Nice Article on the F-22

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post19 Jan 2017, 17:04

garrya wrote:Not really, pilots are still human. Human can make mistake or exaggerate things a bit when they excited. It only natural.


So in that case, why should we believe any pilot claims? After all they're all human and can get excited.

garrya wrote:You just said earlier that no sneak up was used and F-22 not using AB so its signature was reduced :shock:


No I didn't, what you said was that an F-22 can only beat an F-15 with 9X by using Stealth and BVR tactics, I said no, heres a link that says a lone F-22 beat 8 of them, some in WVR.

You said that this was only possible if the Raptor snuck up on them and avoided a dogfight, and killed them before they knew he was there.

I said no, according to the F-15 pilot, he was able to visually see the Raptor but still couldn't lock.

So to me, yes there could have been a some sneaking up, but ultimately the Raptor was seen judging by the pilot's statements, (seeing it, being impressed by it's power and maneuverability) a dogfight happened.

garrya wrote:Actually, i have just done a bit of research about the case.I believe that the story original from here:
http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Features/Dis ... -flag.aspx
The article was written in 2007 ( 8 years earlier than your source). There were no mentioned of 1 F-22 vs 8 F-15C or all F-15C are equipped with HMS and AIM-9X in the original. So i believe that extra bit is created by the writer of fightersweep but not actually happened.What more likely is that they have a normal BVR and ACM exercise and F-22 beat F-15. But not with Aim-9X or 1 vs 8 situation.


2 possibilities here:

1. F-22s routinely go 1 vs 5 or 8 or 10. So this could have been 2 similar exercises.
2. Having incomplete data doesn't invalidate the other statement. Your link also didn't say they had no 9X and HMCS so it doesn't invalidate the Fightersweep claim. Fightersweep simply had more details.

garrya wrote:I dont know about that, technically speaking we make the same excuse about F-22 vs F-15 case. May be the sensor was broken.May be F-22 sneak up on them ..etc. Regardless, if F-22 have 14-16 degrees better sustain turn rate than T-38 then i don't see much benefit of using T-38 to train F-22 pilot ( it like using a 747 to train F-16 pilots )


They used F-4s to train F-15s.....F-4 my friend, the flying brick, the plane that could only fly cause it was repulsed by the Earth. The plane that Mig-17s and Mig-21 pilots trolled for years before TopGun because it was almost meat on the table. That plane was training the pilots of the F-15...the best dog fighting machine created by man (combat records into account) and beating the crap out of them. the T-38 might not even be enjoying the same success as the F-4, but if it can get a dozen kills in a year, then it can paint that on if it wants.




garrya wrote:I dont remember this happened. I believe that you mistaken it with the case where F-15E dropped a laser guided bomb on a hovering helicopter, thus achieve an air to air kill. Very unconventional way of achieving an AA kill. But technically speaking, it doesn't sound very hard to achieve


I know its Wiki, but you can look deeper into this if you want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_ ... underchief
One F-105F is unofficially credited with downing three MiGs—one by air-to-air missile, the second by cannon fire and the third by jettisoning the centerline rack full of bombs directly into the path of a surprised MiG.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1677
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Jan 2017, 17:13

One F-105F is unofficially credited with downing three MiGs—one by air-to-air missile, the second by cannon fire and the third by jettisoning the centerline rack full of bombs directly into the path of a surprised MiG.

This is up there with the paveway an F-15E used on an iraqi helicopter. Yet, if this is true it's even more impressive - killing an enemy jet with a "dumb" bomb or bombs?!

What's next, cluster bombs to take out flights of 3 or 4? :drool:
Offline

garrya

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post19 Jan 2017, 18:17

zero-one wrote:So in that case, why should we believe any pilot claims? After all they're all human and can get excited.

Generally, the government procurement assessment of fighter aircraft often based on test data ( flight manual )and KPP values. Pilots comments are more or less for the common folk.
And I dont know about you but for me , I always considered pilots comments as something extra rather than the main source of information.

zero-one wrote:No I didn't, what you said was that an F-22 can only beat an F-15 with 9X by using Stealth and BVR tactics, I said no, heres a link that says a lone F-22 beat 8 of them, some in WVR.
You said that this was only possible if the Raptor snuck up on them and avoided a dogfight, and killed them before they knew he was there.
I said no, according to the F-15 pilot, he was able to visually see the Raptor but still couldn't lock.
So to me, yes there could have been a some sneaking up, but ultimately the Raptor was seen judging by the pilot's statements, (seeing it, being impressed by it's power and maneuverability) a dogfight happened.

Then i said if a dogfight happened then there is no ways AIM-9X cant lock on the F-22
Then you said it could be because F-22 didn't use AB
Then i said F-22 without AB will have lesser T/W than F-16 , F-15 and AIM-9x can lock on much colder target such as helicopter or piston UAV


zero-one wrote:2 possibilities here:

1. F-22s routinely go 1 vs 5 or 8 or 10. So this could have been 2 similar exercises.
2. Having incomplete data doesn't invalidate the other statement. Your link also didn't say they had no 9X and HMCS so it doesn't invalidate the Fightersweep claim. Fightersweep simply had more details.

For the first possibility: it is the same pilot who commented on both article, which the exact words. So i don't think it is 2 different exercise
For your second possibility: The article on Fighter sweep is written 8 years later, without any others credible publication having the same information. Moreover, air combat command is the official USAF website so i seriously doubt that fightersweep has more information than them.


zero-one wrote:They used F-4s to train F-15s.....F-4 my friend, the flying brick, the plane that could only fly cause it was repulsed by the Earth. The plane that Mig-17s and Mig-21 pilots trolled for years before TopGun because it was almost meat on the table. That plane was training the pilots of the F-15...the best dog fighting machine created by man (combat records into account) and beating the crap out of them. the T-38 might not even be enjoying the same success as the F-4, but if it can get a dozen kills in a year, then it can paint that on if it wants.

I believed that i already explained the different in the previous page.
The different in sustain turn rate between F-4E and fighters like F-15, F-16 is about 4 degrees/ seconds ( assuming altitude about 15k feet)
The different between F-22 ( if it really sustained 28 degrees/second at 20k feet) vs F-15 , F-16 is much bigger.
For example: F-16 with drag index =0 can only sustain about 12 degrees/second at 20K feet. That is about 16 degrees/second different from the alleged sustain turn rate of F-22. Now the T-38 will do even worse than that
Image

That aside, the alleged value doesn't fit aerodynamic law either


zero-one wrote:I know its Wiki, but you can look deeper into this if you want
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_ ... underchief
One F-105F is unofficially credited with downing three MiGs—one by air-to-air missile, the second by cannon fire and the third by jettisoning the centerline rack full of bombs directly into the path of a surprised MiG.

That one is unofficial man
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post19 Jan 2017, 18:35

garrya wrote:Generally, the procurement assessment of fighter aircraft often based on test data ( flight manual )and KPP values. Pilots comments are more or less for the common folk. I dont know about you but for me , I always considered pilots comments as something extra rather than the main source of information.


Granted, but the Kpp claims were also unclassified data...much like the unofficial F-105 air-air kill with a bomb.

garrya wrote:Then i said if a dogfight happened then there is no ways AIM-9X cant lock on the F-22
Then you said it could be because F-22 didn't use AB
Then i said F-22 without AB will have lesser T/W than F-16 , F-15 and AIM-9x can lock on much colder target such as helicopter or piston UAV


O, well what I said was not on "Full AB". See you gave out a picture of an F-22 on an airshow where its on AB most of the time. Thats why air shows don't last for more than 10 minutes, (F-22's full demo is about 10 minutes) because of all the AB use. So I don't think that the F-22 will be as hot as it is in an airshow as it is in combat.


garrya wrote:For your second possibility: The article on Fighter sweep is written 8 years later, without any others credible publication having the same information. Moreover, air combat command is the official USAF website so i seriously doubt that fightersweep has more information than them.

But air combat command news site never said the F-15s didn't have them. If I'm not mistaken, the exercise took place at around 2007. F-15s started Aim-9X integration in 2003. So its only natural for them to have it in 2007. Plus, FighterSweep is written by pilots with inside info. So if it was omitted on the official site but isn't classified, then they can post it.

garrya wrote:I believed that i already explained the different in the previous page.
The different in sustain turn rate between F-4E and fighters like F-15, F-16 is about 4 degrees/ seconds ( assuming altitude about 15k feet)
The different between F-22 ( if it really sustained 28 degrees/second at 20k feet) vs F-15 , F-16 is much bigger.
For example: F-16 with drag index =0 can only sustain about 12 degrees/second at 20K feet. That is about 16 degrees/second different from the alleged sustain turn rate of F-22. Now the T-38 will do even worse than that


See heres why it doesn't matter to me, fuel and weapons loads were never mentioned, the F-22 could of been carrying 2k worth of fuel next to a tanker and just for fun the pilot punched full AB and did a turn, who knows.

But that doesn't remove the fact that the F-22s speed and maneuverability coupled with Stealth is a winning combination against F-15s with 9Xs. In fact, even the link you provided emphasized this.

garrya wrote:That one is unofficial man


Well thats why I said, you can dig deeper into it if you want.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1253
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post19 Jan 2017, 20:07

mixelflick wrote:One F-105F is unofficially credited with downing three MiGs—one by air-to-air missile, the second by cannon fire and the third by jettisoning the centerline rack full of bombs directly into the path of a surprised MiG.



Wiki references a 1998 book but I don't remember any mention of it in the more recent research (past 10 years) - certainly not listed as a kill.


I am not familiar with the exact Rafale or T-38 HUD symbology but it seems to indicate (based on other HUDs) there are no issues actually locking onto an F-22 in whatever state it was in during those 1v1s. I don't think the T-38 has a radar (gun ranging?)and the HUD is in some kind of LCOS guns mode but there is a lock tone that would either be heat missiles or a guns firing cue. In these type of exercises the pilot is obviously a bigger factor and often one aircraft starts defensive.
Offline

garrya

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post19 Jan 2017, 20:29

zero-one wrote:Granted, but the Kpp claims were also unclassified data...much like the unofficial F-105 air-air kill with a bomb

Unclassified data and Unofficial data do not have the same meaning
Unclassified are data that are not hidden from the public but for all intent and purpose, they are official. The F-16 flight manual is unclassified, but it is the official flight test data. On the other hand, unofficial data are non-confirmed data


zero-one wrote: well what I said was not on "Full AB". See you gave out a picture of an F-22 on an airshow where its on AB most of the time. Thats why air shows don't last for more than 10 minutes, (F-22's full demo is about 10 minutes) because of all the AB use. So I don't think that the F-22 will be as hot as it is in an airshow as it is in combat

It very pointless to argue about this since even without AB, the F-22 is still much much hotter than a helicopter or a piston UAV which can be easily locked on by IR missiles ( even the shoulder launch version)


zero-one wrote:But air combat command news site never said the F-15s didn't have them
If I'm not mistaken, the exercise took place at around 2007. F-15s started Aim-9X integration in 2003. So its only natural for them to have it in 2007. Plus, FighterSweep is written by pilots with inside info. So if it was omitted on the official site but isn't classified, then they can post it

Here is the author detail
Scott Wolff is an accomplished writer and renowned aviation photojournalist. He has held the position of Managing Editor for a print flying lifestyle magazine, and is the Host and Editor for FighterSweep.

AFAIK, that doesn't sound like he is a F-22 pilot or anything similar, much less someone who got access to inside information

zero-one wrote:See heres why it doesn't matter to me, fuel and weapons loads were never mentioned, the F-22 could of been carrying 2k worth of fuel next to a tanker and just for fun the pilot punched full AB and did a turn, who knows

Low fuel does improve G load, but i seriously doubt that it would really improve turn rate by more than 2 times
Regardless, if the only situation that F-22 can achieve 28 degrees sustain turn rate is when it has 2K worth of fuel next to a tanker, then that achievement is rather irrelevance in real combat situation, and now we came back to the KPP value where its sustain G is around the same as an F-15 ( with 8 AAM and 50% fuel).As we know, F-15 wont be able to turn so fast that it get out of Aim-9X fov before the seeker can lock on target

zero-one wrote:But that doesn't remove the fact that the F-22s speed and maneuverability coupled with Stealth is a winning combination against F-15s with 9Xs. In fact, even the link you provided emphasized this.

Do i believe that F-22 can easily beat F-15 from BVR by stealth: yes i do
Do i believe that F-22 likely beat F-15 in a close combat dogfight when both using cannon : yes i do
Do i believe a single F-22 without HMS and AIM-9X and beat a pair of F-15 equipped with those things ? No
zero-one wrote:Well thats why I said, you can dig deeper into it if you want.

I tried to google that but nothing of substance came up
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2542
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post19 Jan 2017, 20:49

You're making some pretty big assumptions about the F-22's IR signature, in stating categorically x,y, and z have lower signatures.

As for defeating JHMCS/HOBS missiles, the F-22 has done this on a number of occasions, vs multiple F-16s, F-15s, etc...
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1390
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post20 Jan 2017, 01:46

zero-one wrote:
Well it would help if we could back that claim up.

Two colors IR seeker can distinguish between normal flares and aircraft because the temperature is very different. Multi spectra flares are flares burning at temperature similar to jet engine exhaust => can defeattwo color seeker.

IIR seeker can distinguish between flares and aircraft shape because it can see the shape of the aircraft
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6935
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post20 Jan 2017, 02:07

"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post20 Jan 2017, 05:13

If faced with a pair of F-15s, even in a merge, the F-22 would simply fire it's AIM-9X at speed and altitude before the F-15s could. Splash 2.

But yes if the F-22 decided to start turning against them, the HMD lack is a huge disadvantage. The F-22 would have to open it's bays, look down at his systems and attempt to get the Sidewinder to LOBL. While the F-15...just point and shoot.
Online

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2162
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post20 Jan 2017, 13:11

I think that if AIM-9X couldn't lock on to F-22 in WVR ranges, then there is something seriously wrong with the missile seeker. Imaging seekers see everything as differences in thermal energy and any aircraft will stand out pretty clearly from background (be it sky, ground or water). Of course the amount of energy (temperature and material emissivity) affect the range where the target can be picked out from the background. F-22 might well be more difficult for IIR seeker to detect than F-15, but I really doubt it matters that much in WVR ranges. IIR seekers have much better sensitivity and performance than earlier scanning non-imaging seekers like in AIM-9M or Stinger or pretty much all IR missiles developed before 1990. Even those missiles could pretty easily lock on to pretty cool targets like helos, light aircraft or UAVs several kilometers away. IIR seekers can readily have 2-3 times the range against similar targets and are much more difficult to confuse with flares.

I do think F-22 is probably pretty damn difficult opponent even for several F-15C with HMS and AIM-9X. F-22 would constantly know where the F-15s are and what they are doing while F-15 pilots would to rely on their eyes to pick up and track the F-22. I do think that if F-15 pilot managed to track F-22 using HMD, AIM-9X would likely have not much problems locking onto it and going for the kill. That might be the difficult part as the SA advantage of F-22 pilot enjoys is very big and he can probably dictate how the fight commences which might make the HMS+AIM-9X less of a threat for him.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6935
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post20 Jan 2017, 14:04

IMO the LO treatments designed into the F-22 are there to enhance it's primary role as a long-range shooter. The IR treatments could have bigger positive impact at long range to reduce the jet's IR signature than within WVR range where I agree with hornetfinn's assessment.
A furball vs multiple bandits equipped with HMD/HOBS capability means the Raptor has surrendered it's greatest strength ie. the ability to kill from a distance with virtual impunity. Definitely not smart and something to be avoided as everyone from 4-star Generals to newbie pilots like to point out.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post20 Jan 2017, 14:28

garrya wrote:Unclassified are data that are not hidden from the public but for all intent and purpose, they are official. The F-16 flight manual is unclassified, but it is the official flight test data. On the other hand, unofficial data are non-confirmed data


But did the Kpp sheets give us all the other factors affecting the turn rate performance when that test was taken? Was it the actual limit of the F-22's performance, or was it just there to show us that the F-22 can match the F-15 in that altitude.

garrya wrote:It very pointless to argue about this since even without AB, the F-22 is still much much hotter than a helicopter or a piston UAV which can be easily locked on by IR missiles ( even the shoulder launch version)


How did you know that it will be much hotter than a helicopter or UAV? What helicopter or UAV are you comparing it to, were they also treated with IR reduction methods?


garrya wrote:
[b]Scott Wolff is an accomplished writer and renowned aviation photojournalist.....


You're basing your doubt on weather the F-15s had 9X on the fact that it wasn't mentioned on the first publication of the news. However it was also not disputed. Most of the time when news comes out, not all the info is given to the writers or the journalist. this is common, but lets look at the facts.

The Aim-9X was introduced in 2003, it was also integrated to the F-15 first. The exercise took place in 2007, I would be surprised if they would pit the F-22 against a handicapped opponent because Raptors are routinely pitted against opponents with the odds stacked against them.

So unless you can find a claim that specifically notes that the F-15s were NOT EQUIPPED with 9x and HMCS, then I see no reason to doubt the article in Fightersweep


garrya wrote:Low fuel does improve G load, but i seriously doubt that it would really improve turn rate by more than 2 times
Regardless, if the only situation that F-22 can achieve 28 degrees sustain turn rate is when it has 2K worth of fuel next to a tanker, then that achievement is rather irrelevance in real combat situation, and now we came back to the KPP value where its sustain G is around the same as an F-15 ( with 8 AAM and 50% fuel).As we know, F-15 wont be able to turn so fast that it get out of Aim-9X fov before the seeker can lock on target

so if the math here is correct (viewtopic.php?t=25385)
a 28 degree sustained turn is either a 9 g turn at about 350 knots and 7 g turn at about 275 knots, the low fuel weight can allow the Raptor to reach 7Gs at 2k.

Anyway I don't think of the 9X or any missile as something that will lock on in a second, in fact the early Aim-9s took some 4 seconds to lock on the tail pipe. Sure tech has improved but I doubt they have reached a point where it took just a second to lock.

In fact in 9X test footage, you'll notice the pilots taking a long hard look at the target before fox 2? why? well to me, its a clue as to how long it takes for the missile to recognize the target.

garrya wrote:Do i believe a single F-22 without HMS and AIM-9X and beat a pair of F-15 equipped with those things ? No


But it did, till now, there is still no counter to the article by Fightersweep, theres really no reason for us to doubt it
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post20 Jan 2017, 22:33

Most of the WVR happened probably beyond 8 km similar to Gulf War type engagements. The F-22 just shot them frontally or sneaked up to the rear. With it's powerful radar it could just input range/closure data in it's HUD and get an easy kill, while other fighters that cannot lock on will struggle/miss.

The enemy could attempt to use LOBL for the Sidewinder, but it's evelope will be much smaller thanks to the F-22's superior sensor processing, cruise speed and acceleration. Plus using passive info without range/velocity measurement is difficult for targetting at those distances.

I don't think the AIM-9 has any problem locking on the F-22, there has been AIM-9 Kills on the Raptor.
Offline

garrya

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post21 Jan 2017, 05:57

zero-one wrote:But did the Kpp sheets give us all the other factors affecting the turn rate performance when that test was taken? Was it the actual limit of the F-22's performance, or was it just there to show us that the F-22 can match the F-15 in that altitude.

It does give us pretty much all we need to know: information about altitude, speed. Weapon load wasn't specified but quite obvious that it would be internal AA load.It wasn't just there to show that F-22 can match F-15 performance. It stated quite clear that sustain G value is the demonstrated value

zero-one wrote:How did you know that it will be much hotter than a helicopter or UAV? What helicopter or UAV are you comparing it to, were they also treated with IR reduction methods?

I know it have higher IR signature than a helicopter or an UAV because of common sense. In BVR situation, you can argue that the skin of a subsonic F-22 cruising at medium/high altitude would be quite cold ( and can be colder than the engine of a heli). However, in dogfight situation, the exhaust fumes would be massively hot, significantly more than any piston UAV.
I compare it to this kind of UAV
Image



zero-one wrote:You're basing your doubt on weather the F-15s had 9X on the fact that it wasn't mentioned on the first publication of the news. However it was also not disputed. Most of the time when news comes out, not all the info is given to the writers or the journalist. this is common, but lets look at the facts.

The Aim-9X was introduced in 2003, it was also integrated to the F-15 first. The exercise took place in 2007, I would be surprised if they would pit the F-22 against a handicapped opponent because Raptors are routinely pitted against opponents with the odds stacked against them.

So unless you can find a claim that specifically notes that the F-15s were NOT EQUIPPED with 9x and HMCS, then I see no reason to doubt the article in Fightersweep

There are a lot of nonsense in newspaper and magazine that never get officially disputed. They barely bother to correct the bad press ( i mean how often do you read on the new that F-35 is a useless trillions USD fighters ?, how often do you read that low frequency radar make stealth useless ? ), i think it not much of a surprise that they dont bother to correct good press.
It is not the matter of pitted against handicapped opponent but rather it could be a normal ACM exercise where they only use cannon ( happen more often than you think). Moreover, Fightersweep doesn't just claim that F-15 had aim-9X and HMS , they also claimed that a single F-22 , gone against 8 F-15 , and 2 of them at dogfight range. Extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence


zero-one wrote:so if the math here is correct (viewtopic.php?t=25385)
a 28 degree sustained turn is either a 9 g turn at about 350 knots and 7 g turn at about 275 knots, the low fuel weight can allow the Raptor to reach 7Gs at 2k

He mean that , to get 28 degrees/second , you either made a 9G turn at 350knots or 7G turn at 275 knots. But that only a convention beteen speed , G and turn rate and have nothing to do with whether F-22 can sustain 28 degrees/second at 20K feet or not. Generally speaking, lower speed mean lower G with equal or even superior turn rate,however, lower speed mean less lift, and lift is a valuable thing at 20K feet

zero-one wrote:Anyway I don't think of the 9X or any missile as something that will lock on in a second, in fact the early Aim-9s took some 4 seconds to lock on the tail pipe. Sure tech has improved but I doubt they have reached a point where it took just a second to lock.

I dont know much about early AIM-9 but iam quite certain that Aim-9x can do significantly better.Given that even your modern phone's camera can recognize human face in second.
zero-one wrote:In fact in 9X test footage, you'll notice the pilots taking a long hard look at the target before fox 2? why? well to me, its a clue as to how long it takes for the missile to recognize the target.

Missiles doesn't need to recognize target themselves , the pilots literally point them at target and give order ( that shape is your target ).We are not talking about LOAL and ATA here
zero-one wrote:But it did

Or it didn't and the part we read was an exaggeration by writer

zero-one wrote:till now, there is still no counter to the article by Fightersweep, theres really no reason for us to doubt it

Using that logic then we should also take all RT proparganda pieces as truth since they don't bother to correct themselves ?
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest