F-22 performances?

[Baker]

This is my first post, so forgive me if I make any mistakes.
Lately I've been hearing how crappy the F35 is from the Aussies, and the Russians saying that with the Irbis-E radar, they can take down are F22 and F35.
Im also hearing from few American defense anylists like myself that the F22 was a bad investment?I have a brother in law in the Airforce, who's worked with F22 fighter pilots. He says that the F22 is likely the best plane in the world. Any problems I haven't heard about?
Some things I'd like to get out of the way.
• The F22 can be damaged by small arms fire
Horrible claim. This is true for most planes, but the F22 is flying faster than you can shoot. It's likely not going to fly 150 ft. away from the ground too.
•The F22 has technical problems in the rain.
Keep it inside.

Anyways, aircraft isn't my expertise, but I'd just like to get an opinion from others.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is my first post, so forgive me if I make any mistakes.
Lately I've been hearing how crappy the F35 is from the Aussies,

Only from Air Power Australia acolytes. Unfort for APA, the RAAF is flown by professionals - and assessments aren't done by armchair enthusiasts

and the Russians saying that with the Irbis-E radar, they can take down are F22 and F35.

based on what? no emissions data is available on either asset - and where has the F-22 flown that the russians could even remotely manage to do partial emissions harvesting? ie its all talk

Im also hearing from few American defense anylists like myself that the F22 was a bad investment?

sources? the usual complainants of the F-22 are the Spey, Wheeler, Riccioni brigade who also think that the USAF should revert to radarless interceptors and missileers - eg tigershark solutions. CREF APA mentalities

I have a brother in law in the Airforce, who's worked with F22 fighter pilots. He says that the F22 is likely the best plane in the world. Any problems I haven't heard about?

there are known issues re earlier blocks - its on the internet and has been discussed extensively.- they are not show stoppers but impact on specific Block support

Some things I'd like to get out of the way.
• The F22 can be damaged by small arms fire
Horrible claim. This is true for most planes, but the F22 is flying faster than you can shoot. It's likely not going to fly 150 ft. away from the ground too.

seriously, anyone shoving this into the debate has some serious issues - any asset will be at risk from small arms fire - except for an A-10. Its not their job to fight on the ground in range of small arms - and it ignores a whole pile of other issues

•The F22 has technical problems in the rain.
Keep it inside.

thats just rubbish, this ref was to earlier versions of the B2 and specific generations of RAM applique - it was fixed some 6 years ago

Anyways, aircraft isn't my expertise, but I'd just like to get an opinion from others.

no problems, but I'd start listening to others, your current sources of reference seem to have an agenda and are technically illiterate...

 

[Spetsznaz]

based on what? no emissions data is available on either asset - and where has the F-22 flown that the russians could even remotely manage to do partial emissions harvesting?

Everything thing you said was good Aussie, but that one part screwed it all up you were doing so well

Russia never managed to do "Partial Emissions harvesting"

But...what...About...PACIFIC VISION

Please read this

"Then Truth Revealed by the United States Department of Defense, the United States Air Force (USAF), the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the US RAND Corporation Research ANd Development, US and Australia Pacific Vision data.

The exercise PACAFs Pacific Vision on sept 25/08 revealed the United States air superiority is just a fantasy. The exercise was consisted of face the Red Team one hundred Su-27SM, four Su-30 and two Su-35 against Blue Team one hundred F-35, one hundred eighty seven F-22 and four hundred F/A-18E/F. The exercise showed the blue team higher in number of aircraft is double inferior when hundreds of Blue Forces aircraft were lost in the first 20 minutes downed by the Red Forces., on the other hand only 12 aircraft was downed in the Red Team.

Pacific Vision effect the production of the F-22 was canceled and the F-35 project not longer receives investment all since 2008 by Barack Hussein Obama II and Robert Michael Gates."

and watch this video...

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M[/nomedia]

But dont get mad at me, I could be wrong, its just that this is the information I had


EDIT: SORRY! Bit of a mistake on my part, I am not saying the Raptor has bad capabilities, but that in Visual range, Operative word(s) visual range The sukhoi class fighter seem to be better

 

[gf0012-aust]

Everything thing you said was good Aussie, but that one part screwed it all up you were doing so well

Russia never managed to do "Partial Emissions harvesting"

But...what...About...PACIFIC VISION

the problem is that the PACIFIC VISION output didn't cover any of what is stated.

PAC VISION was based around Falconview - not Brawler - and hence every idiot who quoted it as proof iof life of emissions and/or tactical management demonstrated a complete unawareness of the what the exercise was even about. FALCONVIEW does not carry any data on platform profiles. I know that because I've had to use Falconview so I know what it actually does,

again, there is no emissions or tactical output on any F-22 or JSF event - esp as the latter has not been profiled.

Its the typical regurgitation thrown out by the likes of APA.

I'm not going to get mad, but I am sick to death of the idiot commentary that comes out about what RAND said (and they didn't) and what the outcome was when clearly the people promoting this rubbish wouldn't know a tactical sim from a flight management sim (or loggie planning tool) if it hit them on the head from 2 paces.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Right about the emissions

But as far as the preformance of the F-22 which is what the tread is about, is PAC VISION nothing?

Who does it not prove anything?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Right about the emissions

But as far as the preformance of the F-22 which is what the tread is about, is PAC VISION nothing?

Who does it not prove anything?

again, PACIFIC VISION is a planning event using planning tools - it has NOTHING - repeat NOTHING to do with tactical detail about planes and their emision footprint - hence extrapolating any tactical results about any plane factored into the sim is just rubbish.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but its very very frustrating to see this kind of material trotted out as warfighting and platform capability evidence when it has zero to do with any of it at the asset level.

It proves ZIP because:

1) people misunderstand what was being evaluated
2) they misunderstand the difference between tactical, strategic and specifically logistics sims
3) they don't want to understand the results because it doesn't fit what they want to believe.

having used Falconview I think I might have a clue.....

 

[Spetsznaz]

Oh wow, I though PAC VISION was an actual event

Oh man I feel stupid, I though it was the real thing, my bad

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thread closed pending Mod discussion.