It was backed up. You just didn't notice. The F-15 flying around in and out of burner making high G turns for 10 minutes tells you a lot about it's ability to maintain kinetic energy which is the key to air to air combat. I wasn't referring to air show tricks at all.
do you even know what kinetic energy is? serious question
if you don't, you can look it up
Admin: Text deleted. Read the forum rules about engagement behaviour.
there was 0 display of maintaining kinetic energy there. In fact, it was pretty much the exact opposite. It was low and slow (certainly under sound barrier) because it was an air show.
No if it isn't launched under the right conditions. The missile has ~2-4seconds give or take of thrust where it is gaining kinetic energy
do you understand how Meteor works? serious question
if you don't, you can look it up
Admin: Text deleted. Read the forum rules about engagement behaviour.
"The air breathing motor proposed for Meteor provides sustained power, following the initial boost, to chase and destroy the target."
No, they will still try to get the highest percentage shot where possible otherwise they are wasting a missile.
and if you already have 99% kill probability as is, why expose yourself to more danger? just shoot and scoot
Things like high off boresight missiles negate the need for pointing the nose at the target. Well yes but there are still limitations which I have explained to you.
yes there are limitations, but on the other hand the Raptor doesn't render them useless either which is what you were implying
Most short range HOBS missiles have speeds of about M2.5. But even so, that is only briefly as the motor shuts off soon after launch within seconds.
but i was talking about the Meteor where this clearly isn't the case
i understand missile design has progressed. do you?
irtusk said:
WVR kills have been far, far more common, even recently
Not for the USAF. Look it up.
you're flat out wrong on this
let us examine A2A since 1991
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_302.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_217.shtml
what do we see?
7 AMRAAMs and a ton of sidewinders
now let's look at some of those AMRAAM kills:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Sept2004/0904aces.asp
who came to lower altitude to see the six Galebs
. . .
Wright got the first Galeb with an AIM-120 fired over a distance of 5,000 feet.
. . .
Tight rules of engagement demanded double validation of targets.
The same rules applied five years later during Operation Allied Force, NATO’s 78-day air campaign over Serbia and Kosovo
. . .
Rodriguez launched his AMRAAM. The MiG-29 “exploded over the western mountains of Kosovo,” said Rodriguez. Snow on the mountains reflected the tremendous flash. “It was like 10 or 15 football fields right next to each other. It just lit up the night sky like nothing I’ve ever seen before.”
. . .
Two minutes later, Shower spotted an unidentified aircraft launching out of Batajnica
. . .
Now the MiG-29 was closing in on him and nearby F-117s.
. . .
Shower took one more shot and this time, the AIM-120 found its mark
. . .
Two days later, ANG Capt. Jeffrey C. Hwang chalked up two victories. He engaged a MiG-29 leader and wingman, both at close range, with AIM-120s
in fact the most recent kill was within extremely close range when the spy plane played bumper cars with the chinese fighter
I never said I was superior. I do understand this subject matter better though.
Admin: Text deleted. Read the forum rules about excessive icon usage - in this case it also ties in with expected engagement behaviour.
How do you take a picture of a persons face from 50 meters?
if you can get an optical zoom good enough for a positive ID, you're WVR
Also, some aircraft have NCTR which is a classified technique much in demand. It's a reason why F-15s have been preferred in some cases for air to air missions.
which also isn't fully trusted which is why the RoE still usually specify a visual ID regardless of what the NCTR thinks it is
How by magic? Where will it get the telemetry data?
well if you read the sales brochure for the Meteor you would realize that it is fed targetting data for the expected interception point before launch and it can receive live targetting updates via datalink from either the launching aircraft or an AWACS
never mind that you are once again trying to change the subject which was:
if you are WVR of a plane, you are almost certainly within the no-escape zone of a Meteor no matter the kinetic situation (within reason)
No, you can do that yourself.
afraid of what you'll find?
basically they're all mach 2.5+ class aircraft with a 60,000+ service ceiling
the F-22 may be slightly better, but not dramatically so
If you look into it enough, you will learn that the those aircraft are essentially non maneuvering targets at F-22 altitudes.
1. and if you looked at modern mach 5+ missiles you would realize that manoueverability means squat
2. what's with the subject change yet again? the claim was that the F-22 could launch missiles so much higher and faster than any competitor, that it could stay outside the engagement zone of any other fighter
this clearly isn't the case
thus the discussion was about the energy advantage associated with a fast and high launch not the manoueverability of a plane in such a position
Any aircraft can be stealthy. Google the definition.
yet another deflection
getting back to the point, what was your point about the MiG-25 and the Raven?
No the trend has been to fly even higher.
nfloorl:
then explain the evolution of the B-1
original B-1 was Mach2+ and flew at altitude
B-1B was subsonic and had terrain following radar
i hate to quote from wikipedia, but it's convenient in this case
"In response to the missile threat, military planners switched to low-altitude penetration."
"this exact problem had actually occurred with the B-58, another high-speed aircraft that was forced into the low-level role to avoid missile defenses"
the U2 incident taught us you can't outfly a SAM
the Valkyrie was cancelled because they realized high-speed high-altitude penetration got you killed (and this was a plane that would have flown higher and faster than the F-22)
Also, with the F-22 signature management it isn't practical to place EW sites close enough to close all the gaps.
good thing our enemies are always practical
Why give up the fuel efficiency and speed when you don't have to?
you wouldn't
but you seem to completely ignore even the possibility that there might be situations where you do have to
The comments aren't petty. If you are offended I apologize but this is how the real world works. I talk about things as they are in real life. Thats often going to be in stark contrast to what you read on the internet.
nfloorl:
thank you for continuing to demonstrate your pettiness
but fret not about my feelings, i find your antics amusing
Admin: Read the forum rules about engagement behaviour. Warning issued. 
