Raptor and other fighter types

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 01 2002,21:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is the relation between the F22 and the JSF? Were they developed in parallel or is the JSF the successor to the F22?<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F-22A <span id='postcolor'>

[acidcrash 0]

the JSF aka the X35 is also to be used in the Navy and US marines to replace the Harriers FA2/Av8b.

i know the Royal Navy just decided on the X35 the other day for its new carriers

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Think of the F-22 as the F-15's replacement as the principle air-superiority fighter.

Think of the JSF as the F-16's replacement as the principle multirole fighter of the USAF, and for the Marines, it will replace their Harriers.

[NavyEEL 0]

i think of the F-22 as a next-generation combat aircraft. i think of the JSF as a waste of money that looks nowhere near as cool as f-18's and f-14's....

[acidcrash 0]

well imo the F/A-22 looks pretty similar to the F/A-35

F/A-22

F/A-35

[PHY_Hawkeye 0]

I dunno about the waste of money bit, but I agree that thsX-35 looks nowhere near as beautiful as the fighters currently in service. Of course having said that, you should have seen the other main contender in the JSF programm, can't rember the designation but it looked ugly as sin.

[acidcrash 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PHY_Hawkeye @ Oct. 01 2002,23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dunno about the waste of money bit, but I agree that thsX-35 looks nowhere near as beautiful as the fighters currently in service. Of course having said that, you should have seen the other main contender in the JSF programm, can't rember the designation but it looked ugly as sin.<span id='postcolor'>

both were designated X-35 but one was McDonald Douglas and one was Lockheed Martin, the LM varient was the one to get the F designation though

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Oct. 01 2002,14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Oct. 01 2002,19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It might be nice to have some latitude, but in the end having safety limitations can only cut down on non combat fatalities and accidents.  And the reality is that the majority of lost aircraft in the last 20 years have been from training and routine flights than they have been from combat. (At least my impression of the reality, that is )<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not disputing that. The MiG-29/Su-27 do have safety limitations, it's just that they can be overriden temporarily in extreeme situations, and even not-so extreme situations if the pilot so wishes.(The Cobra maneuver for example, requires that the AoA/G limiter be switched off). BTW, this is not a limitation of all FBW AC, since all Su-27 and the newer MiG-33 have digital FBW.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually exceeding the limits of the airframe is not the biggest concern with the automatic G limiters in the FBW systems or with any military aircraft application.

The biggest problem is depending on loadout conditions of causing damage to munition release systems and/or launch guides. Talk about making a bad situation worse, sure you got into firing position by exceeding loadout parameters but now your munition won't fire because its release is jammed.

And like Warin said many less experienced and gunho pilots place their skills and capabilites far over what they really are and giving them the option of being able to test that limit only gets them in more trouble.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

LOMAC FORUMS

If you really like to debate about diffrent planes and all their aspects with other plane nuts, the Lock On:Modern Air Combat Aviation forums are a good bet. I personally have never posted there, but I scan through every now and then.

As it has been mentioned before, it is a little hard to talk about the capabilities of the F-22 when they are not fully known to the public.

Myabe a little bit OT, but I heard a while ago that some Russian Aviation scientists had adminted that they were using a piece of the F-117 shot down in Bosnia to develop anti-stealth equiptment. Dont know how they got some of the wreckage, but if they are sucessful, stealth technology might need to be re-engineered before its any good again......

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ Oct. 02 2002,02:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually exceeding the limits of the airframe is not the biggest concern with the automatic G limiters in the FBW systems or with any military aircraft application.

The biggest problem is depending on loadout conditions of causing damage to munition release systems and/or launch guides. Talk about making a bad situation worse, sure you got into firing position by exceeding loadout parameters but now your munition won't fire because its release is jammed.

And like Warin said many less experienced and gunho pilots place their skills and capabilites far over what they really are and giving them the option of being able to test that limit only gets them in more trouble.<span id='postcolor'>

All I can say is the ability to override that limiter has saved my ass a couple of times in SSI's Su-27, when I had an F-16 on my tail or had to turn extra hard to evade a missile . Then again it has also caused me to enter some nasty flat spins. . With proper training it would be a nice option to have.

[Tovarish 0]

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Oct. 02 2002,036)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Myabe a little bit OT, but I heard a while ago that some Russian Aviation scientists had adminted that they were using a piece of the F-117 shot down in Bosnia to develop anti-stealth equiptment. Dont know how they got some of the wreckage, but if they are sucessful, stealth technology might need to be re-engineered before its any good again......<span id='postcolor'>

Actually the Russians are taking a completely different road on the way to stealth development:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Stealth Plasma on Su-32

Russia is believed to be continuing its pioneering work on the development of a plasma cloud generator to provide active stealth protection for combat aircraft. Details are sparse but the Keldysh Research Institute, under then leadership of Anatoly Korotoyev, is known to have developed a plasma generator weighing around 220lb (100kg), suitable for installation on a tactical fighter aircraft. This has been tested on models and on real aircraft, with the Su-32/34 strike fighter believed to be the first combat aircraft to incorporate the system in its airframe. In essence, the system requires an energy source on the aircraft to energise the surrounding air, most probably at the leading edges of the aerodynamic surfaces, causing ionised air in the boundary layer to flow around the airframe, shrouding it in an impenetrable radar screening cloud. Unfortunately, the power requirement for the generator is high and the system would probably only be activated when an enemy radar is detected. The presence of the 'cloud' around the aircraft would also block transmissions from the aircraft being protected, but it is possible that appropriate gaps in the 'cloud' could also be created to overcome this. The high power generation requirement and additional weight of the system is probably easier handled by the Su-32 than by smaller fighters, such as the MiG-29.

<span id='postcolor'>

<span style='color:red'>*edit* Y'know, now that I think of it, that sounds very much like the Philadelphia experiment. I hope it fares better.</span>

[Frizbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Oct. 01 2002,11:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The F-22 was designed by Lockheed Martin & Boeing for the USAF Advanced Technology Fighter Competition, where it won out over the prototype YF-23. It is capable of super-cruise, that is it can fly at speeds up to Mach 1.5 without afterburner, letting it fly faster for longer periods than any other air-superiority fighter in existence. It is incredibly expensive though- $150 million+ per aircraft. That means it ain't going to be available in anything approaching adequate numbers for many years.<span id='postcolor'>

What is the differences between the F-22 and the YF-23? Is the YF-23 capable of supercruise etc.?

I can't find any info on it from sources I'd trust, and the Australian Airforce has them on order for when they are developed.

[Tovarish 0]

If I remember correctly the main factor that led to the YF-22 being picked over the YF-23 was maneuverability. The YF-23 also had supercruise, and apparently was more stealthy

YF-23:

[second_draw 0]

I remember someone telling me this wise ass comment about of f-15 or f-16 i think. It was something to do with the software being able to stop the pilot stretching the limits of the aircraft. Would anyone know what this phrase was? thnx

[nolips71 0]

ok, a backup for my previous post (this is not flaming or spamming etc)

a battle between the eurofighter typhoon and the f22 at close range. the eurofighter will win because of its tactical capability. the f22 can dance around the sky all it wants but at the end of the day that is not going to save you from an ASRAAM NOT AMRAAM and if the missile does fail and the f22 is still dancing around the sky then the simple 20mm cannon comes into acount witch would be quite easy to hit a f22 dancing around the sky

i think ive backed up my post

thankyou

[Tovarish 0]

Great backup. One could easily have said the same thing while switching the places of F-22 and Eurofighter in your post. And regarding the ASRAAM remember that the F-22 is getting the AIM-9X

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ok, a backup for my previous post (this is not flaming or spamming etc)

a battle between the eurofighter typhoon and the f22 at close range. the eurofighter will win because of its tactical capability. the f22 can dance around the sky all it wants but at the end of the day that is not going to save you from an ASRAAM NOT AMRAAM and if the missile does fail and the f22 is still dancing around the sky then the simple 20mm cannon comes into acount witch would be quite easy to hit a f22 dancing around the sky

i think ive backed up my post

thankyou

<span id='postcolor'>

I really wish it was that simple!

The Eurofighter is a great jet, a capable A-A interceptor, a exceptional dogfighter, and can haul enough A - G weaponry to ruin someones day. Additionally, the AIM-132 ASRAAM, is a nice little missile, with good off boresight seeking, and a pretty meaty frag warhead.

However....

1 on 1, with EQUALLY skilled pilots, a F22 would have no problem taking down a Typhoon BVR, or close up. Its sad to say, but it can outmaneouver a Typhoon from the data I've seen, and get into the furball with ease.

However......!

Thats what it is... a dedicated A-A aircraft. Oh ok, future models with be able to drop JDAMS, but thats a tacked on, half hearted capability. The Typhoon, can haul a massive amount of fire power to the target and nail it, and it that regard its more of a jack of all trades. Which makes sense when you realise how much the F-22 costs. The RAF couldn't possibly afford the F-22 (Although it was considered as a FOAS option), but we got a multirole A/C, unlike the F-22, which can do one role brilliantly, but is limited to that.

1 F-22 = 3 1/2 Typhoons.

A-A, I would like a F-22

For multirole missions (Which the RAF specialises in), I would prefer a Typhoon.

By the way, I'm training in the RAF currently, and if everything goes my way, I might end up flying the fuckers (Or the GR4 )! Its nice to know your capabilities and disadvantages!

nolips71 - If you wish to discuss A/C PM me, but please don't bring the RAF and its A/C into disrepute.

[nolips71 0]

in a dogfight manuvoerability is not every ting

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nolips71 @ Oct. 03 2002,14:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in a dogfight manuvoerability is not every ting <span id='postcolor'>

Face it, from all your comments and especially your "backup", it's obvious you're just trying to convince everyone that your pet plane is the-best-coolest-gee-whiz-superfighter, without having any hard facts

[nolips71 0]

hurricane v me109 that proves that manovearalbilty is not everything (i cant spell)

[Tovarish 0]

I never said that maneuverability WAS everything. As a matter of fact I've never said the F-22 was better than the Eurofighter. You on the other hand, started out by stating that the Eurofighter was clearly better, without having any evidence to that fact, and then when you "backed up" your first statement, you stated that it would be "quite easy" for the Eurofighter to gun down an F-22 in a close range dogfight. Seems to me like you were trying to say the Eurofighter's maneuverability IS everything. I'm just pointing out that your arguments seem baseless and driven by emotion, that's all.

[nolips71 0]

in a long range fight the f22 would win but i think at a battle of 1-2 miles the typhoon would win

[Tovarish 0]

Once again, why?

Or should I answer for you - simply because you're a patriotic Brit and this is your fave aircraft, and no matter what data is shown to you that states otherwise, the Eurofighter will remain invincible in your eyes .

[ralphwiggum 6]

nolips71, should you continue arguing about Eurofighter on this thread, i'll have to post restrict you for 48+12hours. I already warned you and unless you can provide solid data, don't bother showing up on someone else's thread and start to claim that their jets suck compared to the other.

[GAMEER_77 0]

I'm in the process of making an F-22, but now i hear you guys don't want it i'm stopping.

So what aircraft would you guys like? Do you know where i could get some good pics of that aircraft?

Thanks

PEACE