F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
Hey guyz .... here is what i found on wikipedia about tha ratio of Su-30 and Su-30 Mki to Typhone , Raptor , Rafale , F15C and F-18 .....Viktor said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_generation_jet_fighter
sorry off topic but it says that Indian Su-30 made 3 to 1 kill ratio against
F-15C
sorry its Su-35 against all ... my badali.uaf said:Hey guyz .... here is what i found on wikipedia about tha ratio of Su-30 and Su-30 Mki to Typhone , Raptor , Rafale , F15C and F-18 .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_generation_jet_fighter
sorry off topic but it says that Indian Su-30 made 3 to 1 kill ratio against
F-15C
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Explanation for that can be found on this Defencetalk Sticky:ali.uaf said:Hey guyz .... here is what i found on wikipedia about tha ratio of Su-30 and Su-30 Mki to Typhone , Raptor , Rafale , F15C and F-18 .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_generation_jet_fighter
sorry off topic but it says that Indian Su-30 made 3 to 1 kill ratio against
F-15C
Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT)
The wiki link you provided also explains it:
umm huh? It said F-15Cs were outnumbered 3-to-1, not that Su-30s got a 3-to-1 kill ratio.ali.uaf said:Hey guyz .... here is what i found on wikipedia about tha ratio of Su-30 and Su-30 Mki to Typhone , Raptor , Rafale , F15C and F-18 .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_generation_jet_fighter
sorry off topic but it says that Indian Su-30 made 3 to 1 kill ratio against
F-15C
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
ajay_ijn quotet a Jane's article in this thread:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5149
That might be of interest in this discussion too.
I'm quoting from that article:
"A third lesson is that WVR is an equalizer. "An F-5 or a MiG-21 with a high-off-boresight missile and HMD is as capable in a 1-v-1 as an F-22," comments a former navy fighter pilot, now a civilian program manager. "In visual combat, everybody dies at the same rate," says RAND's Lambeth. Indeed, he says that a larger fighter like the F-22 may be at a disadvantage. In the early 1980s force-on-force exercises at the navy's Top Gun fighter school, F-14s were routinely seen and shot down by smaller F-5s flown by the navy's Aggressor units. An F-22 which slows down to enter a WVR combat also gives up the advantage of supersonic maneuverability."
I know, the F-22 fans here will say that a F-5 or MIG-21 would never be able to reach WVR with a F-22, but simply the fact that military experts are thinking so much about such possibilities and how new missile technology will influence air combat (read the whole article), speaks for itself.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5149
That might be of interest in this discussion too.
I'm quoting from that article:
"A third lesson is that WVR is an equalizer. "An F-5 or a MiG-21 with a high-off-boresight missile and HMD is as capable in a 1-v-1 as an F-22," comments a former navy fighter pilot, now a civilian program manager. "In visual combat, everybody dies at the same rate," says RAND's Lambeth. Indeed, he says that a larger fighter like the F-22 may be at a disadvantage. In the early 1980s force-on-force exercises at the navy's Top Gun fighter school, F-14s were routinely seen and shot down by smaller F-5s flown by the navy's Aggressor units. An F-22 which slows down to enter a WVR combat also gives up the advantage of supersonic maneuverability."
I know, the F-22 fans here will say that a F-5 or MIG-21 would never be able to reach WVR with a F-22, but simply the fact that military experts are thinking so much about such possibilities and how new missile technology will influence air combat (read the whole article), speaks for itself.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
contedicavour
New Member
The F22's leadership is light years ahead, no contest.weasel1962 said:
However did it make sense to build something so expensive that you can only afford 180 (guess how few we could buy in good old Europe with our poor defence budgets) or wouldn't it have been better to buy more less sophisticated gen5 fighters ? Or, even better, why not just buy exclusively F35s, which is already considered superior to anything else that will be flying on Earth (excl F22) around 2010 when it will become operational ??
cheers
The question is if the USAF is maybe doubtfull about the real abilities of the F-35.
PS:
@contedicavour
COuld you please visit this thread. We need some italian there.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5100 :help :italy
PS:
@contedicavour
COuld you please visit this thread. We need some italian there.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5100 :help :italy
How come everybody is praising the F-35 so much yet? Actually there isn't so much known about it and i heard a lot of critical and sceptical voices from experts.
It might be a fine machine to perform the things it was build for, but we have to keep in mind that it is a STOVL fighter, which means that it has to deal with certain technological compromizes.
It has to carry around the vertical lift equipment that is only dead weight and steals a lot of space once it is in the air. It also has to provide and lose space for the internal weapons bay. In the case of the large F-22 that is not such a problem, but the F-35 is a rather small, single engine fighter. Every qubic centimetre of the aircraft's body you have to spare for an internal weapons bay and the the big vertical lift turbine, is missed for other components.
So there is a heavy prize to pay for the STOVL ability that poses a disadvantage compared to aircraft that don't need to carry around vertical lifting gear.
So even without knowing very detailed technical data about the F-35, you can assume that it simply cannot be superior to a twin engine, delta wing machine that hasn't to burden the technological compromises of a STOVL aircraft.
Just like the Harrier was and is a very fine machine, but never could be superior to conventional fighter aircraft of the same technological niveau.
It really is obvious that many people here think the engineers who designed the Typhoon and the Rafale are stoneage idiots.
What do you actually know about those machines? Where does that great wisdom come from that they are inferior not only to the F-22 and F-35, but even to 20 or 30 years old machines like the F-15 and F-16?
Don't you see how little sense that makes?
Sure, the Typhoon doesn't look like from a science fiction movie as the F-22 and the F-35 do, but what's inside is just as sophisticated and advanced.
The F-22 is way bigger and costs twice as much as the Typhoon, but i see no hint or logical explanation for why the F-35 should be superior to it too, considering the compromises and disadvantages it has to deal with as a STOVL design.
It might be a fine machine to perform the things it was build for, but we have to keep in mind that it is a STOVL fighter, which means that it has to deal with certain technological compromizes.
It has to carry around the vertical lift equipment that is only dead weight and steals a lot of space once it is in the air. It also has to provide and lose space for the internal weapons bay. In the case of the large F-22 that is not such a problem, but the F-35 is a rather small, single engine fighter. Every qubic centimetre of the aircraft's body you have to spare for an internal weapons bay and the the big vertical lift turbine, is missed for other components.
So there is a heavy prize to pay for the STOVL ability that poses a disadvantage compared to aircraft that don't need to carry around vertical lifting gear.
So even without knowing very detailed technical data about the F-35, you can assume that it simply cannot be superior to a twin engine, delta wing machine that hasn't to burden the technological compromises of a STOVL aircraft.
Just like the Harrier was and is a very fine machine, but never could be superior to conventional fighter aircraft of the same technological niveau.
It really is obvious that many people here think the engineers who designed the Typhoon and the Rafale are stoneage idiots.
What do you actually know about those machines? Where does that great wisdom come from that they are inferior not only to the F-22 and F-35, but even to 20 or 30 years old machines like the F-15 and F-16?
Don't you see how little sense that makes?
Sure, the Typhoon doesn't look like from a science fiction movie as the F-22 and the F-35 do, but what's inside is just as sophisticated and advanced.
The F-22 is way bigger and costs twice as much as the Typhoon, but i see no hint or logical explanation for why the F-35 should be superior to it too, considering the compromises and disadvantages it has to deal with as a STOVL design.
Last edited:
contedicavour
New Member
Hello I've tried to participate to that thread, with items on joint transport aircraft fleet and joint training. If I can contribute more, don't hesitate to writeWaylander said:The question is if the USAF is maybe doubtfull about the real abilities of the F-35.
PS:
@contedicavour
COuld you please visit this thread. We need some italian there.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5100 :help :italy
Regarding the F35 I just hope there are no doubts, since the Italian Navy and Air Force both rely on the F35 for our future.
cheers
The F-35B is a STOVL fighter. The F-35A and C are not.TrangleC said:
The Typhoon and Rafale aren't stealthy. The F-22 and F-35 are.TrangleC said:
Typhoon and Rafale aren't necessarily inferior to the F-15 and F-16, but they aren't significantly superior to them either, IMHO.
Here's data from an independent fighter aircraft cost study (insert huge YMMV disclaimer here).TrangleC said:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf
(Unit Procurement Costs)
* Rafale C - $62.1 mil
* Rafale M - $67.9 mil
* JAS-39C Gripen - $68.9 mil
* F-18E - $78.4 mil
* Eurofighter (Germany) - $102.8 mil
* Eurofighter (UK) - $118.6 mil
* F-15E - $108.2 mil
* F-35 - $115 mil
* F-22A - $177.6 mil
So, if true, the F-22 is not twice as expensive as the Typhoon, and the F-35 may even be cheaper.
And again, only the F-35B is a STOVL design, the other two F-35 variants aren't.
contedicavour said:
Valid questions, however one thing to consider is unit prices decrease with larger buys. So if we were to double the F-22 buy, the price per aircraft would drop significantly.
Plus, if you go by the data in my previous post (again YMMV), you'd only save $70 mil per aircraft (less if more Raptors were bought) buying F-15s over F-22s, but you'd lose the quantum leap in capability the Raptor offers.
Look back at the discussions of 10.1:1 loss ratio in favor of the Raptor against a notional Su-35 in the UK study, vs 0.8:1 for the F-15C. Or look at studies that've shown a single stealthy sortie can replace sorties flown by numerous non-stealthy aircraft. These show that the F-22s combination of stealth, supercruise and avionics can give it a literal order of magnitude increase in capability over the F-15.
Last edited:
WVR is an equalizer, but the combination of sensors, stealth and supercruise give the Raptor the ability to accept or reject an engagement on its terms. If it doesn't like the engagement parameters, it can simply turn away at M1.5/50kft AGL, without being seen in the first place.TrangleC said: