USARStarkey

Seriously, does anyone know the answer to this?

Also, this is just my opinion and I'm sure many others will disagree with my tactics, but the following is the best way I've found so far to kill Flankers hiding low with as little as 2 in game missiles. 1. fly High at 40k. 2. go as fast as you can with full burner, about 680 knots. 3. Fly over mountains and be scanning 80miles out at 20k or less. Sometimes 15k or less. 4. Find a Flanker or Fulcrum. Fire 1 missile in TWS as soon as you get LA. Continue to track the flanker once he goes defensive while maintaining speed/alt and only fire again if he try's to nose up for a return shot. 5. Once nearly directly over top of him, nose down and fire a second missile Straight Down at him. Make sure you fire the missile as straight as possible. Missile will drop from 40k to the deck without losing hardly any energy even when maneuvering. At this point, you can either follow him and make sure he dies, or nose back up to keep your energy depending on the situation. 6. Because the missile is going down, the Flanker cannot slink behind a mountain to avoid it. Because it is going straight down, it wont loose as much E. And finally, He will have a very very hard time hitting you at 40k. I have only seen someone dodge this 2 times, and I have hit 27/and 29s maneuvering at everything from corner speed to 750 knots TAS. Another thing I think makes it hard to dodge is the straight down shot seems to confuse people and they dont know which way to go in order to get away.

Absolutely. Even if no precautions had been taken, F-22's could still be produced in the even of a war large enough to warrant the need. There was no basis for Raptor production before the first one was built, so there doesn't need to be any to start anew. However, the precautions that the report you posted detail, mean that retooling to make F-22's anew would be a much faster and less costly process than if nothing had been saved.

That was done by choice to protect the f22 financially by appeasing senators who would have an investment politically in the airplane by making it in as many states as possible. One would hope that during ww3 the industry would be somewhat nationalized like in ww2 to avoid this type of shit.

Moving away from stealth, does anyone know if the su35 can super-cruise while carrying a full load of AAM's

No I totally agree. But, it depends on how long the fight is. What you start a fight with is important. Otherwise there would be no point In having a military at all, we could just eyeball each other with our GDP's.

I agree that in event of ww3 there is a lot of truth to that statement regarding increased production. However, a great deal hinges on how long the war goes. What you start a war with is extremely important, if not, then everyone would just make prototypes and never waste money on actual production.

Ok let me get this straight. In my last point a I specifically stated that some things ARE just downright missing. Either you apparently cannot read, or you need to have your eyes checked. The primary example of something in which the information to model it perfectly is not available is the AIM-120's, unless of course you have suddenly acquired sensitive information regarding the guidance logic of the AMRAAM(in which case I'm sure the Chinese are quite interested, assuming they aren't already ahead of you.) I AGREED with you regarding the APG-63's capabilities after your first post. That is what "yes and more yes means"I at no point claimed that the APG-63 in game was modeled perfectly, merely that the Radar existed and is modeled as a "system." My POINT(imagine i'm speaking slowly here so you can understand) is that regardless of the clickable option, ALL of the aircraft in this game, for one reason or the other lack systems functionality in some areas. I listed 3 examples of things which are wrong due to information gaps. None of them were the Radar. Nobody is or ever was arguing with you about missing radar functions. I am comparing issues with clickable and non clickable planes. You mentioned you aren't arguing they have anything to do with it, in which case I'm not sure what your ranting on about at this point because that was all I was ever trying to Get across. If you don't have an issue with that, then there was never any reason for you to respond to me in the first place, as I never once stated the APG-63 lacked function due to limited information. More to the point, what was being debated originally about 6 posts ago was the existence of the systems with respect to buttons or no buttons, not what capabilities they have. This is why your very first reply makes no sense in the context of the conversation. I stated that Radar and ECM were modeled as a response to clarify on a previous post which was talking about the complexity of systems corresponding to the clickable functions. Nobody was debating the accuracy oe capability of the system compared to real life, as that would have nothing to do with the original argument regarding whether a clickable system somehow required more skill. When I mentioned the PFM engine systems being modeled beneath the hood, that had nothing to do with the radar. I was pointing out that just because you don't have buttons, doesn't mean that nothing is going on underneath. You then come out of nowhere on how the APG-63 and TEWS are a mere shadow of their performance, as if that has anything to do with what we were talking about. Lastly, YOU stop repeating the same thing. YOU do NOT get to tell me or ANYONE else in this forum what is and is not "in play" in a conversion. Get off your high horse.

That part is true about the specific functions. But what I was primarily saying is that this sort of thing applies to ALL of the planes in DCS. Clickable or otherwise. ED has specifically stated that some systems functionality and other capabilities were removed from A-10 for example. The Su-25's laser system has a contrast sensing feature that it doesn't possess in real life due to unavailability of the system at time of development. Yes, some things that could probably be implemented are just downright missing. But a great many more things are missing because the information required to actually model them is missing. The AFM for the missiles is a result of this. Simply knowing what something is capable of, and getting to do that in a computer simulation in a manner that is actually a simulation are two different things.

Yes and more yes. And the same applies to the a-10 and other clickable modules. Many electronic systems are this way due to inadequate information to model them. When ED got permission to export the a-10 as a civilian buyable module they had to remove quite a few features at the behest of the USAF. This sort of thing applies to clickable and unclickable modules. It is the main reason the missile AFM is under-modeled . Buttons has nothing to do with it.

The radar ECM and etc are modeled.... Or I've been locking on to targets with magic

Just to touch on what GGTharos mentioned, Pk is a terrible measure of missile performance. As a historical example, the AIM-7 in Vietnam got a Pk of only 20 percent if memory serves correctly. Doubtless the missiles of this age had plenty of issues, but it did not take 5 missiles to down every plane. The extremely low Pk of the 60-70's missiles is the result of how the results were tabulated and how the missiles were used. Due to some of the real issues with the missiles, pilots often fired 4 missiles right after another before even observing to see if the first one hit. This means that even if 3 of the 4 missiles hit the target, that is still only a Pk of .25! Missile problems were also exacerbated by pilots firing the missiles well outside the launch parameters of the missiles; ie; trying to things with the missiles they weren't capable of doing even on paper. The modern AAM's are the product of 40 years of missile and computer advancement. Nearly half a century. Do I really need to say more here? Also keep in mind that a weapons accuracy is a difficult thing to quantify. I doubt anyone would try to say that small arms are ineffective, but it you were to quantify their accuracy based on rounds fired/kills scored, you'd probably get the idea that either bullets are exceedingly inaccurate or people are incredibly tough! To use planes for example, late war gyro-gun sights allowed for very accurate shooting and planes carried enough ammo to easily make every pilot an ace, but you don't see everyone coming back with 20 kills a sortie. Same goes with modern jets. 75% or 100% of all missiles fired hit their targets, you would have a very short air war. A squadron of 16 F-15C's carries enough missiles to down half of Russia's 250 Mig-29's in a single engagement. You'd be hard pressed to find a single historical weapons system capable of actually getting results like that.

As a matter of fact, all of the "systems" are modeled on the F-15 PFM. If you read the documentation, even though you don't have to click fifty switched to start the engine, all of the engine processes and etc are modeled. I would hardly call it "simplified." Unless we are talking about very early WW2 piston fighters, NONE of the extra switches matter once your in actual combat, as everything you use is on the stick or mapped to the keyboard. I like clickable cockpits for the sake of cosmetic and historical authenticity, but they do not make you any more skilled, unless you consider it skill to memorize what to click in what order to take off and electronic boot up. It is completely ludicrous to argue otherwise.

F-22 pilots in training scenarios vs F-22's have said it was like blind men trying to kill each other. On a more speculative note, I read an analysis of the PAK-FA's design awhile back that indicated that its RCS would be even larger than the F-35s.

Ok, so I'm not sure what or who your responding to with those 10 points. But here are 10 more. 1. How they did it matters. You cannot remove context from something and expect and accurate analysis of the end result. 2. This has only been said about 50 times now. That is 187 more Raptors and than anyone else has. Also, in the event of protracted war, it would be ludicrous to assume that more would not be produced until something better appeared. 3. Your point? This is true of almost every weapons system not labeled as "asymmetrical" in western nations. The plane is still being built, and as of now, in large numbers. 4. The F-22 has defeated Gen 4 fighters many more times over even when out numbered. Also, how does the situation not matter? lol you cannot actually be serious. 5. There have not been enough AMRAAM's fired in anger to support that mathematically. Furthermore, Pk is massively misleading as a measure of effectiveness. And just as a note, F-15's with the Hugely undermodeled Amraams we get in DCS wipe the floor with Flankers nearly every time. 6. So....then your point is moot and you needn't have posted at all on the thread or listed any of these other things. You are the second person in here to have tried to simultaneously say everything is moot, and draw definitive conclusions at the same time. 7. Yes. This is a theoretical discussion. 8. This demonstrates your ignorance of the worlds economy as much as your incompatible logic. Just because person A loses money does not mean person B gets rich. Furthermore, there are many other factors to this. The science behind advanced equipment is generally known, but the TACIT knowledge is not. Aside from funding, this is a major inhibitor to developing advanced equipment. The Mig-29s Radar is a perfect example of a lack of TACIT knowledge preventing a reasonable development deadline. 9. 1 aircraft type alone has changed the course of a war multiple times in history. Also, if two powers are "equal" that would imply that they have either identical or equivalent equipment or a massive disparity in quality vs quantity, which renders your point moot as we are discussing the effect of disproportionate equipment and numbers. 10. Once again you insist that there are no answers to be found....after insisting prcisely the opposite. You seem to be of the opinion that either A: Stealth is useless or inconsequential. Or B: Nobody knows. Which is it exactly? :P

Your point on the 262 is valid ill give you that. Your point on 15 years is a what if that is for a different forum thread. Personally, while I agree with GGTharos that a high low mix of F-35 and F-22 will be more than adequate, I am a proponent of more F-22's AND F-35s. Ideally for me, about 500 Raptors and 1200 F-35s would be perfect IMO. But thats not what were going to get. Were going to get 200ish Raptors and a very large number of 35s theoretically, which will be more than enough to curb stop anyone. Your point regarding Taiwan makes me think you read the 2010 Rand survey on Pacific defense. They made some decent points in that survey but failed to take into consideration a great many more, for example they seem to assume in that scenario that the US will be fighting alone. The most important thing though is that you are simply stating a problem that would exist FOR ALL aircraft in a Pacific air battle. That area is huge, for everyone. The united states could pick any aircraft in the world an still have basing issues etc. That has nothing to do with the planes and everything to do with tactics and geography. The same could be said of difficulties faced AND overcome during WW2.

Ok let me draw a picture for you. Anyone taking on the U.S. has to go against 400 plus F-15's of various levels of upgrade, 1,200 F-16's, 3-400 F-18s, and then to boot: 187 5th Generation F-22 Raptors. There are also 100 F-35s but they aren't really what i'd call operational. The Russians on the other hand field a motley crew of 50 odd gen 4.5. 4.5+ fighters of dubious operational strength. 300 or so Flankers mostly of the original S variety, and 250 some Mig-29's. The Chinese field 400 or so regular Gen 4 fighters of all types (J11,10/Su-27)and only 70ish Su-30. This means that the US air force is fielding nearly as many F-22's as the Russian are fielding Su-27 or Mig 29 individually. They are also fielding more than 2-3 times as many 5TH Gen fighters that feature stealth, super-cruise, thrust-vectoring etc, as their opposing force is fielding Gen 4.5 aircraft! So far as "global power" is concerned no, 187 raptors cant be fielded everywhere, but neither can the other sides Gen 4+, and there are enough Raptors to massively tilt the balance of any fighter battle wherever they are needed. As an example, During big week in February 1944, 70 odd Mustangs operating from Two fighter groups were enough to HUGELY tilt the odds in favor of the Americans even though they were far from the most common type at that point in the war. Also, the F-22's abilities reach far beyond its piecemeal combat value in fighter vs fighter combat. Imaging for instance if a force of only 10 F-22's bolster a force a 100 F-15s vs 100 or so Flankers of the Su-30 variety. If those two Raptors sneak in and take out the AWACS for OPFOR, that alone would most likely have a bigger impact on its own than if the Raptors shot down a whole squadron.

FINE ENOUGH. Since you are clearly incapable of listening to reason and disregard all information that doesn't support your hypothesis-----HERE are some irrefutable facts: THERE are 35 Su-35 in Russian service. There are only about 40 ever produced. THERE are 187 Raptors in US service. End result? There are so few Su-35s in existence that they may as well be considered not to exist relatively speaking. EVEN IF you were right about the drivel you have been spouting for that last 28 pages, which you are most assuredly not, the number of Su-35's in existence makes the aircraft completely inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. In summary: Who gives a hoot.

Well, well, well. You made a point that doesn't mention the F-117. However, let us analyze this in more depth than you seem to be willing to go to. We have no idea what the geometry of that engagement was, or what the load outs of the aircraft were. Either aircraft might have been loaded with disproportional stores options, or nonequivalent fuel loads. There is always the HUGE factor of pilot skill. If you watch the video you will notice that the Rafale does pretty much nothing but High-Yo-Yo's that entire fight. Despite this, the Raptor is giving him one hell of a time. Nothing is proven performance wise in this film. According to earlier reports, the French claimed a kill on a F-22 with a Mirage 2000. Are you going to start claiming the Mirage 2000 is therefore far superior? While were at it, here is definitive proof the the F-15 is a huge waste of money and the P-51 Mustang is still the best fighter in the world. Jet engines are a huge waste of time. Just like Stelt. That video was not staged. Took place online, the eagle pilot was just dumb, or trolling. At the end, I get kicked for team killing. I was returning fire however. In the video you will see that the F-15 fires a burst from its Vulcan at me twice.

Yes because 600 billion dollar RnD programs and 100+ million dollar planes bought for their stealth is justifiable if you are just trying to gain something that is such a tiny advantage that is "something" over "nothing".............

Once again you exercise your magnificent powers of grammer. So if stealth is so useless, why does every single 4.5 Gen fighter like the Su-35/Rafale have a reduced RCS on some level? Furthermore, if the Su-35 is the baddest thing in town, why do the Russians need to develop the PAK-FA at enormous monetary expense? If they can produce Su-35s for 65 million USD and shoot down 140,000,000 dollar Raptors, why do they need to make 100 million dollar PAK-FA's and utilize the same "useless" as you would say-"Stelt" technology. Also, stealth only means not invisible in a purely academic sense. Aircraft and ground based radars filter things as small as the F-22 out because if they didn't they would be useless against all aircraft because the screen would be full of ground clutter. If it doesn't appear on the radar scope- it is effectively invisible. With the right frequency, you could pick up the raptor, but you'd also be looking at a screen so busy that it would be completely useless to you and you still wouldn't be able to see the raptor.

Iv'e noticed something. You seem to think that the F-22 and F-117 are the same thing, or at the very least that a stealth aircraft are the same in capability. Furthermore, you should know that the F-117 that was shot down was the result of massive effort of coordinated air defense units trying to stop a single plane. They managed to jury-rig a radar system to find the F-117 and then guess where the F-117 was in the ground clutter. On top of this, they had to rely on visual spotters, and the fact that they knew where to point their radar to find the F-117 because the Americans had been flying the exact same ingress route every day.

about 35, contrasted with 187 raptors.

That what I was saying lol

Not sure if this was a direct reply to me or not. In any case, the point I was making still stands. System failures or not, it doesn't take a genius to go through a checklist and flip some switches in a certain order. Don't misunderstand, I love fully clickable cockpits and I am a fan maximum detail on aircraft modeling. I do not think that in most cases it has much bearing on the results of combat unless were discussing old WW2 fighters managing prop pitch before the age of the constant speed propeller.