F-22 Raptor "sucks"

[nscode]

Oh... don't even think about drawing conclusions about real world based on lo ;) (if that is what you were doing)

[GGTharos]

I'm only concerned with air forces ijozic, I know the USSR had strengths elsewhere. You say that it isn't fair, but this is how it is, fair or not.

The MiG-29A -did- have some advantages, but the 16 already outperformed it when it came to radar search, and the poor thing simply had little to no change against F-15s in a straight-up fight.

 

SAMs were doing well, especially in quantity for the USSR, but don't brush the HAWK aside. THat thing was dealy and feared. About the only thing (and it's not a small thing, but it is the only thing) that the Russians got on top of HAWK was the SA-11's multiple launch capability. Now if you argue that overall, Russia has a better IDS right now? I totally agree. NATO seems to simply not be set up for that sort of thing, they like to rely on fighters instead.

 

tflash, the F-15C in LO isn't even an F-15C. Heck, the radar doesn't have half the function the F-15A had. In an AMRAAM vs. R-27 match, guess which wins?

 

THat's right ... the brand-spanking new, 2 billion-dollar project ... AMRAAM.

THere isn't even a contest, and you don't have to like it.

[Pilotasso]

OMG rattler you dont have a clue about these two jets do you? EF is nowhere near F-22 and particulary not in RCS. EF has just reduced RCS and is not considered a stealth plane. Add to this weapons and it has the very visible radar signature. EF has traditional shape, while F-22 has not, kinda boxy looking as you san see. If we are to compare these 2 jets, this is the area where Raptor is the most superior to the Typhoon. Period. I say again Eurofigher is NOT a stealth plane.

 

The difference between the F-22 and the EF-2000 is often overrated as most people have no idea how evil the Eurofighter realy is. RCS of the Eurofighter may not make it disapear in the sky but you will have trouble keeping a lock on radar wich will most likely disrupt any atempts to successfuly execute a BVR run. When the meteor comes along it will simply voley those msisiles before you even can engage it. Much like the raptor does with the AMRAAM.

[Pilotasso]

This should be where Alfa comes in; since I always thought that that is what we are flying: An Su-27P against and F-15C with amraam and there is no Lockon statistics that proves the Eagle to be "clearly on top"? ;)

 

What we think that is lacking in the sim, like IFF and some useful MPCD animation, wouldn't shift the balance so dramatically that Lockon would become unplayable.

 

Besides, the MSIP program offering full integration of all this systems only finalized in the late nineties, not the early.

 

Lockon is not realistic enough to translate those results into real life potencial.

 

First because the AMRAAM in this game is much more flawed than the real thing. Second because the R-27 has parity if not superiority of PK by most pilots here. Thirdly because online pilots use wrong tactics.

[Ukr_Alex]

Reading and absorbing all the info in this thread, but I had to pop in and say this.

 

Pilot training is King.:smilewink:

 

Might sound old school, but its simply the reality.

 

In order to be a good force you need pilots who know their machine inside out, weakneses and strengths, who know the enemy inside out.

 

We are still flying against weapons that can be out run, radars that can fail, missles that can fail, and pilots that can fail.

 

There still is a large human factor in all this.

 

 

Saying that 1980s Flankers will fall from the sky like flies against anyhting new is pushing it bit. I still got a radar, that still can see and that can still fire good weapons. So whose the biggest factor in all of this? The pilot.

[TucksonSonny]

The F22 have to compete against new R-77 Ramjet and Meteor Ramjet missile capable fighters while having no ramjet missiles itself in the near future.

 

The only reason why the F22 was developed in the first place was to beat the S-300 AAA in the cold war era and even in that category it did not make it.

:smartass:

 

@pilatoss,

 

I have a little experiment for you:

 

Take a plastic model of the Su-27/35 whatever and throw it in the air.

Next take a plastic model of the raptor made in the same scale and throw it in the air.

 

If you did the experiment properly you would see that the raptor hit the ground a lot faster than the Su -model!

(even a brick-model would fly better than the raptor model )

[GGTharos]

... And who gets to do more training? :)

 

Right. ;)

 

As for R-77's ... with the AMRAAM being of dubious utility against an F-22 (USAF's own admission and worry) I don't think the R-77 is going to be a particular issue, ramjet or no ramjet.

[nscode]

@pilatoss,

 

I have a little experiment for you:

 

Take a plastic model of the Su-27/35 whatever and throw it in the air.

Next take a plastic model of the raptor made in the same scale and throw it in the air.

 

If you did the experiment properly you would see that the raptor hit the ground a lot faster than the Su -model!

(even a brick-model would fly better than the raptor model )

 

and here's an experiment for you: properly fit a jet engine to a brick and it would fly :pilotfly:

[Pilotasso]

The F22 have to compete against new R-77 Ramjet and Meteor Ramjet missile capable fighters while having no ramjet missiles itself in the near future.

 

The only reason why the F22 was developed in the first place was to beat the S-300 AAA in the cold war era and even in that category it did not make it.

:smartass:

 

@pilatoss,

 

I have a little experiment for you:

 

Take a plastic model of the Su-27/35 whatever and throw it in the air.

Next take a plastic model of the raptor made in the same scale and throw it in the air.

 

If you did the experiment properly you would see that the raptor hit the ground a lot faster than the Su -model!

(even a brick-model would fly better than the raptor model )

 

 

I also advise you before buying a new car to first try and sit on a match box miniature of that model and see how confortable it is to drive. :D :P

 

[S77th-konkussion]

The F22 have to compete against new R-77 Ramjet and Meteor Ramjet missile capable fighters while having no ramjet missiles itself in the near future.

You have a source for that-or just something you made up on the spot? How would you know about any projects in development?

 

The only reason why the F22 was developed in the first place was to beat the S-300 AAA in the cold war era and even in that category it did not make it.

 

Um.... what? :megalol:

[Ukr_Alex]

... And who gets to do more training? :)

 

Right. ;)

 

Indeed, but that point remains.

 

I dont see any military giving any problems to USAF or NATO in general.

 

But to say that a 1980s Flanker is useless in a top pilots hands is a bit much. Although you never said anything about pilots ;)

 

And I dont know who operates 80s Flankers. I know that Ukraine's flankers where of 90s production. Or thats what I found out in the russian part of the forum. Not that it would make a whole lotta difference on the grand scale.

[GGTharos]

I mean technology-wise ... but then again, I don't know what they put in those flankers, nor how many of them there are :)

 

I know there are countries with contemporary flankers and migs out there. The VVS however doesn't have much beyond what they originally had, so it -seems-.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Capable? Okay. But it doesn't have any. See the difference? If there was a fight -today- those early 1980's flankers would be getting dropped out of the sky like flies.

Well, you don’t see the difference. First, you agree that Russia was technologically at par with USA. Then you fail to recognize that Russia did NOT need to produce the quantity, because lately, Russia has not been waging conquering, offensive wars. USA did, therefore in needed a quantity of aircraft of all types.

 

And BTW, no country in the world will start war against Russia –today-! USA or terorrist in Chehcnia could have 5000 F-22’s however, that would not be enough to mess with nuclear power such as Russia. So your assumption that Su-27’s would be dropping from the sky is a bit childish.

 

And Russia is not Soviet Union any more. A lots of people still can not comprehend that.

[cool_t]

Sucks?

 

Ahhhh, lets not even talk about the F-22 or tossing off plastic planes in the air, lets talk about what we fly.

 

Some people have a hard time with "Vulching" and I say the F-15c is great for taking out SAM Radar (Guns) Some of you saw me last Sunday RAF-Dedicated. SAM Site waxed by Cool_t F-15c by guns.

 

Go head on, dont black out and posistion your self to think like the Ninja; then we will talk about plastic tossing off.

 

:P

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well, you don’t see the difference. First, you agree that Russia was technologically at par with USA. Then you fail to recognize that Russia did NOT need to produce the quantity, because lately, Russia has not been waging conquering, offensive wars. USA did, therefore in needed a quantity of aircraft of all types.

 

OK, so Russia has been limiting the quantities of weapons produced apparently. So, are they also not putting fuel in the aircraft they DO have, to let their pilots get enough stick time to be effective in combat because they don't need to? No!!! Its because they cannot fund it, which is the same reason their aircraft and other weapons are being built in smaller numbers. It has everything to do with economics and very little, if anything, to do with the political views of anyone on this board.

 

...BTW, no country in the world will start war against Russia –today-! USA or terorrist in Chehcnia could have 5000 F-22’s however, that would not be enough to mess with nuclear power such as Russia. So your assumption that Su-27’s would be dropping from the sky is a bit childish.

 

The last major exercise of Russia's nuclear forces didn't go all that well, as was even reported in their own newspapers. There is no need to call someone else's argument childish. Do you think Su-27s fly themselves? The Su-27, by its very nature, is a more difficult aircraft to fly than the F-15, which requires more training and flight time in order to stay proficient. Yet, Russian flanker pilots, because of funding, get a fraction of the stick time the average Eagle driver gets. The Eagle is, from everything I have read about its flight control system, an easier aircraft to fly. This allows its pilot more bandwidth in his brain to concentrate on the fight and not so much of it goes to keeping the plane in the air. So, as great as the Flanker is, the odds are still stacked against the guy who flies it. This has nothing to do with a "we're better than you" argument, its just based on what it takes to be effective in combat, and what the opposing sides are financially able to provide to their pilots.

[rattler]

"The aircraft is constructed of carbon fire composites, glass-reinforced plastic, aluminium lithium, titanium and aluminium casting. Stealth technology features include low frontal radar cross-section, passive sensors and supercruise ability". That is a statement from the site I suggested you visit. Does the word Stealth appear or am I seeing things. Before you s--t on me and tell me I don't know what I talk about, go read for yourself, that is why I put the Link in. It is not my words but of those who know more about what we are discussing than even us. I don't say anything without research, not saying I don't miss things. All I ask is if I give you a place to read data on the subject, at least have the curtesy to look before you wrap me on my knowledge. Sure the F-22 is pacted with technology Ef-2000 is too. Who is to say which is best. I think I will leave that to the PILOTS that fly the A/C.

[Guest IguanaKing]

What many who comment in these threads don't seem to understand is that "stealth" is a word which relates to low-observable technology. Low observability is now becoming more of a priority in aircraft design, and many new aircraft are being built with this in mind. The difference comes in when aircraft, due to their design, employ this technology to varying degrees. So, the Typhoon and Raptor, by strict definition are both "stealth" aircraft, but to what degree? All we, as the average aviation enthusiasts, can go by is public domain RCS figures. ;)

 

I'm sure no Raptor pilot will be scoffing at any aircraft he is sent up against. Overconfidence leads to complacency, which leads to the enemy pulling the upset and shooting your butt out of the sky. That's what happened with the F-117 you mentioned before. It wasn't the pilot, but the commanders above him. The enemy knew exactly where and when to look for him because F-117s flew that same route, at the same time, every day. Now, if someone hosts an Easter egg hunt and hides the eggs in the same places every time, even the youngest of the kids (who are old enough to be self-propelled) are going to start finding eggs in an amazingly short time. :D Stealth doesn't work if you use it like its some kind of magical cloak of invincibility, it was never intended for that purpose...and STILL isn't.

[Pilotasso]

Im still awayting to see how any of you would figure out tactics to shoot an F-22 if a flagrant oportunity is not presented to you in a platter.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It has everything to do with economics and very little, if anything, to do with the political views of anyone on this board.

I do agree and I do know that Russian military has huge economical problems. However, that’s different subject to discuss.

 

The last major exercise of Russia's nuclear forces didn't go all that well, as was even reported in their own newspapers.

Well, the first F-22 crashed on take off and recently fire fighters had to use a chainsaw to free the pilot from the cockpit. Does that mean that USA advanced fighter program is not “all that well”? No, as a matter of fact, F-22 program is doing very well.

 

There is no need to call someone else's argument childish.

Me and GGTharos are on this forum for years! We discussed a lots of diferrent subjects. I have a lots of respect for GGTharos and hope that he did not take that statement personally. If he was offended and let me know I am ready to offer my apology.

 

This has nothing to do with a "we're better than you" argument, its just based on what it takes to be effective in combat, and what the opposing sides are financially able to provide to their pilots.

All that you’ve said here is all right. I do agree that Russian pilots do not get enough training.

 

However, allow me to ask you a question. Which country would attack Russia? Give me a president of a country that will declare war on Russia today? Why would Russia spend millions of dollars on training pilots that have nobody to fight against in any foreseeable future? Russia is not USSR any more is it? Russia does not have to fight wars for resources, do they?

 

It probably is better idea to spend money on social programs then on training unrealistic number of fighter pilots.

 

I lived, actually worked in Russia for three months. I’ve heard something very interesting there. Vasily, my friend once told me “war is the only way to unite Russia”. So Russia might look weak now, however, I would recommend not to mess with the BEAR.

[wsoul2k]

Right, and they're still 10-20 years behind. They shot down one F-117 which they KNEW was going to be there, using optical tracking. The pilot didn't see the launch and didn't maneuver to evade. And? ;)

 

Sorry G ...but i have an interview from the pilot in a local magazine and he cleary state he saw teh ENTIRE engagement and he know from the start he would be hit.

 

But he let some dubious point in HOW the defense could obtain a Lock on him

[wsoul2k]

And Yugoslavian Air Defense Force did not shoot down more F-117’s (and other aircraft) not because it is a stealthy aircraft, but because Yugoslavians could not turn their radars on.

 

F-22, F-177 and all other aircrafts are just elements (subsystems) of the entire system. F-117 never fly alone. B-2 needs several dozens of support aircraft during the mission.

 

F-22 is good airplane, however, it is the overall system strength that allows many specialized aircraft to do a little bit, so as to get great result of the overall system.

 

 

Wrong ..they always fly ALONE....why shuld i send a STEALTH aircraft side by side with an NON stealth ???

 

it just dont make sense

[Pilotasso]

Please do not divert from the original thread into another nationalistic pissing contest. We are here to see if finaly everybody understands 4rth gen AA tactics, if not let they present their thoughts on how they would do it instead of making ambiguous and unclear suggestions.

[rattler]

Stealth

 

Thank you for your last post on what Stealth means. You explained it perfectly. I hope PILOTASSO reads this and Please PILOTASSO lets not get personal but discuss the issues. I like the EF-2000 and you the F-22 does that make us wrong. Both A/C have new technology and we can only speculate on what it can or can not do as so Iguanaking has stated so nicely.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well, the first F-22 crashed on take off and recently fire fighters had to use a chainsaw to free the pilot from the cockpit. Does that mean that USA advanced fighter program is not “all that well”? No, as a matter of fact, F-22 program is doing very well.

 

Actually, it didn't crash on take-off, it crashed during a low pass over the runway. Even the pilot of that aircraft said, "Yup, should have seen that coming. Its a bad idea to do any low-altitude work in the initial stages of flight testing." You're talking about two aircraft, as opposed to an entire network of nuclear force machinery. Lots of nodes in that network failed, we're not talking about two jets.

 

However, allow me to ask you a question. Which country would attack Russia? Give me a president of a country that will declare war on Russia today? Why would Russia spend millions of dollars on training pilots that have nobody to fight against in any foreseeable future? Russia is not USSR any more is it? Russia does not have to fight wars for resources, do they?

 

I can't think of anybody wanting to attack Russia. However, your point doesn't seem to address the fact that Russia is still very much a country that is concerned about its security and defense. This has been true since WWII, and still is today. The differences in technology between the US and Russia are based on two different ways of thinking. Russia has been very much about building equipment for long, drawn out conflicts. The US has had a philosophy of making a quick kill. This is evident in the design path the two countries have taken. Who's way is better? Well...that depends on which side is able to make the other fight on their terms. ;)

 

It probably is better idea to spend money on social programs then on training unrealistic number of fighter pilots.

 

In a socialist country, sure. :D

 

I lived, actually worked in Russia for three months.

 

That makes two of us. ;)

 

I’ve heard something very interesting there. Vasily, my friend once told me “war is the only way to unite Russia”. So Russia might look weak now, however, I would recommend not to mess with the BEAR.

 

I totally agree, and nowhere did I say Russia looked weak. They are doing the best with what they have available. Quite frankly, they are exceeding what anyone could logically expect from their limited financial resources. Education is MUCH more important in Russia than many other places (including the US), and they've got some of the best minds in the world...but funding holds them back. So, they ARE doing their best, and not simply lying down because they don't have anything to worry about. Do you understand the point I was trying to make now? ;)

[Pilotasso]

I hope PILOTASSO reads this and Please PILOTASSO lets not get personal but discuss the issues. I like the EF-2000 and you the F-22 does that make us wrong. Both A/C have new technology and we can only speculate on what it can or can not do as so Iguanaking has stated so nicely.

 

You must be confusing me for someone else, because never did I become personal, instead, trying to prevent others to do so, and I do not do this "I like the F-22 and you like EF-2000" thing because again you must have missed much of my posts here, starting right from the first one.