D-Scythe

Heh, it's not really the issue, but more the timing I think...guess it's that time of the month huh? :p

Just frustrated, is all. Some Hornet guy gets the pleasure of killing an F-22 in a mock gunfight, and all of a sudden Super Hornets are these super deadly slow speed dancers that people shouldn't mess with. Or even worse, people saying that the Raptor is not up to spec, the pilot sucks, etc. This is like the 4th thread in a week about this incident, and everytime I hear the same thing. At first, it was amusing to see people judge the Raptor and Hornet based on these two pics, but then it got repetitive. Like honestly, nobody knows the *real* capabilities of the Raptor, and now these two photos are being used as proof for these ridiculous notions and ideas all because of ONE Raptor under the piper and inside the ROE bubble of a Super Hornet. A Raptor wouldn't BE in this situation in real life. Cause that Hornet would be dead 30 miles before the merge.

My point is simply that this was bound to happen, and I don't get why people are making such a big deal about it, saying things like "Yeah, this is proof how LETHAL the Hornet is at low speeds - see? it can shoot down the F-22," or "a $350 million dollar plane is only as good as its pilot" and generally just blowing things out of proportion. Neither the Raptor or its pilot is perfect, so by saying the pilot screwed up by being where he is absolutely ridiculous. These Raptor guys were *put* there, you know, in slow speed gun fight, with the Hornets, and probably outnumbered too. Any sane Raptor pilot wouldn't risk a low speed knife fight in most circumstances anyway, so this is just practice. *Nobody* screwed up the fight set up, because the Raptor pilot is just doing this *intentionally* for practice. Secondly, you say the F-22 is invincible, but then you say, and I quote: . If you say it doesn't matter how many kills a Raptor gets if he is NOT supposed to be killed, then how are you saying that the Raptor is not invincible? By its very definition being invincible means not able to be killed. This is training. Guys play "dead" because nobody's perfect. Doesn't mean that all the stuff the pilot has learned, all the guys he called out dead, doesn't matter. Man, I hate to see everyone's reactions when one of these birds suffer an FBW failure or something and the pilot was forced to eject over a combat zone (which is extremely likely to happen). Then it would be like, "OMG, we lost a Raptor in Iraq! Crap, I thought we had air superiority! This is proof that stealthy, advanced aircraft are crap and we should all just revert to guerilla tactics!" Nobody made a big deal over a "dead" F-15A back in the 70s in mock engagements with F-5s and other simulated OPFOR jets. Wonder what all the fuss is about now.

I never said the F-22 was invincible. In fact, I specifically remember stating explicitly that it was not. Yet, the point that the pilot screwed up keeps coming up repeatedly. Is there any proof that he f#*ked up? In fact, from those photos, all I see is a relatively non-maneuvering F-22 being engaged outside of training ROE by a Super Hornet. Yes, in combat, there are no rules, I know the score, but do you really want to explain to the U.S. government how you lost a $350 million airplane in a training hop against an aircraft you and your squad-mates have defeated many times before? No, didn't think so. I see zero indication of any screw up. Yeah, perhaps the Raptor pilot lost SA, but it is a new airplane, the controls and stuff are new and unfamiliar, and it could've been a massive 8 vs. 2 furball for all we know. And in a furball, it's easy to lose SA, especially when you're flying an unfamiliar jet, no matter how powerful it may be. So again, I fail to see where it's the pilot's fault. It could just as easily be the F-22's fault, actually, or maybe the scenario had 3 Super Hornet's parked on the Raptor's six right from the get go. Besides, the F-22 pilots are still new. I'm actually surprised that their F-15 and F/A-18 adversaries haven't been faring better against them.

And how do you know he screwed up? For all we know, he could just be cleaning off his third Hornet when this Hornet pilot made this gun shot. Hell, there could may still be 2 other Hornets out there for all we know. Is there any proof that this was 1 vs. 1?

Yeah, the Su-30MKI does have the advantage of 3D TVC, so it can probably pull off better yaw-ing maneuvers and such. On the other hand, the Raptor does have a ridiculous thrust-to-weight ratio, so it'll probably be able to more quickly move from one maneuver to the next, or simply accelerate out of a low speed engagement if given the chance. I can't imagine an F-22 finding itself in a slow speed knife-fight in actual combat though. If it does, then either the pilot screwed up or an AWACs is being threatened or something and the guy has to fight a bunch of MiGs with his gun.

Um, papers include envelope charts ;) And if you compare the turn rates of the F-15 and the F-16, you'd see that the F-16 is "superior" on paper because overall it turns better across its flight envelope. The F-22 IMO is the first fighter that is absolutely superior to any existing operational fighter on paper. If you compare its turn rate graphs with any other fighters (if you can get it unclassified), it probably is vastly superior to the F-15s, the Eurofighter's, Rafale, Su-27, MiG-29, etc. For so much money, each Raptor is designed not just to "beat" the opposition, but absolutely dominate it. This fighter can probably fly to the centre of the F/A-18E's turn circle and hover there, keeping its nose pointed on the Hornet all day long. Nothing (operational) comes close. BTW, I think the F-15s kill record is 100 (104?) : 0 ;)

Have you seen some of the high alpha, low speed maneuvers the F-22 can do? The Super Hornet is awesome at low speed fighting, no doubt, but the F-22 is like a Super Hornet with TVC and with 4 extra engines. Honestly, there really is no contest, IMO. The F-22, on paper, is by far superior to every other operational fighter currently in existence, in almost every, if not all, respects.

Well, I don't think there are any indications in that photo that the F-22 screwed up, is there? :p For all we know, that Raptor could've been outnumbered 4 to 1 and have just gunned down his third victim before this guy breaks the ROE and makes a quick gun kill. You're willing to risk a mid-air with a Raptor? Better safe than sorry and keep the 1000ft ROE bubble. Currently, it costs $350 million, with R&D costs and crap factored in. With only 180 airframes, each is technically worth that much. However, to build a new Raptor would not cost $350 million...flyaway cost I think is something like $180 million? About half of that.

Are you guys kidding me? For every second a Super Hornet puts a Raptor under its gun piper, I gaurantee that there are at least 300 seconds a Hornet has been under the Raptor's gun piper. There would be so much dead Hornet footage that it wouldn't be worth watching. Wow, one Hornet got a shot off...big deal. The Raptor's not invincible. I'd like to know how many Hornets died before this Raptor would've. In any case, it has been established that the photos above aren't valid shots. The Super Hornet broke the ROE where it must stay 1000ft away from the F-22. Don't want a mid-air with a $350 million airplane now, do we? [ Actually, I think the F-22 can claim to be superior to any contemporary fighter in every part of the flight envelope. I don't even think the Super Hornet stands a chance in a low speed fight with an F-22.

...and I think any new flight sim is a good thing for our little niche of the gaming market.

What, about the limitations of the delta wing? Honestly, you can just google it if you want. Some sites may be full of BS, and others won't get into too much detail, but you'd get the general idea. There's a huge difference from slowly working your way up to 9Gs then sustaining that for 10-15 seconds then jumping from 1 to 9 in a short time period. In extreme cases, such a rapid onset of g-forces may induce G-LOC. Now it's my turn to ask you for proof. Did I ever say the M2000 cannot hold its own? I just said that there were limitations to the delta wing and that it is not uber. Which is why I included it with the F-16CJ Block 50s as one of the more agile fighters...?

No pilot in the world can go 1 to 9 Gs in 1.2 without blacking out almost immediately. In fact, can anyone say G-LOC? Keep in mind, most of the stuff people advertise is purely useless. Other examples include the 14 AAMs the Super Hornet can carry, or the F-15 going Mach 2.5+, or the Eurofighter being capable of accomplishing 91% of what the F-22 can. People just like to blow their horns.

IMO, you'd be wrong about that. The only thing the M2000 does exceptionally well is instantaneous turn rate. It's pretty good at everything else, but is by no means uber. I know for a fact that an F-16A or a Block 50+ F-16C would perform equally well if not better than the M2000. An F/A-18, MiG-29 or even an F-15 would also have a clear advantage at lower speeds. There are trade-offs with the delta wing ;)

Um, what? You guys do realize that delta wings impose some penalty in sustained turn rate right? But yeah, instantaneous the M2000 is for sure up there. BTW, 13.5Gs means nothing. The pilot will black out well before then. IMO, the most maneuverable non-TVC fighter is the Su-35-something-something, whatever crazy designation the Russians gave it or the Raptor. All TVC fighters can do everything it can without TVC as it can without, with the new FBW stuff coming out.

Toronto...I actually had no idea Canadians were so well represented in LOMAC :)

Canada! :p

Not relevent. MICA IR is not only much newer but it also was designed for a different role than the ET. And I would like to see how the Rafale's optronics would search for targets BVR. And filter out all the IR noise and clutter. To prosecute a stealthy attack. By itself.

It's unbelievable that there are people who think that LOMAC cannot be wrong. Radar missiles are undermodelled - that's a fact. Anyone who knows the basics of doppler radar operation should know that. It's one of the major realism killers in the game. Eagle Dynamics have stated themselves that chaff is most effective head-on or tail-on, but then you have people like shamandgg claiming that this is not the case. And then I post a track proving ED is right and then a counter-track is posted that was the biggest waste of my time, simply proving that yes, the AMRAAM can reacquire the target if you fly perfectly headon at it, at the same altitude as the missile and you stay centred on the missile. Christ, why the hell would an AMRAAM need to be guided then? A unguided rocket would do in a pinch if targets are expected to stay nice, level, at the same altitude and directly head on. These are the same people claiming the AMRAAM is overmodelled. They post a track of how a situation where an AMRAAM should kill its target, which turns out to be an ideal air-to-air unguided rocket kill. Now who's wanting to castrate who's weapon? Anyway, here's my bit on why radar missiles are undermodelled. Taken from "Introduction to Airborne Radar" by George Stimson: Note the highlighted key points. And yes, an MTI radar would also be a doppler radar. Note also the footnote: guess what it says to do? This passage illustrates the only instance where chaff would be effective: So let's see...in LOMAC, we have modern doppler radar missiles that are especially vulnerable to chaff at every aspect except 3 and 9 o'clock. This text says that chaff should only work at all at 3 and 9 o'clock. But LOMAC is always right, so this guy must be wrong too. Oh, and then we have the main topic, which is punctuated by accusations of incompetence courtesy of the new statistics boards, where we have one person interpreting the Su-27SK manual in his own way where we have already come to the general consensus (by Russians, people who speak Russian and Russian weapons enthusiasts) that no, the R-27ET cannot be maddogged.

Well, if there's a cloud somewhere between you and the missile, or over a city, or you're near the sun, moon, or popped flares in anticipation of being shot at, the chance of the R-27ET locking you gets cut to ribbons, It's just as likely to lock onto anything else.

Alfa too? Ok, gotta reply to Alfa. I was saying that a maddogged 27ET (I know, no such thing) is unlikely to acquire a target on its own at long range, so LOAL. Shepski asked what was long-range. I said a long-range maddog shot for an IR missile I guess would be over 8 miles. Assuming there is no excessive IR noise (i.e. ideal situations), and the target isn't offering its tailpipe for lunch. I think you're talking LOBL when you state your ranges? Oh! Ironhand too. I think what GG is saying is that inertial guidance is not accurate enough to automatically place the target within the missiles' 2.5 degree FOV cone, or somewhere close to it. And if the ET doesn't have datalink for mid-course updates, any maneuver by the fighter would likely trash the missile completely. IIRC, UK's Tornado ADVs had this problem even with their AMRAAMs. There was no midcourse datalink updates available initially, so the implementation of AMRAAM, a radar missile with far superior target searching abilities than the ET, was delayed until the datalink thing could get sorted out. Thus, even if the missile is pointed in the general FOV of the target, chances are it would probably still not be enough. EDIT: Damn, can't find the source right now. Maybe some other time.

For an IR shot? Anything over 8 miles I suppose. It is (to an extent), but it's a useful analogy :p But it should matter. Just because the noise isn't modelled doesn't mean the limitations of a weapon shouldn't be there. Otherwise, what's the point of playing a simulation where one weapon has all its advantages (where every shot is considered ideal) while the next weapon has these limitations? BTW, ladies and gentlemen (mostly men), if you would please download Shamandgg's track, you would see that it demonstrates wonderfully the ability of the AIM-120 to reacquire the target if the target is dumb enough to stay perfectly centred in its FOV. Ok, that was my last post. Promise. Even Shepski can't get me out of this one :p I just don't feel like arguing with people who think all missiles are the same except for physical performance. I'm not gonna even touch that one with a 30 mile AMRAAM. Nope. My AMRAAM would implode.

You're describing a perfect situation. Theoretically yes, it would work. But there are problems with a long-range IR missile. One issue is look-up. A look-up target can very quickly become a look down target. Moreover, although the chances for target acquisition is increased in a look up situation, missile range is greatly decreased (not modelled in LOMAC). The other issue is seeker FOV. If you maddog an IR missile and hope it finds a target (i.e. in a typical maddog situation) for the missile it would be like trying to find a target by looking through a straw. Factor in flares (if flares were released before the missile acquired the target), clouds, and other IR noise, all from which the IR missile cannot distinguish if these heat signatures are noise or viable targets, and you see how unlikely the scenario of a successful long range IR launch is.

Thought I was done with this thread, but you are Shepski...:p AIM-9 mode in scan mode is also cued. There's a circle in the HUD that represents the FOV right? When that missile seeker is over the correct heat signature (either by maneuvering that target inside the seeker FOV, or by letting the missile scan around your HUD...think that was called uncaging, not sure), you fire the missile. So essentially, you are telling the AIM-9 what to lock onto as it scans around its FOV. That's why early HMS, which don't provide an indication of what the SRAAM has locked onto, but merely that it has a lock, had some problems because the pilot had no idea what the missile had locked onto and is tracking. The problem is filtering out the important IR signatures. Feel free to prove me wrong. EDIT: What I mean is that there's a difference between uncaging the seeker and letting it scan for targets (from which you in turn can decide to shoot once the seeker is locked onto a particular target) and just firing the missile blindly and hoping that it locks onto a target after launch. In the latter case, IR missiles are going to lock onto everything in its path. Radar missiles would at least attack moving targets, because it has doppler to filter out clutter. Again, anyone who knows better, please correct me.

LOL, your a funny guy. Yes, I'm an armchair pilot and also an A/A combat enthusiast, but at least I know what I'm talking about. I don't just google crap. I don't deny that I am an armchair pilot like you do. Let's sum up the score shall we? Me: I proved through my tracks that it is quite possible to party all day long in the best conditions possible for a radar missile shot (look up, NEZ range). In fact, I proved that you don't have to do anything - just press the chaff button really fast. You and friends: My tracks are garbage because that's our opinion. People who think otherwise go against our opinion and are stupid. Me: IR missiles should not be able to be mad-dogged, and if there is LOAL capability (i.e. inertial guidance), it should be limited because the nature of an IR seeker does not allow it to scan for targets like a similar missile with radar can. Basis is that radar can filter out clutter through the doppler effect. You: The R-27ET should behave like radar missiles. If you don't think so, you're a whiner. Let's bash other people's posts. Me: In an attack with IR and radar missiles, Soviet pilots are taught to fire IR missiles first just to be safe. You: That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Let's bash post more, give more factless opinions and just pretend we know it all. That sums up the score pretty nicely. Remind me to ignore you in the future.