Indian Su-30MKI to Red Flag '08

[Pilotasso]

Like a been pointing out before, What make the F-22 distinguish from the rest of fighters is the engines, there is no EOS or radar that will save u from them.

And pilots talking about not be able to fix their systems on F-22 in visual range should try the Old soviet made EOS instead of radar.

 

at wich range? well inside the AMRAAM's NEZ? AFAIK Pilots were complaining about their IR systems as well.

[GGTharos]

Here is a clue for you: The 'old soviet EOS' had a head-on range of about 15km against after burning targets. This is right in the manual. Not ONLY does the F-22 NOT need to use its afterburner, but it's IR suppressed to boot. IR weapon seeker sensitivity is even worse than IRST/EOS.

 

There's no EOS or radar currently that will save you from an F-22 ;)

 

Like a been pointing out before, What make the F-22 distinguish from the rest of fighters is the engines, there is no EOS or radar that will save u from them.

And pilots talking about not be able to fix their systems on F-22 in visual range should try the Old soviet made EOS instead of radar.

[Teknetinium]

at wich range? well inside the AMRAAM's NEZ? AFAIK Pilots were complaining about their IR systems as well.

 

don't see the point why? Even if the F-22 would have completely cold exhaust, the plain it self would still be hot and IR seekers see just that when scanning for head on targets spotting them at 15 km.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Teknetium

[GGTharos]

Sure, I guess if you're willing to be blown up 6 times by the time you get in range for your IR seeker to lock onto an F-22 ... that's if you even know it's coming.

[Teknetinium]

GG dont u think its a little bit childish talk about who blow up who? I think we al know the answer..

But just to remind u it toke 3f-16s to bring down the F-22,

and if u compere the cost of the plains.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Teknetium

[Pilotasso]

don't see the point why? Even if the F-22 would have completely cold exhaust, the plain it self would still be hot and IR seekers see just that when scanning for head on targets spotting them at 15 km.

 

I ask again, at wich range? Like GG said against a 30 year old fighter that soviet EOS can pick up a target up to 15km. At that range its a good idea to run away rather than pressing against a voley of missiles.

 

Range and timing is averything at BVR. And I have been supprting the fact that if you own the BVR arena you will merge at an advantageous position, theres no way you can trust a system that short legged assuming there are no cluds blocking it.

 

GG dont u think its a little bit childish talk about who blow up who? I think we al know the answer..

But just to remind u it toke 3f-16s to bring down the F-22,

and if u compere the cost of the plains ?

 

unnusual feats are more likely to stay in memory rather than boring routine. :)

And we are talking about scripted exercises where you aquire the tremendous abilty to materialize out form hyperspace at the order of the AF command. :)

Edited August 5, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Teknetinium]

I was not talking about Russian made eos its u who started it!!! i WAS asking why the AF had problems getting the F-22 on their systems in visual range?

 

again visual range!!!!!! Pilotasso.

[GGTharos]

You really have a penchant for picking arguments that seems to support your point WITHOUT actually looking at the big picture.

 

The F-22 engaged 4 F-16's in WVR after expending its 6 AMRAAMs on other enemy aircraft, AND acting as mini-awacs and SA multiplier than others.

 

So now we have let's say 10 F-16 vs. 1 F22 lost, just out of ONE flight of a SINGLE raptor. At the MOST expensive raptor estimate, 300 mil, that raptor almost paid for itself TWICE, putting aside the fact that it just wiped out half an enemy aircraft squadron on its own.

 

These exercises were flown with actual working missile seekers onboard aircraft. It took the F-22 running out of BVR weapons and having to engage MULTIPLE opponents WVR SIMULTANEOUSLY to bring that F-22 down, and it STILL shot EVERYONE down.

 

Start getting your analysis a bit more correct instead of blindly throwing out quotes without thinking about what they really mean.

 

GG dont u think its a little bit childish talk about who blow up who? I think we al know the answer..

But just to remind u it toke 3f-16s to bring down the F-22,

and if u compere the cost of the plains.

[Teknetinium]

It doesnt change my facts that it takes 3 F-16s to bring F-22 down. Raptor doest have missiles to kill more.

[504Goon]

Lockon missiles or real life AMRAAM's ? :D

[GGTharos]

Actually it took 10 F-16's. The first 6 had to die to give the other 4 a chance at a WVR fight ;)

So yeah, it does change 'your facts'. Let's re-evaluate your 'facts', too. That F-22 engaged 4 F-16's WVR. By the time they knew what was happening, and one of them had finally maneuvered into a position to attack the F-22, it had gunned two, used heater on one, and mutual killed the 4th with a heater. That's despite the F-16's using AIM-9X and helmet cueing, while the F-22 was using the inferior AIM-9M.

[Teknetinium]

I call that a good commercial.

[GGTharos]

I call the EOS a good commercial :D

 

I find it amusing that you like to dispute your own 'fact'.

[Esac_mirmidon]

I don´t believe at all in a 100% PK of AMRAAMs, anything fired have a 100% success ratio. Fired by a F-22, F-35 or any other. Also inside 15 NM.

 

This is why i don´t believe in a " 6 F-16 shot down in a row ".

 

F-22 is unbeatable today, his capabilities in BVR, radar perfomance, supercruise and agility makes a winner mix in all circunstancies, but please, 100% do not exist in anything in this world, AMRAAMs is not an exception.

[Teknetinium]

I find it amusing that you build Ur facts on just seeing one side off the apple.

[GGTharos]

What? ... coming from you .... :megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol:

 

 

I find it amusing that you build Ur facts on just seeing one side off the apple.

[GGTharos]

I don´t believe at all in a 100% PK of AMRAAMs, anything fired have a 100% success ratio. Fired by a F-22, F-35 or any other. Also inside 15 NM.

 

Missile kills in exercises are based upon firing in correct parameters (stricter parameters than in actual combat) ... so you are correct, some missiles might miss of fail if actually launched. And so could have the one missile that they finally managed to shoot at that F-22.

 

This is why i don´t believe in a " 6 F-16 shot down in a row ".

Even if 'just four' were shot down, the other two would have most likely aborted in a real-life situation.

 

F-22 is unbeatable today, his capabilities in BVR, radar perfomance, supercruise and agility makes a winner mix in all circunstancies, but please, 100% do not exist in anything in this world, AMRAAMs is not an exception.

This is correct; that's why you fly in pairs :D

So far, all AMRAAM launches taken together (including those fired in poor parameters, possibly with knowledge that they would miss) indicate a Pk of 0.6. According to 'some sources', when fired in parameters the AIM-120Pk is more than 0.9.

So, I'd say 'close enough' to 100% since the F-22 enjoys the advantage of getting into VERY good parameters to fire without threat to itself.

[Pilotasso]

I was not talking about Russian made eos its u who started it!!! i WAS asking why the AF had problems getting the F-22 on their systems in visual range?

 

again visual range!!!!!! Pilotasso.

 

No need to stress it out. I am relaxed. :)

 

however you seem to have forgot what you said and fall into contradiction.

 

And pilots talking about not be able to fix their systems on F-22 in visual range should try the Old soviet made EOS instead of radar.

 

Ok so soviet union is not russia...but your pushing it to the edge of semantics :D

[Teknetinium]

Now when I was thinking about it, F-22 has some sort off stealth paint, it could be some sort of material that reflect heat better. So the IF seekers were useless?

Edited August 5, 2008 by Teknetium

[mvsgas]

I do not know any performance number for the F-22 or its missiles but I have talk to many pilots that have flown against them in mock combat and they all say the same thing:"It is not F&^% fair!". I do agree that not one weapons system out there has a 100% PK, I do not believe they practice in in BFM training. I think ,and don't quote me on this, that if the aircraft being fire on (e.i. the target aircraft) does not do any defensives maneuvers to defend against the mock missile lunch it is consider a hit, I have been told that most of the time they don't even get a RWR warning (since there is nor real missile that goes active I guess) So they don't even know they got fire upon until they are told they are dead.

Like I said, I do not know how the F-22 track target without giving a RWR tone and I do not know any specific why it is so unfair. I'm just repeating what some pilots have told me. Other mechanics have told me they have seen pilots so frustrated after flying against the F-22 that they have come back to the parking spot and "chug" a JHMCS helmet of the pit. Those things are expensive, very expensive, and must be very frustrated to just "chug" one out like that.

Edited August 5, 2008 by mvsgas

[GGTharos]

The F-22 has some RAM coating, but it's minimal compared to earlier generation stealth aircraft - it's all about shape. It would be too expensive to maintain F-22's otherwise.

 

The IR seekers were not useless. They were simply, and predictably, limited in useful range in a head-on engagement.

[GGTharos]

LPI radar: It hops frequencies and changes PRF so often, plus uses random revisit times instead of predictable timing, that the RWR tends to classify it as a spurious radio signal.

 

Like I said, I do not know how the F-22 track target without giving a RWR tone and I do not know any specific why it is so unfair.

[Pilotasso]

Now when I was thinking about it, F-22 has some sort off stealth paint, it could be some sort of material that reflect heat better. So the IF seekers were useless?

 

You seem to see things in absolutist terms when you should face it in more relative terms.

 

Its not that its useless, its that by the time, or before you get to be able to use it, your likely to be already fired upon.

[Teknetinium]

You seem to see things in absolutist terms when you should face it in more relative terms.

 

Its not that its useless, its that by the time, or before you get to be able to use it, your likely to be already fired upon.

 

 

sure that's nothing new thx to the stealth and radar,

I just dont see the problem locking a F-22 in IF, Im not talking about that u have 100 amram flying at u at that point.

 

interesting if AF pilots were talking about that u get a missile in face before getting a IF lock? or that they had problems to get it while already in visual.

[mvsgas]

I wander if there are any Indian Air Force website or forums that say how they did in Red Flag against other aircraft types. Any one here speak Hindi?