Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Capability is not measured properly. I read a book by Jim Dunnigan where he compared the computing capacity of the entire Soviet navy to the capacity of one, maybe two US subs. Measure the amount of data that one side can acquire and share vs the other. All of a sudden F-35 starts to look really good and the hot rods not as much.

F-16.net Sponsor

T50 is for those 3rd world customers who operate legacy Migs, there is a strong demand to replace their aging fleets. The Russians know that.

So it doesn't need to be a cutting edge super duper fighter

The Russians may be building superficially impressive planes apparently in an attempt to throw away the military might of the western and european world, and to thwart any claims made by these communities with regards to their planes.

The F-22A Raptor is the pinnacle of 5th generation multi-role fighter technology combined with stealth and other advantageous features it has got, alas if only it was easily affordable. The so-called PAK-FA(T-50) is like someone said here a superficially modified version of the current MiGs. On paper this jet or even the chinese jet for that matter lack in reliability, effectiveness, and survivability. The Cost debate is not at all in question, cos when it comes to giving a 10 out of 10, it becomes a feeble argument to say the least. The integrated avionics package, the airframe design, cockpit functionality and ergonomics, and almost all Weapons systems can be carried onto it, though it is still to be seen how the f-22A raptor performs in AG Role, whereas its air superiority capabilities are second to none. The only thing which goes against the raptor is the price issue and the mission capable rate(i.e 30hours maintenance after every mission).

In much simpler terms the russian planes are highly unreliable,and are big,sluggish and heavy, lastly they are based on old and flawed design study.

F-22 will own the PAK-FA(T-50) and the Chinese stealth variant any day.

BTW i need some one to fill me in on this one thing that how many code-1 sorites has the raptor had since it was fielded, and how many have been lost due to attrition?

pakviper wrote:

The only thing which goes against the raptor is the price issue and the mission capable rate(i.e 30hours maintenance after every mission).

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html

Quote:

Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It’s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.

The F-22 doesn't require anywhere near 30hrs/1hr flight.

delvo wrote:

pushoksti wrote:

The Russians will say anything to sell their garbage to the rest of the world.

Actually, I've read comments from the prototype's own makers about exactly what they believe its strengths AND weaknesses are. They said, for example, that it's more maneuverable and cheaper but not as stealthy.

I'd still like to know what that means. To say something is more maneuverable is incredibly broad. More broad than it might appear at first. Aircraft handle differently depending on what conditions they fly in. Was the maneuverability highlighted on the T-50 low speed dogfighting and nose pointing? And if so, does that mean that it's only "average" at higher speed? As far as I know, this has never been answered.

I'll wait and see until the real data comes out (however long that will take) until I consider the issue solved for good, but a term as simple as "more maneuverable" can be very misleading.

exorcet wrote:

I'll wait and see until the real data comes out (however long that will take) until I consider the issue solved for good, but a term as simple as "more maneuverable" can be very misleading.

In Russian terms, "more maneuverable" means it will make for a better airshow display.

so a low speed airshow tumbler? I always enjoy the 360 turn at airshows, shows sustained turn performance.

[quote="pakviper"]The integrated avionics package, the airframe design, cockpit functionality and ergonomics, and almost all Weapons systems can be carried onto it, though it is still to be seen how the f-22A raptor performs in AG Role, whereas its air superiority capabilities are second to none. /quote]

AG capabilities are second to few. Anything that can hit a moving target with a 2000lb JDAM while cruising at M1.5 and 50,000 feet gets my A2G Proficiency Cookie.

Quote:

In much simpler terms the russian planes are highly unreliable,and are big,sluggish and heavy, lastly they are based on old and flawed design study.

If this is the case, why did Colonel Fornof at Nelis State the the MKI is a tad better vs our fighters. I believe he meant our 4th gen fighters.

haavarla wrote:

If this is the case, why did Colonel Fornof at Nelis State the the MKI is a tad better vs our fighters. I believe he meant our 4th gen fighters.

Can we really take Colonel Fornof's word for anything though? Afterall he did make rather a fool out of himself in that video and from what I understand alot of what he said was just plain wrong.

shep1978 wrote:

Can we really take Colonel Fornof's word for anything though? Afterall he did make rather a fool out of himself in that video

How?

shep1978 wrote:

and from what I understand alot of what he said was just plain wrong.

What was he wrong about?

He made a bit of a fool out of himself because he pretty much caused a minor diplomatic blunder between the USAF and the Indian Airforce, not to mention 'slagging off' the French Airforce. And from what I remember he made a series of technical errors (Tumansky engines for the Flankers for example) and came out with some other strange stuff about the time between take offs of the Indian flankers due to FOD concerns. I've got a feeling he apolagised for it all.

I don't wanna get into that RF08 debate again.
But if like Colonal Fornof said, those MKI's is a tad better vs the Teens in Air superority mission, Then what about the the Russian Flankers(Su-27SM) with better engine thrust output, less empty weight and less drag..?

And with the new Su-35S on the horison as well..
It would imply something else than these airshow remarks about Russian hardware beeing only for display.

shep1978 wrote:

He made a bit of a fool out of himself because he pretty much caused a minor diplomatic blunder between the USAF and the Indian Airforce, not to mention 'slagging off' the French Airforce. And from what I remember he made a series of technical errors (Tumansky engines for the Flankers for example) and came out with some other strange stuff about the time between take offs of the Indian flankers due to FOD concerns. I've got a feeling he apolagised for it all.

There was areport about some demand India for an apology though not from te IAF, No dice, though. The AF did say it regretted the video caused some controversy. No retraction however.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Can F-22A defeat the russian T-50