OT: F-22A Raptor goes operational

[Guest IguanaKing]

The "comparisons" taking place here are nothing more than jealous whining. Be sure that the praise would be non stop if the plane belonged to any one but America.

 

Exactly right, Konny!! :beer:

[Guest IguanaKing]

Mid air refueling won't help because standard US warplanning takes those out in the first fight, those would probably be the Raptor's first targets along with AWAC's. Remember you can run for a little while and hook up to a tanker, but the Raptor is still coming with plenty of fuel and while you're hooked up to the hose you're dead meat, as tankers only fly around 300 knots.

 

Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't exactly be wise to place a tanker anywhere near the airspace in which hungry enemy fighters were known to be operating. In-flight refueling isn't an instantaneous zoom to the boom and zoom out procedure...it eats up LOTS of time.

[TucksonSonny]

The "comparisons" taking place here are nothing more than jealous whining. Be sure that the praise would be non stop if the plane belonged to any one but America.

 

Konkussion,

I just don’t believe in that 6:0 kill ratio against the F-15C.

Anyway the 22 was already killed once in recent exercises (I think by an F-16) Thus outnumbering is a problem.

BTW, I live in Belgium (NATO HQ)

[S77th-konkussion]

Sorry I don't follow- 6:0?

[Yellonet]

The F/A-22 would be a pretty crappy project if it didn't have any advantage over older aircraft.

[S77th-konkussion]

Oh the f22 vs the F15.. Not familiar with all the circumstances behind whatever exercise that was. Neither is much of anyone else. Plus I don't put a lot of stock in stories like this. It's part of the development. They could have been doing and or testing any number of things.. Combine speculation with a desire to marginalize and voila!!

[Guest IguanaKing]

Konkussion,

 

I just don’t believe in that 6:0 kill ratio against the F-15C.

Anyway the 22 was already killed once in recent exercises (I think by an F-16) Thus outnumbering is a problem.

BTW, I live in Belgium (NATO HQ)

 

Sure...outnumbering is ALWAYS a problem...but how long could someone sustain a war if they had to send up 8 or 10 aircraft just to kill one? How long could they sustain a war if they had to triple their number of AAA batteries, SAMs, and radar...along with the personnel and logistics to support those? BTW...what kind of "exercises" were you referring to for the F-16 kill of the F-22, joint exercises or IOT&E?

[bflagg]

 

Occasionally I cruise on line for about 60km at mach 2.3 with the Su-27 @ 15km alt with 2 R-73’s left.

The Raptor can’t even go over mach 2. :icon_supe

 

 

?? you're trying to compare real life against a sim???

:rolleyes:

 

It will take another 10 years before a competing nation can come close to this bird..

Just like the F15.. it took 10 years before 27 was rolled out (and 29 a few years later?)

 

We come out with a AIM9 ...and a few weeks later.. voila...another country has it..

Dam..we come out with a Chevy and the chinese will copy it.....exactly.

 

I'm not saying the usa comes out with everything then everyone copies it.. but jeez...

comparing a game that's not even right and compare it to reality?

[Caretaker]

I do so love watching the debate.

 

Doesn't it get a bit boring over the years? ;)

 

Now, I totally understand why nobody likes the F-22. I don't like it either :p For 90 years now we've had all these classic matches - Spad vs. Fokker, Spitfire vs. Messerschmitt, Wildcat vs. Zero, Sabre vs. MiG-15, Phantom vs. MiG-21... and the F-22 is really the first in this line that simply does not have an opponent on the "other side". Makes for some very unbalanced gameplay in a flight sim indeed :p

 

The F-22 is the climax of this development that started 90 years ago, and I don't have the slightest doubt that it is way ahead of any other plane in its primary role - simply because no other plane has been developed with the same combination of low observability, performance, the latest sensor and weapons technology and the integration into the overall force network. We can discuss all day whether some of these features are not so important in certain situations, but that doesn't change the fact that this should be a killer combination, even if maybe not everything works quite as perfect as advertised.

 

And if it will never be needed, all the better - nobody's really looking forward to a conflict where the US F-15 fleet would not be sufficient to gain air superiority.

[bflagg]

haha they barely had it IOC'ed and they are already going to give the russians "a message" LOL.

 

I think it's more for the chinese...

 

they've been beating their own chests as of late...

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

bla bla i'm a merrikan homo

 

Yes, you are, and...

 

[Alfa]

Yes, you are, and...

 

Goodbye!

 

- JJ.

[D-Scythe]

Konkussion,

I just don’t believe in that 6:0 kill ratio against the F-15C.

Anyway the 22 was already killed once in recent exercises (I think by an F-16) Thus outnumbering is a problem.

BTW, I live in Belgium (NATO HQ)

 

How was the F-22 killed?

 

It's okay if you don't believe in the Raptor, but if you're going to say things liek "an F-16 killed a Raptor," either provide some proof, or people will think you're just making stuff up ;)

 

So far, everything I've read states that the F-22 literally wipes the floor with anything it comes into contact with. According to Air & Space's November issue, pilots find ACM with other aircraft boring as hell. The F-22 could literally fly into the middle of its enemy's turn circle and keep its nose pointed on it all day.

[GGTharos]

I heard that one too, but it doesn't matter much when the KD ends up being something like 20:1 or better. And that's against pilots who know your weapons systems.

[Reticuli]

Raptor's top speed is classified, but test pilots have implied it is capable of 2x the speed of sound. Most high end jet fighters have speed limits that are thermally and/or structural based, rather than a fault of the engines. This aircraft's airframe and engine efficiency would probably allow it to go at least as fast as an F-15 if you didn't care about expensive damage, especially to the vectoring nozzles in the back. You don't want to spend much time significantly above mach 2, whether it's an F-15, Su-27, or F-22. In real life you'd cause a severe amount of stress on a Su-27 flying at mach 2.3 for 60nm. Suddenly its low servicing requirements go right out the window, not to mention in real life your fuel is vanishing. The F-15 has soft limits implimented to prevent pilots from doing that. That was likely one reason why Boeing had such a hard-on for making their JSF out of thermoplastics, that and a bunch of other classified stuff they'd like to do with those materials. And the fact that Raptor could accelerate with afterburner to get above the tropopause much faster than you could (much better engine response and climb efficiency) and then sustain mach 1.5 at much higher altitudes than you could for essentially indefinite periods means its ground speed and range values are far exceeding any other aircraft, including your lowly Su-27. And like I said before, its top speed is a secret. Mach 1.52 is simply the the ratio to the speed of sound its airframe and engines perform at their most efficient at around 44,000 ft. Thats a true speed of over 915kts that it can continue with for 5000nm of flight without ever refueling. Add refueling at some point prior to the engagement or on the way back after its killed you and that's even longer. It can sustain level flight with MIL power at even higher alts, and with AB even higher still. With just MIL power alone it can reach mach 1.9 and semi-sustain 50,000 ft. That's 1150kts without any AB still. If you compare true airspeed (ground speeds), the Rapter is not at any disadvantage speed-wise even based on public information. Even with a very conservative top speed with soft limiting of, say, Mach 2.1 (it probably just can't reach 2x the speed of sound without AB)...or just under that, Raptor can still semi-sustain that with afterburner, some mild zoom climbing, and significantly exceed 50,000ft. That's over 1250kts TAS, and with its altitude the kenematic-induced range of its weapons, things do not look good for your lowly Sukoi. And adding the efficiency and sustaining ability at slightly lower flight level & TAS makes its capabilities just plain mindboggling. Like I said, try comparing the aircraft performance of Total Air War to Janes F-15. Both are very accurate representations of each aircraft and you can see just what an advantage it is. Oh, and that difficulty for a conventional fully loaded jet fighter just to sustain mach speeds above 20,000ft is realistic in the Janes sim. All that drag turns the F-15E into a pig, making it difficult just keep up with a tanker. The C and the Su-27's with AA loads are certainly an improvement, but no where near what a Raptor can do. And a Su-27 loaded with a strike package starts encountering some of those same issues as the Strike Eagle (E).

 

Pfff, what is the deal. Almost a year ago the hundredth eurofighter went operational and more than 700 will follow.

 

Occasionally I cruise on line for about 60km at mach 2.3 with the Su-27 @ 15km alt with 2 R-73’s left.

The Raptor can’t even go over mach 2. :icon_supe

 

Oh and the difference between mach 2.3 and mach 2.1 (again, a conservative top speed) is only 133kts. So your aircraft would only get a small lead, then would have to drop its speed and altitude way down. When you throttle down, the F-22 only has to drop to 44,000ft and mach 1.5 to get the best fuel efficiency possible for it and will easily overtake you kenematically. And that's with a conservative top speed based on public info. Even if it's capable of it, though, there's really no reason to stress the aircraft beyond mach 2.1. You're just as dead either way and there's no point increasing the post flight servicing costs on our Raptor tailing you. Hence the soft limits that test pilots said are in place on the F-22.

[BladeLWS]

FYI Konkussion the the 6 F-15 vs 1 F-22 is an old record. The new record is 8 F-15's vs 1 F-22 and that was not long ago, the Raptor came out on top, the Eagles never saw it.

[jpm1]

I see a passioneted debate about F-22 against SU-27 personnally i do not have anything against us planes but if you want to compare the F-22 compare it to something equivalent

seems USA is ready to invade France lol (hey americans i m joking ;))

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I see a passioneted debate about F-22 against SU-27 personnally i do not have anything against us planes but if you want to compare the F-22 compare it to something equivalent

seems USA is ready to invade France lol (hey americans i m joking ;))

That is exactly what I was going to say as well! Su-27 is now 25-30 year old design right? You can not compare that with F-22.

 

BTW, F-22 and Sukhoi and any other aircratft out there is just a part of a SYSTEM. So the success of the F-22 will depend on the way it is implemented. For example MiG 21 can kill F-22 under certain circumstances.

[Reticuli]

Are the D's the experimental ramjet models or the upgraded C?

 

The MiG would run out a fuel before it got close enough to fire at a F-22 if it even got a lock. But it won't even get close, as the new AIM-120D's outrange the R-77's.

[Reticuli]

FYI Konkussion the the 6 F-15 vs 1 F-22 is an old record. The new record is 8 F-15's vs 1 F-22 and that was not long ago, the Raptor came out on top, the Eagles never saw it.

 

I think that was early when they were still perfecting Raptor tactics. They've had over 20 years to develop Eagle tactics.

[Reticuli]

The Su-47 will never become combat operational, so you can't really expect an aircraft that doesn't even have radar to stand a chance. Putin said the 37 would be the next mainline Russian fighter, but now I hear they don't even have the money for that and they never had any intention of ever selling those to China. Russia also heavily exagerates both their stealth and supercruise performance. The 47 only gets a little extra manueverability over the Su-37 due to those forward swept wings. The Super Fulcrum was an interesting design, but they never even finished the prototyping phase. They claimed they made it capable of supercruise, stealth, and an internal weapons bay, but it was mostly just an unworking show piece sitting on the runway and a lot of hot air. If you look at the design the weapons bay stuff was total B.S...there was barely enough room for two 73's in there.

 

I see a passioneted debate about F-22 against SU-27 personnally i do not have anything against us planes but if you want to compare the F-22 compare it to something equivalent

seems USA is ready to invade France lol (hey americans i m joking ;))

[BladeLWS]

Are the D's the experimental ramjet models or the upgraded C?

 

Raytheon hasn't really said much about the D model, probably because the Air Force doesn't want them to. What we do know is that it will have a two way data link, GPS, 50% more range than the C model, and vastly improved PK. I'm not sure if its either a ramjet or a gel type fuel they've been floating around. The gel type fuel would propel the missile from mach 2.8-3.2 with a continuous throttleup method. It's already in testing, been so since 2003. Going to be operational in 2007.

[jpm1]

The Su-47 will never become combat operational, so you can't really expect an aircraft that doesn't even have radar to stand a chance. Putin said the 37 would be the next mainline Russian fighter, but now I hear they don't even have the money for that and they never had any intention of ever selling those to China. Russia also heavily exagerates both their stealth and supercruise performance. The 47 only gets a little extra manueverability over the Su-37 due to those forward swept wings. The Super Fulcrum was an interesting design, but they never even finished the prototyping phase. They claimed they made it capable of supercruise, stealth, and an internal weapons bay, but it was mostly just an unworking show piece sitting on the runway and a lot of hot air. If you look at the design the weapons bay stuff was total B.S...there was barely enough room for two 73's in there.

 

i think if you say that you know what you re talking about . but if Russia don t create a F-22 equivalent it will be a first time event . (Concerning invasion of France i was talking of a topic which was posted on ED s of a video of an american interviewer who interviewed american people in the street on which country should America invade next it was really funny :)) . Personnally i prefer the JSF 35 to the F-22 but for sure the F-22 is probably the most improved fighter right now .

[Bublik]

i think if you say that you know what you re talking about . but if Russia don t create a F-22 equivalent it will be a first time event .

 

It will be the first time the USSR do not reply with an equivalent :)

And the reason is simple - no more USSR. A lot has changed.

[Reticuli]

Yeah, I don't see any country ever producing a manned fighter that will reach its capability, let alone exceed it...including us. The JSF is a cheaper, less capable aircraft (forgetting the VTOL), though improvements in the F135 engines during its development will eventually be included in the F119 engines on the Raptor. So there will be some nice exchange between the two. The next step is really UCAVs, transorbital vehicals, lasers, thermoplastics, and composite polymers like Starlight (to defend against lasers and protect against hypersonic heat and reentry). The F-22 might be the last great (as in best of its era) manned jet fighter in human history. Let that sink in for a moment...

 

But as others have stated, there's still the threat of a car bomb from some religious fanatic that makes all this technology kind of moot. That's the reason they canceled Comanche: to pay for more of our current helos and to upgrade the one's we've got, including with digital fly by wire and trim update...really one of the most significant advances that was on the RAH-66 which they realized was such a big deal. All that stealth shiit is a lot less important for choppers, and yet choppers are very useful in urban combat and terrorist situations. So we get more Blackhawks, Chinooks, Apaches and improvements that have an obvious effect on performance and mission success. That's not something you could say about the Comanche, though it was sexy as hell and would be great to have if the money was available.