Fighter mafia shoots down F-22

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

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post10 Jan 2012, 17:55

http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/0 ... n-and-now/
Finally, two of its hyper-touted “Fifth Generation” characteristics—“stealth” and “supercruise”—are, in truth, astonishingly limited. F-22 stealth is a delusion: every VHF (i.e. long wavelength) radar in the world can detect the F-22 at 150 to 200 miles, and the Russians, and others, have built and sold thousands of such radars. The F-22’s “supercruise”, that is, its ability to cruise supersonically, is unusably short in duration (due to inadequate onboard fuel capacity)—so short that current Air Force training missions to exercise supercruising combat actually schedule one tanker refueling just before going supersonic and one more refueling before going home subsonically. Imagine having to schedule two tanker hook-ups for every F-22 sortie in the chaos of a serious shooting war!

Given that this was the group behind the F-16, that's really got to sting here, right? :P
Offline

JetTest

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 479
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 00:22

Unread post10 Jan 2012, 18:09

Not really. I don't think they are considered particularly relevant today.
Offline

mongo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 22:21
  • Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Unread post10 Jan 2012, 19:01

So if stealth is detectable and a delusion, why is there the existence of the PAK-FA and J-20, STEALTHS ALSO?

I don't buy this article and it's just another work to slander the F-22. This is not the first post I have seen from you bashing such an advanced aircraft.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1501
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post10 Jan 2012, 20:01

I must say the article was entertaining, especially the comparison of the F-35 to the F-105. The Thud had more gun kills than all variants of the F-4 which had 10.5 kills with the gun pod and 5 with internal gun compared to the Thuds 24.5 gun kills which were all against the far more agile MiG-17. Heck, AFAIK the Thud has more gun kills than anything since the Saber. Pretty good for a "bomber"
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-Project Engineer
Offline

mongo

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 22:21
  • Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Unread post10 Jan 2012, 20:29

The Lead Sled....The most beautiful ugly fighter bomber created. :D
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2101
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post10 Jan 2012, 20:30

hcobb wrote:http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/01/10/the-heritage-foundation-then-and-now/
Finally, two of its hyper-touted “Fifth Generation” characteristics—“stealth” and “supercruise”—are, in truth, astonishingly limited. F-22 stealth is a delusion: every VHF (i.e. long wavelength) radar in the world can detect the F-22 at 150 to 200 miles, and the Russians, and others, have built and sold thousands of such radars. The F-22’s “supercruise”, that is, its ability to cruise supersonically, is unusably short in duration (due to inadequate onboard fuel capacity)—so short that current Air Force training missions to exercise supercruising combat actually schedule one tanker refueling just before going supersonic and one more refueling before going home subsonically. Imagine having to schedule two tanker hook-ups for every F-22 sortie in the chaos of a serious shooting war!

Given that this was the group behind the F-16, that's really got to sting here, right? :P


That's a pretty poor take away from that. Without tanking, an F-22 can supercruise ~40 minutes, with a subsonic leg on either end. If you add tanking on the front and back end, then that means the supersonic endurance/combat radius increases, as it'll be starting with a full tank. That's also rather optimistic reporting on the detection capabilities/proliferation.

All you need to know is that the article was by Sprey/Wheeler, to ignore it. The assertions that they make are ridiculous, as they have zero access to the figures, from the testing. I'd like to see an F-105 out accelerate an F-16, or pull 9.9 Gs, or fly at 50+ deg AoA.
Offline

flighthawk

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 372
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 20:06
  • Location: UK

Unread post10 Jan 2012, 21:36

Chuck Spinney jumps on Bandwagon shock - assume they have to stick up for each other - but wonder what work they actually carried out on programs like Have Blue? - is that zero?

And according to that article the F-22 doesn't have a bubble canopy :? - cant they at least find a picture on Google...........
Offline

flighthawk

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 372
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 20:06
  • Location: UK

Unread post10 Jan 2012, 21:43

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I must say the article was entertaining, especially the comparison of the F-35 to the F-105. The Thud had more gun kills than all variants of the F-4 which had 10.5 kills with the gun pod and 5 with internal gun compared to the Thuds 24.5 gun kills which were all against the far more agile MiG-17. Heck, AFAIK the Thud has more gun kills than anything since the Saber. Pretty good for a "bomber"



Yes - this alone makes that old Sprey interview a joke........Do you think Pierre, there might be more to Aerial combat than turning tightly in the Horizontal??.....hmmm.......I think if Boyd were still about he would be going to kick some sense into these bozos.
Last edited by flighthawk on 11 Jan 2012, 00:31, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

hcobb

Banned

  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 15:31
  • Location: North California

Unread post10 Jan 2012, 21:54

I ran the F-35 numbers vs lead sled for WickedPedia, but I'll go post that over in the F-35 forum.
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 818
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post10 Jan 2012, 23:18

This article is simply ridiculous.

"Moreover, even if technical performance were the dominant factor in air combat, the F-22 is no premier fighter. Its aerodynamic performance—maneuverability, acceleration and range—is a gigantic disappointment. The F-22 purports to compensate with technologies—radar, radar warning and radar missiles—that historically have failed time and time again; technologies that make the airplane more vulnerable to enemy countermeasures, not less.

Read more: http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/0 ... z1j5ygWaeB"

This isn't inaccuracy, it's wholesale lie. Please demonstrate that radar has failed 'time and time again'. I guess all those SAM kills by F-4Gs with no losses in ODS weren't due to being able to detect the systems' radars. And the reasonable combat record of the AIM-7M and fairly stellar performance of the AIM-120 are both figments of our imagination.

The Raptor is demonstrably the equal of AIM-9X/JHMCS-equipped Vipers in a knife fight. It has scored a 144-0 kill ratio with 97% mission capable in the Northern Edge exercise against trained USAF pilots flying proven aircraft. I fail to see how this is anything but the gold standard in fighter design.
(I concede the issues with OBOGS)

This site claims to be a place where "Military intelligence is not a contradiction in terms." The articles I've seen on it definitely contradict this assertion.
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2227
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post11 Jan 2012, 00:25

Don't you ever watch Dogfights? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ope0tn3Rx0M

Great F-105 battle! And yes that is a CMH hanging around his neck...

You should all remember how the F-16 was a joke to the USAF at first, nobody wanted a 'cheap' fighter.

TEG
(edit-typo)
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 505
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

Unread post11 Jan 2012, 00:40

I wonder what their purpose is in spouting things like this. Clearly, obviously, beyond any doubt, they KNOW that every single thing they say is false. That's called "lying", which usually isn't done without some particular purpose in mind. But I can't come up with any plausible ones in this case. (It's much harder when the liars in question know not only that their claims are false, but also that they have no chance of fooling anybody anywhere ever because the truth is quite well known. So what possible goals are left for lying when you eliminate even the slightest chance that it could actually be about actually fooling anybody?)
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 309
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post11 Jan 2012, 02:20

That_Engine_Guy wrote:Don't you ever watch Dogfights? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ope0tn3Rx0M

Great F-105 battle! And yes that is a CMH hanging around his neck...

You should all remember how the F-16 was a joke to the USAF at first, nobody wanted a 'cheap' fighter.

TEG
(edit-typo)


Lets also remember the F-16,a superb AC, is relagated in the USAF as a bomb truck flying to kill boxes to destroy targets of opertunity.
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline

svenphantom

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 87
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010, 02:43

Unread post11 Jan 2012, 04:08

This article is pure rubbish. Don't waste time with it, they are just plainly not researching on proof that the F-22 is far superior to every aircraft in the USAF inventory despite the "Technical" advantages that they have such as bubble canopies. From what I hear from sources about F-35 detecting range, it doesn't beat past 16nm. (That's assuming it's L-band RCS is 10x bigger than X-band). Utter garbage don't waste your time on this...
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 586
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post11 Jan 2012, 09:00

Think this about says it all, Pierre Sprey's dream fighter force.....

4,000 small A-10's
2,500 turboprops as forward air controllers
1,100 smaller, faster F-16s ONLY FITTED WITH IR/OPTICAL SENSORS, NO RADAR
183 F-22s already purchased
200 F-35s redesignated as A-35s

So only 383 aircraft in Pierre's "IDEAL AIR FORCE" will actually be fitted with radar.

Notice a pattern relating who had a hand in developing the majority of that force? This smacks of old man having an old man tantrum because his pride and joy is considered obsolete.

Nice work buddy, don't forget your meds, k?
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests