F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[DoC_FouALieR]

Okay then. Rafale. Doesn't the missiles and radars really make all the difference in which fighter will come out on top? No fighter is really invisible anyways is it? Not here to argue. Just to find out why people think that a fighter can be invisible and why they think a bee flying at 60,000 feet will fool a radar operator?

As it has already been discussed in the topic on this famous radar detecting stealth planes, the main problem is not detection, but rather the capability to track and guide a missile on the aircraft.
If an aircraft is stealth enough, then it becomes really hard to track it with a radar since the received signal is very weak. And from a radar seeker in an air to air missile, since it has not the power of a fighter radar, it is most likely to lock on a chaff decoy rather on the aircraft...

 

[YellowFever]

You are joking aren't you? Tom Clancy's stories are based on fact and plausible scenario's??? As long as your "plausible scenario" results in perfect American success in every possible human endeavour, particularly militarily, I guess you're spot on.

Except real life doesn't work like that. People can pick out any number of American military failures, because believe it or not, people sometimes don't want America to win an actually work against them...

So what if the French do sell advanced military capability to virtually anyone who wants them. The USA is the same. Most major military exporters are the same. How often do we see American supplying BOTH sides of a conflict or potential conflict???

As to the topic thread, why is there this fascination with discussing what platform is "better". At best only subjective views can be submitted.

Ok..I'll bite.

And this is not a rethorical question:
Just how often DO WE see Americans supplying both sides of a conflict?

And I do think Clancy's stories are based on fact and plausible scenarios.
What about his writings are not based on facts or plausible scenarios?
The outcome of his novels mostly have the Americans winning any major conflicts because, after all, he is American and I expect as much, just like I would expect any Australian fiction writer having hit country winning any fiction they see fit to fictionalize. It is FICTION, you know.

And finally, your last paragraph kinda confuses me.
Of course there will be fascination about who's "better"?
Isn't that what this board is about?
Isn't it better this way rather than just copy and pasting stats about a platform?
I mean I thought that was what this board was all about...

 

[YellowFever]

Is the F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon really THIS good?

I have read somewhere (an article by a British "think tank") and unfortunately I can't give you the url or which company put it out but the meat of the story goes:

By thier estimation, and judging by what the Aircraft (granting the pilots are of equal skills) can do, it will take:

.o6 Sukhoi Su-37s to defeat an F-15
4 Sukhoi Su-37s to defeat a Typhoon
10 Sukhoi Su-37s to defeat an F-22

My question:
If the Typhoon and the Raptor THAT GOOD?

P.S. if someone happens to run across this article on the net, can you post the url please?

 

[YellowFever]

I have read somewhere (an article by a British "think tank") and unfortunately I can't give you the url or which company put it out but the meat of the story goes:

By thier estimation, and judging by what the Aircraft (granting the pilots are of equal skills) can do, it will take:

.o6 Sukhoi Su-37s to defeat an F-15
4 Sukhoi Su-37s to defeat a Typhoon
10 Sukhoi Su-37s to defeat an F-22

My question:
If the Typhoon and the Raptor THAT GOOD?

P.S. if someone happens to run across this article on the net, can you post the url please?

Umm....my questions should have been:
IS the Typhoon and the Raptor THAT GOOD? LoL

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think those statistics are at the Eurofighter Typhoon website which can be found through Google.

They are "estimated" rates of effectiveness and have been estimated by the Eurofighters designers. What do you think they are going to say???

 

[Aussie Digger]

Ok..I'll bite.

And this is not a rethorical question:
Just how often DO WE see Americans supplying both sides of a conflict?

And I do think Clancy's stories are based on fact and plausible scenarios.
What about his writings are not based on facts or plausible scenarios?
The outcome of his novels mostly have the Americans winning any major conflicts because, after all, he is American and I expect as much, just like I would expect any Australian fiction writer having hit country winning any fiction they see fit to fictionalize. It is FICTION, you know.

And finally, your last paragraph kinda confuses me.
Of course there will be fascination about who's "better"?
Isn't that what this board is about?
Isn't it better this way rather than just copy and pasting stats about a platform?
I mean I thought that was what this board was all about...

No this board is about discussing military capability and related threads. People are supposed to contribute as much as they can or are willing to, about military related topics.

Not start a nationalistic argument about who's platform is the better. It contributes nothing and inevitably leads to chest beating flame wars.

There are very few if any persons on these boards (unfortunately) who are realistically able to make a realistic assessment about the relative capabilities of the Rafale and F-22. Persons who can, for national security reasons are not allowed to.

Perhaps potential conflict is a better choice for American's supplying equipment to various opponents. If you'd care to, look at South East Asia, South and Central America, the Middle East, South West Asia, Europe and to a lesser degree Africa you can find easy examples of Countries in conflict or potentially so where the US has supplied weapons and equipment to both sides involved, still I guess you're right. It doesn't happen...

As to Tom Clancy, well it's off topic, but I'll just say his assessment of any capability NOT American, leaves a bit to be desired in my opinion...

 

[rjmaz1]

It doesn't take much of an advantage to really kick the ass of the enemy.

If you can detect the enemy first and fire a missile first, you win.

If you had two identical aircraft but one has a missile that can be fired from 60miles away yet the other can only fire at 40miles. Then even though they are so similar the aircraft with the longer ranged missile will win most of the time head to head.

With stealth it now comes down to who detects the opponent first. Only a slight edge can make it a one sided fight.

 

[Scorpion82]

I think those statistics are at the Eurofighter Typhoon website which can be found through Google.

They are "estimated" rates of effectiveness and have been estimated by the Eurofighters designers. What do you think they are going to say???

That's not correct the studies weren't done by the Eurofighter designers but by independent organisations like "grey threat" and DERA.

 

[Twix101]

They also said kill ratio of Rafale is 1 SU-37... nfloorl: nfloorl:

They made this "analysis" during the Singapore deal, and it was kicked off of competition...nfloorl:

 

[Oryx]

I think those statistics are at the Eurofighter Typhoon website which can be found through Google.

They are "estimated" rates of effectiveness and have been estimated by the Eurofighters designers. What do you think they are going to say???

As already mentioned, they were not made by the Eurofighter designers, but by DERA, which has now become Qinetiq. It was an independent evaluation, and it was made several years ago and therefore does not reflect the newest configurations of any of the aircraft involved.

 

[rabs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_21st_century_fighter_aircraft

Britain’s Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an evaluation (simulation based on the available data) comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35. Due to the lack of information gathered on the 5th generation combat aircraft and the Su-35 during the time of this study it is not meant to be considered official.

The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft supposed data were put in simulated combat against the Su-35.
The results were:
Aircraft Odds vs.
Su-35
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1
Dassault Rafale C 1.0:1
J-10 1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1

 

[webmaster]

Thanks AD.

Please see reply number 2 in this thread. If you like "what is best or what is better" thread then you should be able to answer questions that I've put forth in that post to detail your analysis that helps us determin which weapon system is better.

Unlike other boards on the net, we ask and enforce the idea that if you claim something is best or better, you should have some type fact and logical explaination for it otherwise you are just BSing yourself as well others.

For example on other boards you see threads in this fashion:

"F-22 vs Mig-21" <subject

Which one is the best < first post

Then you get replies that look similiar to the initial post in the subject.

One person replies:

I think F-22 is the best.

Person #2 replies:

I think Mig-21 is the best.

And circle of nonsense goes on. We've set a standard here that other boards are afraid to set because they feel it will result in less activity on their forums because who has time to reply in detail about something they feel is "the best or better" than other weapon systems so they rather take useless and pity one line replies from kids and individuals who know nothing about weapon system and are basing their opinion on pictures or videos they might have seen around the net.

Since we don't cator to such naive and young people who are new to military and defence issues, it is required that IF you start a "what is best or better" thread you better detail it with your experience (if any) and the questions that you may have read in reply number 2 in this thread. That way you give your readers something original to reply to and it gives you a chance to stimulate your thread in a different kind of way than a one line question would.

I hope that clears up any confusion.

Thanks and Enjoy!

 

[YellowFever]

Please Clarify..

No this board is about discussing military capability and related threads. People are supposed to contribute as much as they can or are willing to, about military related topics.

Not start a nationalistic argument about who's platform is the better. It contributes nothing and inevitably leads to chest beating flame wars.

There are very few if any persons on these boards (unfortunately) who are realistically able to make a realistic assessment about the relative capabilities of the Rafale and F-22. Persons who can, for national security reasons are not allowed to.

Perhaps potential conflict is a better choice for American's supplying equipment to various opponents. If you'd care to, look at South East Asia, South and Central America, the Middle East, South West Asia, Europe and to a lesser degree Africa you can find easy examples of Countries in conflict or potentially so where the US has supplied weapons and equipment to both sides involved, still I guess you're right. It doesn't happen...

As to Tom Clancy, well it's off topic, but I'll just say his assessment of any capability NOT American, leaves a bit to be desired in my opinion...

You're absolutly right in your first paragraph in saying that this thread is about discussing military capability and related topics. Having said that, discussing military capabilities will obviously lead (I won't say most but a fair amount of) individuals into "comparing" who or what is better than who or what. It is also true that, being new to the board, I see alot of interesting threads "flaming out" due to nationalistic pride and chest thumping. I won't say it leads to nothing though, because some of those threads are so dumb as to be entertaining.

I also agree 100% with your third paragraph.
There are very few individuals in this board (or any other on the net for that matter) who can give a realistic assesment about the Raptor or the Rafael. If only those qualified to give an accurate assesment can post about such matters this board would get postings maybe once or twice a month. Mostly, I find (as you mentioned before) flame wars that doesn't add one iota to my knowledge base but as I said before some of them are so ridiculous that I find some of them entertaining, like a really bad B movie.

Your fourth paragraph is a little vague.
"potential conflicts?"
Just what is or isn't potential in this world?
Potentially, America and Australlia can be in a shooting war with each other in a few years.
You've mentioned regions where America is supposedly to have sold weapons to both side of a conflict but you did not name individual countries. Judging by your posts, and I'm not being sarcastic here, you know a hell of alot more than I do about military platforms, weapons deals, weapon developements, and the like. I'm asking you to clarify because I really do not know of any major incidents where America supplied arms to both side of a conflict.

And as to Mr. Clancy, I'll have to defer to you about his assesment of any capabilities not American leaving you a bit to be desired in your opinion.
After all, it is your opinion. Having read all of his books, I really don't know which parts you're talking about.
Can you give me some examples?

 

[swerve]

You've mentioned regions where America is supposedly to have sold weapons to both side of a conflict but you did not name individual countries. Judging by your posts, and I'm not being sarcastic here, you know a hell of alot more than I do about military platforms, weapons deals, weapon developements, and the like. I'm asking you to clarify because I really do not know of any major incidents where America supplied arms to both side of a conflict.

I can, though only a few, & not all major. Also, the USA only supplied one - or neither - party during each conflict, though in some cases it has supplied both parties since the end of hostilities.

The Falklands war. Both Argentina & the UK used US-supplied weapons. More on the Argentinean side, as we mostly built our own, but the Sidewinders were useful - ta.
Jordan & Israel both used US weapons in 1973. Though Jordan had mostly British weapons, it also had some US-built.
Cyprus 1974.
The Football War between Honduras & El Salvador
Ecuador-Peru.

A few near-wars, e.g. Argentina-Chile

A high-risk pair, who've fought a few major wars -

Currently, the USA is selling & giving weapons to Pakistan, & selling weapons (& trying to sell a lot more) to India.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Aussie Digger]

I can, though only a few, & not all major. Also, the USA only supplied one - or neither - party during each conflict, though in some cases it has supplied both parties since the end of hostilities.

The Falklands war. Both Argentina & the UK used US-supplied weapons. More on the Argentinean side, as we mostly built our own, but the Sidewinders were useful - ta.
Jordan & Israel both used US weapons in 1973. Though Jordan had mostly British weapons, it also had some US-built.
Cyprus 1974.
The Football War between Honduras & El Salvador
Ecuador-Peru.

A few near-wars, e.g. Argentina-Chile

A high-risk pair, who've fought a few major wars -

Currently, the USA is selling & giving weapons to Pakistan, & selling weapons (& trying to sell a lot more) to India.

What about Turkey and Greece?

Israel and Egypt, Israel and Iran, Israel and Jordan. Malaysia and Singapore. Malaysia and Indonesia, Singapore and Indonesia, AUSTRALIA and Indonesia for that matter.

As to the rules of the boards, well Webs explained it pretty well above if you'd care to read, but let's just say we don't find "flame wars" interesting or entertaining.

I've been coming here since 2003 as has Gf and a few others and we're quite frankly sick of the futile mine's better than your's childishness that crops up in EVERY "A versus B" thread.

There's nothing wrong with comparing various capabilities but threads that start that way seem to degenerate into the inevitable.

Also no-one ever said that unless you're a Defence professional you're not allowed to post here. We are not (or at least try not to be) "high and mighty" and welcome everyone's contributions within the clearly stated rules.

As to Clancy, I've read most of his major novels (not the Op Centre series and all that rubbish) and have said all I intend to about him. We are getting VERY far away from the thread title, something else that bugs us mods...

 

[Twix101]

They also precised that this study was made during 90's, another one thing about engagment with AMRAAM, the USAF now using 2 AIM-120 by kill IIRC, they did that during Allied force operation in Kosovo. And don't forget that CAP aircraft are always 2.

 

[merocaine]

After 5-6 Suks get shot down by the 6 AMRAAMs fired from the internal bomb bays, the raptor would have to close in to use the sidewinders or the gun. Then the last 1-2 Suk will have better odds to take on the raptor. OPEVAL added a few more suks to even the fight taking into account ECM, etc.

assuming all missle's hit, and the opposition doesent use decoys to lure any raptors into opening fire and burning ammo.


Does anyone know what the hit and kill ratios are at varying ranges for the various air to air missles in use by the USAF?

The key thing to note about those simulations are the qualifying statements
like Based on avalible data
so little is released about those craft that we'll have to wait for a proper engagement (two sides with land /sea based radar and awac's)to see what the real kill ratios are.

 

[alexsa]

Actually, odds are more likely 7-1 or less for every raptor.

After 5-6 Suks get shot down by the 6 AMRAAMs fired from the internal bomb bays, the raptor would have to close in to use the sidewinders or the gun. Then the last 1-2 Suk will have better odds to take on the raptor. OPEVAL added a few more suks to even the fight taking into account ECM, etc.

I think the odds should be read as a one on one outcome not what will happen when so many aircraft meet a tthe same time. In other words if an SU-35 and F-22 and in the area there is a 10.1 to 1 chance the Raptor will will. conversley ther is a 0.0999 to 1 chance the Su-35 wil fluke a kill.

 

[YellowFever]

I see what you mean...

As to Clancy, I've read most of his major novels (not the Op Centre series and all that rubbish) and have said all I intend to about him. We are getting VERY far away from the thread title, something else that bugs us mods...

LoL...After spendig a good hour reading some of the posts yesterday, I see what you mean about getting far away from the subject intended.
I might find some of the flame wars entertaining but I can clearly see how it would annoy others and add nothing to the discussions.

Consider this thread closed and I apologize for getting off the subject.