm went off and ground called "Fight's off for Boxcar 1". First time I saw them was when the bastard did a roll over. God I can't wait for my turn."

The Raptor raises the bar pretty damn high.

LStarosta
06-16-2006, 12:00 PM
Now that's a much better statement than your previous one.

9th_Spitin
06-16-2006, 12:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And we ALL know that fighter pilots NEVER brag their asses off. Roll Eyes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then how about the word from an Eagle driver and a Viper driver? I live near Langley AFB where the 1st Fighter Wing is stationed and they have the first Raptors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Raptor driver I was sitting with was very down to earth, but also very proud of his job. He was a 15 pilot for 10 yrs previous.

He is stationed at Langley, but temp here in Utah while they repair the runway. Just got lucky that they were here for our air show.

LilHorse
06-16-2006, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cam1936:
4 canadians were killed in afganistan when an american plane dropped a bomb on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your point is????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The one on the top of his head.

ploughman
06-16-2006, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My 'non point' is 'see how easy it is to get it wrong even if you're the best.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT: I had written a somewhat snippy response to this but life's too short. Suffice it to say I have a different view of this event but c'est la vie!

As a fellow fan of Woodward's book I will instead mention that I hope you are following the progess of the Jet Thunder Falklands/Malvinas project (http://www.thunder-works.com). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, seen that, looks good.

When I was first reading Woodward's book I had one of those strange realisations that just for a few moments my life had crossed with that of history.

When I was a kid my dad used to work in the Sultanate of Oman, and every Friday we'd get in the boat and go down the coast from Muscat to a series of inlets called, from memory, Bangla Jissa. One time, in 1982, we went down there and there was the biggest warship I'd ever seen anchored amongst the islets and rocks. Tenders were ferrying sailors to and from the beach where they were having a barbie and we waved to them as we went past.

That warship, I never realised at the time, was HMS Glamorgan. She struck a rock leaving Bangla Jissa and was on the way home to the UK, her captain facing a courts martial when she was diverted south to form part of the Task Force that retook the Falklands. Whilst providing service in the gun-line off Port Stanley she was struck by an Exocet missile in the hangar deck and several of her crew were killed.

Snow_Wolf_
06-16-2006, 02:06 PM
so what do the Zamboni and the F-22 have in common http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c399/Big_Bad_Wolfy/zamboni_vs_f22.jpg

BaronUnderpants
06-16-2006, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And we ALL know that fighter pilots NEVER brag their asses off. Roll Eyes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then how about the word from an Eagle driver and a Viper driver? I live near Langley AFB where the 1st Fighter Wing is stationed and they have the first Raptors. In a 2 on 8 engagement, with the 15s being the 8, my neighbor, an Eagle driver with nearly 600 hours of combat time in the Eagle (and one confirmed kill of a MiG-29 from the first Gulf War) who lead the flight said the following:

"I knew I was in the schoolyard when number 4 and 5 were scratched. We went defensive in a standard hi-lo split with the 4th flight covering egress. Well, they would have covered if they hadn't gone down as well. We were 40 seconds into the merge and I was down 4 ships and I still hadn't seen or painted the enemy. I was barely registering my wingman being scratched when my own alarm went off and ground called "Fight's off for Boxcar 1". First time I saw them was when the bastard did a roll over. God I can't wait for my turn."

The Raptor raises the bar pretty damn high. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In 15-20 years we will have groundbased missiles/pilotless ac doing the exact same thing.

Bremspropeller
06-16-2006, 03:32 PM
That's what the Brits thought in the late fifties http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

WWSensei
06-17-2006, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
In 15-20 years we will have groundbased missiles/pilotless ac doing the exact same thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was hearing that very same quote when I was in ROTC. Kept hearing it when I went to UPT and heard it through my frist deployments....that was oh, about 15 or 20 years ago...

Badsight-
06-17-2006, 06:27 AM
and seriously - untill only recently have they had the technology to make this feasible

its been the desire for ages - everyone know the limiting factor in plane performance is the meat-bag

Blottogg
06-17-2006, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Blotto, from what I've read the F-16 will flame the Hornet as long as you stay above like 350 knots.
What about the AoA advantage of the -18 at low speeds ? AFAIK the -18 can hold about ten degs more than the -16, not having enough thrust to recover/ regain speed quickly enough though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, each has it's strengths and weaknesses. The Hornet has better low speed turning, with its higher AoA limits. The flip side is that the Viper has a better PW ratio. When I was dumb enough to anchor with a Marine Hornet, I got out of it by out-climbing him instead of trying to out-turn him. I can't match his alpha, but he couldn't match my climb angle at low speed (or any speed, really.) 3000' later, I could split S, half roll and gun him (I never posted the shot on the Internet though.) The Candians were better at A/A because they practiced it more, but if I needed bombs on target with troops in contact, I'd call the Marines first. Planes and pilots, both have their pluses and minuses.

The neat thing about the F-22 is that it pretty much has all the strengths at the moment. The only brute force counter to them I can see is to overwhelm them with numbers while they're "guarding the BX", or in a postion where they can't retrograde. It's limited A/G, and pretty expensive, but I'm slowly being sold on its value. Future expansion of its AESA radar into roles as an ECM, broadband comm relay, and even HPM weapon, are interesting too.

F-35 should be able to do all of this as well, though how much they're going to dumb it down to save $ (and the F-22's reputation) is anybody's guess for now.

Blottogg
06-17-2006, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">its been the desire for ages - everyone know the limiting factor in plane performance is the meat-bag </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a friend of mine once said, "There is some comfort knowing that I am the weakest component in the aircraft." In other words, as long as I can take it, I know nothing else on the aircraft is going to break.

UAV's are great for the three "D's" (Dangerous, Dull or Dirty), but datalinks/Ai programming are still weak links, and keeping the SA needed for air-to-air missions while remotely looking through a soda straw pointed forwards would be tough. UAV's weaknesses haven't been seen yet, in part because they haven't met a threat that challenged those weaknesses. I'll be interested to see the outcome of the first "in anger" A/A engagement invloving a UAV and a manned fighter. Hollywood nonsense aside, I think it will be ugly and brief, at least for the forseeable future. I wonder if it will still count as a kill though?

AVG_WarHawk
06-17-2006, 08:42 AM
Strike 1 and 2...one more and 2 weeks vacation. I think we old enough to know what should and what should not be posted in this forum.

Manu-6S
06-17-2006, 09:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cam1936:
4 canadians were killed in afganistan when an american plane dropped a bomb on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your point is????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think: The planes and bombs can always become smarter, the problem are the pilots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

BaronUnderpants
06-17-2006, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
and seriously - untill only recently have they had the technology to make this feasible

its been the desire for ages - everyone know the limiting factor in plane performance is the meat-bag </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Granted UAV:s may have a bit to go until they are battling it out in the sky but the primary role of any airforce today seems to be ground pounding first of all, taking out key targets cutting a path for ground troops...and UAV:s have that capebility today allredy. I mean, how many percent of air time is actuall dogfighting where u need the turning ability of say the Raptor, 1-2% ?

As for stealth, i my selfe ( highly personal opinion ) are convinced that, if not allredy at least in the near future there will be no such ting as stealth.

berg417448
06-17-2006, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_CUDA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cam1936:
4 canadians were killed in afganistan when an american plane dropped a bomb on them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your point is????????? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think: The planes and bombs can always become smarter, the problem are the pilots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not always...sometimes it is the fault of the technology:

One USAF Maverick antitank missile, launched from an A-10, lost its lock on an Iraqi target, went awry, and destroyed a Marine armored vehicle, killing seven Marines and wounding two others. In the war, US forces launched 5,278 Mavericks.
At least four AGM-88 high-speed antiradiation missiles "flexed" target frequencies in flight towards Iraqi targets and picked up secondary targets, which happened to be US radars. The HARMS struck two US ground sites, killing one Marine and wounding three others. On two other occasions, HARMS exploded near US warships but caused no casualties. US forces fired more than 1,000 HARMS.

berg417448
06-17-2006, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:


As for stealth, i my selfe ( highly personal opinion ) are convinced that, if not allredy at least in the near future there will be no such ting as stealth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Perhaps you are right but then again maybe not. Such thing as "Active Stealth" are being developed. And just last week I read about scientists who are developing a visual stealth system...the real world equivalent of the Star Trek cloaking device! http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P7837.htm

Who knows what might actually be built in the next few years.

Bremspropeller
06-17-2006, 11:42 AM
Blotto, was there any performance difference between small-mouth Block 30s and big-mouth Block 30s ?
I guess the big-mouths should produce more thrust through higher airflow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Blottogg
06-17-2006, 02:59 PM
Bremspropeller, the GE F110 small mouth added about a ton (2000 lbf) of thrust over the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW200 that I flew in training. The big inlet added about a ton of thrust on top of that. When we got them, we had to change our "no sight" defense. We used to turn hard for about 120 degrees, then unload to accelerate and look inside the turn for the bad guy. With the big mouths, we kept accelerating past corner velocity if we unloaded. We went to a "death spiral" no-sight defense, constantly turning (which was a lot of fun for the ole neck muscles, but much tougher to counter.)

The big mouth became common on the Block 40 and 50 IIRC, and they also got 29,000 lbf (or 32,000 lbf) versions of either the P&W or GE motors. They gained a lot of weight too, making the Block 30's the choice for knife fighting IMHO. The Block 30's analog fly-by-wire was supposedly a little "snappier" or crisp than the later blocks digital FLCS, or so I've heard. I never flew anything but Block 25's and 30's.

Bremspropeller
06-17-2006, 03:41 PM
So how'd you rate the F100 vs. the F110 (apart from the F110 having more thrust) ?

From what I've heard the F110 runs smoother and is less prone to compressor-stalls at high AoAs.
Another thing I've read is that the F110 either runs or won't run (if the engine fails, an attempt to restart will most propably fail), while the F100 always had a surprise left for the pilot, whether it'll start or not.

Seems like the GE is more popular among pilots and crew-chiefs.

BaronUnderpants
06-17-2006, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:


As for stealth, i my selfe ( highly personal opinion ) are convinced that, if not allredy at least in the near future there will be no such ting as stealth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Perhaps you are right but then again maybe not. Such thing as "Active Stealth" are being developed. And just last week I read about scientists who are developing a visual stealth system...the real world equivalent of the Star Trek cloaking device! http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P7837.htm

Who knows what might actually be built in the next few years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think iv seen some Discovery show about something simillar, that time it was for strike forces and such. Program was about new tecnoligy that is very doable but not yet developed. My thought about that however is: maby u can make it invisible, but its still there..right? So there have to be some kind of way to "see" it anyways, like i said, u can proppably make it invissible but u cant make it go away.

Of course this kind of stuff is only for thoose who can caugh up the cash for it wich makes it unnavalible for a majority of trouble makers.

huggy87
06-17-2006, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blottogg:
Thanks for pulling that quote Badsight. Yeah, he likes the Viper (so do I), and he raises some of the same points I do, plus a couple I hadn't mentioned here yet.

Training rules for BFM are that you need 15 frames of HUD footage with a "hot" pipper (the trigger has been on for at least the bullet time of flight to that range) on the target for a valid guns kill. You call "kill" and have the guy kill remove, and you don't have 15 frames, you owe the snack fund $5 (for every bad kill call... it may be more with inflation these days.) Two valid "snap" shots are also a valid kill. Looking at the same parameters Blue4 mentions, I referred to the shot as a valid "snap", not a kill, and even there I had to assume the pipper had been on for TOF. Like our righteously indignant Block 50 driver, I'm doubting our squid friend got a second shot. And unless they briefed a 500' bubble (minimum range) the squid owes $5 for busting the standard 1000' bubble, kill call or not.

I know this sounds like cheezy whining, but to quote someone from the Navy's own PR flick "...rules are there for your safety and the safety of others. They are not flexible, and neither am I." Going cowboy in order to be the first guy to post (classified) images of a snap shot on an F-22 is a good way to trade paint, or worse. Plenty of aicraft (Air Force and Navy, U.S. and foreign) have hit eachother doing dumb s**t like this.

It also answers my question about how this got onto the 'Net in the first place. Some dumb squid managed a snap shot on a Raptor and started thinking (or kept thinking) with his d**k instead of his brain. I guess Super Bug drivers are feeling even more inadequate than I gave them credit for, to explain one of them doing something like this. I've (rightfully) slammed the F/A-18E/F before, so I won't go into the details again. Suffice it to say that it's a good avionics package in a very mediocre airframe. To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from Hot Shots: Part Deux, after the Navy's many fighter procurement screw-ups, the Super Bug was "the best of what's left." I rarely had a problem with F/A-18C/D's in my Block 30, and the C/D actually has better performance (other than range) than the E/F. Blue4 is right that he would have little trouble dealing with an E/F (at any range) in his Block 50. Of course I could have taken both of them out in my Block 30 big-mouth http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah Blotto, it's a shame you lumped yourself in with that abrasive loud-mouth in the other thread megile linked too. I guess every ready room has to have one. His comments were low class and would embarass my AF friends who fly vipers.

Anyway, since I am one of those inadequate super-hornet pilots you mention (actually I have twice as much time in the C/D), I need to refute your claims. I have never had trouble handling the viper. I have always got the first shot, period. I've played guns only a few times, and that is definitely tougher vs. a viper, but I'm still in the + category. Every viper pilot I've ever fought has underestimated the hornet's ability to bleed and pull the nose around. I'd gladly take on a block 50 WVR or BVR in my 9X/helmet/mids/V3 but admittedly low P/W ratio hornet.

The point we agree on is that whomever posted that on the web is kind of an asshat.

LEXX_Luthor
06-17-2006, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Flying at Mach 1.5 and at 50,000 feet altitude, the F-22 released a 1,000-pound bomb and hit a ground target 24 miles away... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
ahh Retro-1950s. F-105 was designed for that mission back in 1959, but at Mach 2.0. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SkyChimp
06-17-2006, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:

In 15-20 years we will have groundbased missiles/pilotless ac doing the exact same thing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And our next aces will be kids with Cokes, a bag of Doritos, and a joystick.

SkyChimp
06-17-2006, 07:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVG_WarHawk:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Warhawk, what the hell would possess you to post something like that?

Blottogg
06-17-2006, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by huggy87:
Ah Blotto, it's a shame you lumped yourself in with that abrasive loud-mouth in the other thread megile linked too. I guess every ready room has to have one. His comments were low class and would embarass my AF friends who fly vipers.

Anyway, since I am one of those inadequate super-hornet pilots you mention (actually I have twice as much time in the C/D), I need to refute your claims. I have never had trouble handling the viper. I have always got the first shot, period. I've played guns only a few times, and that is definitely tougher vs. a viper, but I'm still in the + category. Every viper pilot I've ever fought has underestimated the hornet's ability to bleed and pull the nose around. I'd gladly take on a block 50 WVR or BVR in my 9X/helmet/mids/V3 but admittedly low P/W ratio hornet.

The point we agree on is that whomever posted that on the web is kind of an asshat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, he's a little more obviously abrasive than I am these days (when I was younger I probably would have been that obnoxious though.) Fighter pilots are rarely recruited for their self-doubt though. My comment was in a prior post, but to paraphrase; with HMS and IIR heaters, going to the merge these days is stupid (though still fun in training.) Having the blue aircraft equipped with this stuff too (finally) only means both pilots get shot down, instead of only one.

If the Vipers you fought tried throwing out the boat-anchor and turning with you at low speed, then they deserved to be spanked (and hopefully learned from the spanking.) By the same token, you've apparently learned not to try to out-climb or accelerate a Viper, but rather let the sight/missile combination do that for you. Which gets back to my first comment about merging in the first place. Vipers have JHMCS and AIM-9X these days, too. In a "Papas and guns" fight though (increasingly unrealistic, even if it is fun), I'd still put my money on a well flown Viper. It's better T/W will give it an advantage, one that increases the longer the fight goes on. Neither fighter is outclassed however. Both have an advantage in one area or another. My comment about the F-22 is that at least for the moment, it can beat both the Viper and the Bug at their own games. Nice work if you can find it.

Bremspropeller, the P&W's I flew were clapped out -200 models, which had a couple of throttle restrictions. I had two compressor stalls in about 80 hours at RTU (one the engine's fault, one equal parts me and the motor - both recovered to normal operation by the time I could get my eyes on the gauges.) In 800 hours with the GE, I had one catastrophic oil leak (it all vacated the engine in a few seconds out of a broken oil line) requiring a quick landing. Even with those experiences, I'd prefer the GE. It had no restrictions and more power. Later versions of the P&W (-220 and later) replaced the Electronic Engine Control with a Digital EEC, which got rid of the high altitude throttle restictions, and both families have 29,000 and 32,000 lbf versions, but I would still have more confidence in the GE. The maintainers actually preferred the P&W as being easier to work on (the Viper was designed for the P&W, while the GE was shoehorned in a few years later. Block 40 and later have a redesigned common engine bay that can take either engine, which may have helped maintain the GE.) Both have had occasional problems in roughly equal proportions IIRC (blades rubbing cases, the occasional catastrophic failure, etc.), so it's really just a personal preference based on personal experience.

Siwarrior
06-17-2006, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:

In 15-20 years we will have groundbased missiles/pilotless ac doing the exact same thing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And our next aces will be kids with Cokes, a bag of Doritos, and a joystick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


wooooohoooooooooo thats me already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif