Su-25T...what a turd

[pyromaniac4002]

The Raptor vs Typhoon dogfights are factually accurate.

 

Just one source, please? I've never heard anything like that, and it's not something you should expect people to just take at your word.

[JCamel]

There's simply no way that anyone involved in choosing between the YF-22 and YF-23 expected thrust vectoring to do anything "harrier-like." Being able to maintain control past 110 degrees angle of attack is useful in its own right, and to boil the worth of thrust vectoring down to whether or not you can pull some Tom Cruise, stop-in-mid-air move is pretty ridiculous. Just because the Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring doesn't mean you need to pretend that

If you read my posts, you'd see I was actually comparing it to the YF-23. The F-22 beats the Typhoon because it has stealth okay but the YF-23 had a lower RCS and if you research the stats, you'll see it was better by almost every parameter.

 

And I'm sure you're using the assumption that the F-22 is flying on a full tank of gas while the thrust-to-weight figures you're using for the YF-23 may be 50% fuel, given that the F-22 boasts a much more comparable 1.26 T/W ratio at 50% fuel.

Loaded weight for both aircraft.

 

 

:megalol:

 

I don't get this beef that Typhoon fans have with the F-22. A Typhoon isn't exactly what I think of when someone asks me about the F-22's arch-rival, so why is it so offensive to admit that an F-22 will simply outmatch the Typhoon on most, if not all levels? It's a $150 million plane, it damn well should. It's the nature of a 5th generation aircraft versus a 4.5.

I'm not a Typhoon fan for one and is it really so difficult to admit that compromises had to be made when building the F-22 for stealth, like making it larger for internal fuel and weapons stowage. That is not without detriment to weight and performance.

 

Now for a quick token Su-25 comment... I think it's a fine aircraft. It's not pretty, it's relatively old, and I tend not to fly it, but in the right hands it's definitely an effective aircraft. It would need to be for having been around in one form or another for so long. I'm right there with you in admitting that when I'm choosing my slot on a server, I'll always take my beautiful death machine A-10C over an Su-25T, but it doesn't mean the Frog is a waste of time in its company.

I'll agree with that having used both on DCS. I wish the Su-25T had the A-10s avionics package but I also wish the A-10 had the Su-25T's weapons versatility, like SEAD ability and more AT missiles.

 

What's really needed is an armoured Harrier for CAS exerises but that doesn't exist.

[JCamel]

Just one source, please? I've never heard anything like that, and it's not something you should expect people to just take at your word.

Straight from a pilot's mouth. I don't know why some people find it so hard to believe that a plane designed for stealth may have some shortcomings due to compromises made in achieving that goal.

 

I suppose if I told you that an F-22 would never win the Red Bull air race that would upset you too?

[GGTharos]

If you read my posts, you'd see I was actually comparing it to the YF-23. The F-22 beats the Typhoon because it has stealth okay but the YF-23 had a lower RCS and if you research the stats, you'll see it was better by almost every parameter.

 

Do you think that having lower RCS than an F-22 means much of anything at that level of stealth? You have to reduce RCS 16x to halve detection range. If it was a little faster, so what? If it had greater range, then it also needed to have 10000lbs more loaded weight; sorry, the PW119 engine will not take it to greater ranges than the F-22 on just half the fuel. Maybe the 120 could have (somewhat doubtful), but that engine was rejected as being rather risky.

 

 

Loaded weight for both aircraft.

 

On wikipedia? Try putting some brains behind your claims instead of just quoting wikipedia. Try it right now and you'll see where you've gone wrong. It's funny to see a loaded weight with a total payload of some 12000lbs and then a claim that it has about 18000lbs of internal fuel or more and can go farther than an F-22. Which one of these is true?

 

 

I'm not a Typhoon fan for one and is it really so difficult to admit that compromises had to be made when building the F-22 for stealth, like making it larger for internal fuel and weapons stowage. That is not without detriment to weight and performance.

 

Actually those aren't bad compromizes, and they are in fact advantages in some cases; while your internal payload is more limited, cutting out the drag of external stations and stores increases efficiency, meaning longer ranges, better acceleration, etc. I'm not sure what you're on about since the YF-23 was working with the exact same set problems, and IIRC, had a more limited weapons payload.

[GGTharos]

Actually I'd take Eddie's word over your claim that you spoke with a pilot any time of the day; he actually has the right creds.

 

Straight from a pilot's mouth.

[NineLine]

I have factual data stating that if I was flying an F-22, a Typhoon would kick my a$$, I spoke to a virtual pilot about that, namely me, yes I talk to myself in the cockpit.

 

As for the Su-25T, I am just getting into it myself, I think tank busters should be a little ugly, save the sexy for the fighters. As for in the sim, its hard to compare the 2, I am a button masher, and by that I love flicking switches with my mouse, thats the only short coming for me with the Su-25T, otherwise it does as its creator intended, bust tanks, expect with the Car Vinson I placed shoots me down when I specifically asked it not to :)

[pyromaniac4002]

Straight from a pilot's mouth. I don't know why some people find it so hard to believe that a plane designed for stealth may have some shortcomings due to compromises made in achieving that goal.

 

I suppose if I told you that an F-22 would never win the Red Bull air race that would upset you too?

 

Yeah, see, this "he said, she said" thing isn't something that counts for a valid source. If there was something on the internet that was at least half reputable, it would be helpful to see it because I think the F-22 can certainly hold its own in a WVR engagement with a Typhoon. It's not a matter of "well, it's designed for stealth, so it's not maneuverable," it was designed for both and it does them both pretty damn well. You characterize it as though these Raptor-flying jerks are a dime a dozen when a Typhoon can get in close on them, and that to me seems a little unbelievable (as it does for a lot of people). And there was the other guy earlier that said they've never actually met in any exercise to date, so if there's something you can show that even establishes that they've gone head to head, it'd be a start.

[Eddie]

The closest the Typhoon and Raptor have ever gotten to doing DACT together so far is both airframes sharing a ramp at China Lake while we were over there doing bombing trials.

 

We haven't even taken the Typhoon's over to Nellis for Red Flag yet. In all of the NATO exercises in which it has participated Typhoon has never gone against or operated with the Raptor, although it has "killed" every current gen.4 NATO aircraft in active service, including the lesser Typhoon's out there (not all Typhoons are created equal). I understand that the German's have gone to Red Flag in Alaska, but that's about it.

 

EDIT:

And unless the Raptor driver is useless, or the RoE etc heavily favour the Typhoons, or the Typhoon pilots are just damn lucky, the Raptor damn well should win the fight.

 

Saying that aircraft X has beaten aircraft Y during exercise Z is totally meaningless, unless you know the parameters and RoE for the engagement in question. Typhoon is(was) regularly beaten in DACT by Tornados, Harriers, Hawks many others. But in each of those DACT exercises it was supposed to loose because the point of the engagement was for the other side to learn.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Eddie

[joey45]

How to de-rail a thread...

 

Mine is bigger then yours.

 

 

Thought this thread was about the Cy-25..?

[Eddie]

How to de-rail a thread...

 

Mine is bigger then yours.

 

 

Thought this thread was about the Cy-25..?

 

Yeah but you can only talk about a jet with WWII "avionics" for so long before it gets boring. :P

[joey45]

^^

True..

[pyromaniac4002]

Yeah but you can only talk about a jet with WWII "avionics" for so long before it gets boring. :P

 

+1 :lol:

[Corrigan]

Mine is bigger then yours.

 

 

 

In the NATO trials mine was found to be 25-35% larger than yours.

[JCamel]

Yeah, see, this "he said, she said" thing isn't something that counts for a valid source. If there was something on the internet that was at least half reputable

Right, so the internet is a more valid source than an actual pilot. Good one.

 

I never said anywhere that a Typhoon could get close in on them, I said that the F-22 always won BVR but guess what, they still train for VR dogfights anyway. So yes the F-22 can kill it BVR and that is the design intent of the F-22 but in VR dogfights the Typhoon can win some.

 

We haven't even taken the Typhoon's over to Nellis for Red Flag yet. In all of the NATO exercises in which it has participated Typhoon has never gone against or operated with the Raptor, although it has "killed" every current gen.4 NATO aircraft in active service, including the lesser Typhoon's out there.

You mean Rafales. ;)

Edited July 17, 2012 by JCamel

[NineLine]

Right, so the internet is a more valid source than an actual pilot. Good one.

 

Well you just put it on the internet so now it must be a valid source :D

 

really though, saying you talked to an actual pilot sounds sketchy... look at it from the other side of the interweb ;)

[GGTharos]

Right, so the internet is a more valid source than an actual pilot. Good one.

 

His point is that you aren't reputable. Eddie is.

 

You mean Rafales. ;)

 

He means Typhoons :D

 

I'm sure you've heard of the Spanish Typhoons getting beat up by Portugese F-16's, haven't you? I guess F-16's can beat Raptors too! :D

[JCamel]

Well you just put it on the internet so now it must be a valid source :D

 

really though, saying you talked to an actual pilot sounds sketchy... look at it from the other side of the interweb ;)

Exactly. Not all NATO training results get posted on the net though.

 

In other news, the plane Clint Eastwood stole was used as the basis of the F-22. That must be true now too - it's on the net.

[NineLine]

Exactly. Not all NATO training results get posted on the net though.

 

In other news, the plane Clint Eastwood stole was used as the basis of the F-22. That must be true now too - it's on the net.

 

Not everyone knows an F-22 pilot either... so you see where this is going right?

[GGTharos]

Unless it's on EUCitizen forums, you read this wonderful analysis by a guy whose nick is 'Picard' and who quotes APA as a source :D

 

Exactly. Not all NATO training results get posted on the net though.

[Tango]

You can have the best hardware in the world, but it doesn't mean anything if the pilot flying it doesn't know how to handle it.

 

How does the F-22 handle a jet that is RF cold? It becomes a blob on RADAR that he can't ID. Should he shoot or not?

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Tango

[JCamel]

Not everyone knows an F-22 pilot either... so you see where this is going right?

Not everyone knows Typhoon pilots either but guess what, I worked at BAE SYSTEMS for 4 years and am almost tired of seeing Typhoons and Typhoon pilots.

[Jona33]

Not everyone knows Typhoon pilots either but guess what, I worked at BAE SYSTEMS for 4 years and am almost tired of seeing Typhoons and Typhoon pilots.

 

And I believe Eddie works on Typhoons. I think we can trust him.

[pyromaniac4002]

Exactly. Not all NATO training results get posted on the net though.

 

In other news, the plane Clint Eastwood stole was used as the basis of the F-22. That must be true now too - it's on the net.

 

That's why I said "at least half reputable." Believe it or not, there are actually corners of the interwebs where little bits of truth accidentally fall into the cracks. Since we're not having this discussion at the local library branch, I thought maybe you could find one single instance of something on the internet backing up this supposed fact you're pushing, for convenience's sake if not absolute factual certainty.

 

Why you've chosen to argue the semantics of proof with the time-honored "the internet is a lie" route instead of actually looking for anything that mentions an F-22, a Typhoon, and a WVR engagement in the same sentence is evidence enough that, besides your supposed pilot connection, you don't have the slightest reason to think this.

[RagnarDa]

Love it how this thread turned into YET ANOTHER Batman vs Superman debate. Those are stupid because anyone knows Batman would win totally. I just don't agree with Batman opting for wheels on his Batmobile, because according to Wikipedia the original plan was for him to use tracks. That would so totally change the battlefield and he would like win 122.3% of the time instead of just 101.8% of the time. And according to my uncles best friends cousin, who also is a superhero, it was all the politicians and military planners fault. They don't know ANYTHING about nothing.

[RagnarDa]

As for the OP:

 

I've flown Su-25T quite a lot in DCS:W and i love it. The thing is you have to spend atleast as much time you spent learning the avionics of the A-10C as you have to spend learning flying the toad and what tactics to use. I can say that when playing online I beat most hog-drivers scoring-wise (and I take out the SAMS) aswell as able to take them down in A/A whenever I feel like it. Hogdrivers tend to spend too much time looking down at their MFDs which make them easy targets, and the Toads speed is a big advantage. A good tip is to also to work constantly with the autopilot as a fully loaded t-toad flys as gracefully as an elephant on rollerblades. Its very rewarding leaving behind 16 burning Abrams using only the Vikhr weapon system, at a fraction of the cost of using western counterparts.