F-16.net

Seems like they'll never stop....

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/milita ... -know.html

I'm new in this whole thing and to be honest I don't know who to completly believe. Sure, the plane's got some issues - all new fighter planes have them. But most of what I have heard is good, and the videos don't lie... I think in time, this thing's gonna scare the shiet out of enemy pilots. Plz comment on this article, what you guys think about what supposedly is "wrong" with the Raptor. I'd love to get a pilot to write his opinion...

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: Oct 19, 2006 Posts: 96 Status: Offline

The quoted article (which came from a Russian website) is so far off the mark that its not even deserving of a respone. I'll leave it at this:

The Raptor combines

supercruise
incredible agility
sensor integration
and stealth.

No other airplane either in the air, or on the drawing board, can boast that same combination. Not the F-35 (lacks supercruise and is less agile than the F-22), not the Su-37 (lacks supercruise, networked sensor integration and stealth), not even the Typhoon (lacks the sensor integration, stealth, and a meaningful supercruise capability).

As an air-to-air weapon, the Raptor stands alone.

Tinito_16 wrote:

I'd love to get a pilot to write his opinion...

Go over to http://www.fencecheck.com look for the F-22 Discussion forum, and read what Mike "Dozer" Shower has to say. He is an ex-Eagle Driver, Mig-29 Killer, F-22 demo pilot the previous two years, and the first Raptor Squadron Commander in PACAF.

Mike

Elite 1K Joined: May 10, 2005 Posts: 1124 Status: Offline

The Sukhoi fanbois will never stop...I almost gagged when I read that moron's reply "in a dogfight, the Su-37 kick sthe crap outta the raptor".....complete and total wate of time that entire thing was....fortunately, I have some spare time today, but in the future I'd just avoid similar threads. These people haven't the first, foggiest clue what they are talking about.....even the former John Boyd accolytes.

what I don't understand is why the Boyd hypothesis worked in the 70's and now it doesnt. I'm not saying he's right, but alot of the things the Boyd camp say are essential in a fighter HAVE been incorporated into the Raptor, to give it good all-around performance. What's their beef, their point and why are they not satisfied??

I mean, last time I checked, the Mig-29/35 and Su-27 were about the same size if not BIGGER than the Raptor. And fighter designs are compared to their contemporaries, not to 1940's or 1950's warplanes.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 14, 2006 Posts: 505

The article (from warfare.ru) is a bad form of propaganda. To put it politely I will call it Kool-Aid, some of you might know what I'm talking about.

Enthusiast Joined: May 21, 2005 Posts: 21

Tinito_16 wrote:

what I don't understand is why the Boyd hypothesis worked in the 70's and now it doesnt. I'm not saying he's right, but alot of the things the Boyd camp say are essential in a fighter HAVE been incorporated into the Raptor, to give it good all-around performance. What's their beef, their point and why are they not satisfied??

John Boyd and his band of acolytes theories DID NOT work in the 70's. Their pet project, the F-16 LWF, had to go through massive upgrades to become a practical weapon system before entering service. The "Fighter Mafia" remains stuck in the mid to late 1960's, when radars were incapable of look down/shoot down, avionics systems incapable of BVR ID's, and air to air missiles (especially radar guided ones) were unreliable, usually requiring support from the launch aircraft till impact. In that enviroment, a simple light weight fighter with short range radar and IR air to air missiles is practical, but starting in the 70's, the concept became, literally, a dead end; although, you'll never get Riccioni and his ilk to admit it. Now what's left is a bunch of pissed off old men, whom time, technology, and tactics have passed by making dubious (at best) arguments.

Regards,
Murph

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Add this one to the list. The last part says it all. Nice job of being a PLAAF supporter.

http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/A ... rtin/5184/

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1088 Status: Offline

elp wrote:

Add this one to the list. The last part says it all. Nice job of being a PLAAF supporter.

http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/A ... rtin/5184/

It would be funny to get one of these dumba$$es on a talk show with a couple F-22 and F-15 pilots and have them explain to the pilots why the F-22 is so "vurnerable" and worthless.

Boyd and his bubbas were also on the low cost bandwagon...

I agree with sferrin. Anyone here seriously think a fighter pilot would fly something worse than what he/she flew before?

Hey Murph. The upgrades that you talk about to the F-16 were to make it a BOMBER. The air force never let the Falcons drivers be pure A2A like the eagle drivers.

Enthusiast Joined: May 21, 2005 Posts: 21

danhutmacher wrote:

Hey Murph. The upgrades that you talk about to the F-16 were to make it a BOMBER.

Which is the role the USAF and the NATO allies bought the aircraft for. Leaving that aside, as I mentioned, the idea of a fighter with a range only radar and IR missiles had been left in the dust with the advent of effective EID technolgies, pulse-doppler radars, and radar guided missiles. Either way, the LWF concept was 10 years too late.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Another article dissing the Raptor