Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14564311

So does this change anything? Or is it just a poor man's F-22?

It will change things about as much as the F22 did, which is not at all.

Originally posted by Mindset
It will change things about as much as the F22 did, which is not at all.
The F-22 did change things, if only slightly.

It made almost every other fighter on the planet obsolete.

But I mostly agree with you. Air superiority fighters are kind of passe. Strike fighters seem to be more important now.

Doesn't sound like that big a deal. We still win.

I always wonder what they don't tell us about what these planes can do. Eg, if the F-15 Eagle's top speed was given as Mach 2.7, what could it really do?

I wouldn't be surprised if it had the same technological specs of the 22, eurofighter or the recent chinese fighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20), which is to say, while some of these might beat others in various tech specs, they are interchangable in that they are "5th gen" fighters

I thought the Americans had unveiled plans for a fighter upgrade at the same time as they were rolling out the fighter/bomber F35, but apparently I am mistaken. From what I've seen, the F35 is technologically superior to all the previously mentioned craft, however, as it plays a bombing role more than a fighter role, would probably lose in 1v1 combat against these fighters.

all that being said, American air supremacy comes from a number of things, only one of which is technological superiority. For instance, even if Russia had better planes, they have far fewer carriers, and would thus be reliant on local airbases in term of engaging American air power.

Very cool though, and I agree with mindset, having state of the art jets is more just saying "ya, we roll with the big guys" more than any change in geopolitics. Russia isn't going to jump so far ahead of the Americans in military technology that it shifts any balance of power.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
But I mostly agree with you. Air superiority fighters are kind of passe. Strike fighters seem to be more important now.

It depends

if we look at NATO, and the wars they get into, sure, something like the F35 is a far better investment than an upgrade to the F22, because ya, if all you want to do is bomb villages who have no air defenses, hell, you could use a B52.

However, in Canada, as global warming opens up northern shipping passages, we are going to start having international pressure regarding the Northwest Passage (that are clearly internal Canadian waters), where it might actually be meaningful for our military to have the "scramble fighters" response to nations trying to use it. Or even more generally, as the arctic becomes more traversable, our northern lands are going to see a large amount of competition from all the world powers. I personally think an "in-house" arctic-fighter would have been a much better investment for our army, than to buy a couple of the F35s, which is what we did otherwise. It certainly shows where our military priorities are, but with Russia flexing its Arctic military muscles (they have had some demonstrations over the past few years) and international pressure over the NWP, idk, I'd prefer we focus less on how effective we are at bombing brown people, and more on how well we can defend our own territories.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The F-22 did change things, if only slightly.

It made almost every other fighter on the planet obsolete.

But I mostly agree with you. Air superiority fighters are kind of passe. Strike fighters seem to be more important now.

Ah, but war is strange like that. The F-35 is the tech that's most directly important to winning but it can be taken down by air superiority fighters, so you can't send your F-35s out against a strong enemy unless you have some F-22s to protect them from enemy air superiority.

The same thing happened to modern naval powers. Carriers are (assumed to be) the destructive arm of the fleet but submarines will destroy them so you have to issue destroyers to protect them from the subs even though to destroyers are nearly useless for attacking the targets you're going after.

As its turned out (as inimalist pointed out) NATO isn't getting much use out of it's F-22s these days but they can't afford to not have them in the event that they tangle with someone who does.

Originally posted by inimalist
I wouldn't be surprised if it had the same technological specs of the 22, eurofighter or the recent chinese fighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20), which is to say, while some of these might beat others in various tech specs, they are interchangable in that they are "5th gen" fighters

I thought the Americans had unveiled plans for a fighter upgrade at the same time as they were rolling out the fighter/bomber F35, but apparently I am mistaken. From what I've seen, the F35 is technologically superior to all the previously mentioned craft, however, as it plays a bombing role more than a fighter role, would probably lose in 1v1 combat against these fighters.

all that being said, American air supremacy comes from a number of things, only one of which is technological superiority. For instance, even if Russia had better planes, they have far fewer carriers, and would thus be reliant on local airbases in term of engaging American air power.

Very cool though, and I agree with mindset, having state of the art jets is more just saying "ya, we roll with the big guys" more than any change in geopolitics. Russia isn't going to jump so far ahead of the Americans in military technology that it shifts any balance of power.
I remember seeing a documentary that stated that Russian fighter pilots get about 1/10th the training of American pilots because Russia is too poor to afford that much jet fuel in peacetime.
Originally posted by inimalist
It depends

if we look at NATO, and the wars they get into, sure, something like the F35 is a far better investment than an upgrade to the F22, because ya, if all you want to do is bomb villages who have no air defenses, hell, you could use a B52.

However, in Canada, as global warming opens up northern shipping passages, we are going to start having international pressure regarding the Northwest Passage (that are clearly internal Canadian waters), where it might actually be meaningful for our military to have the "scramble fighters" response to nations trying to use it. Or even more generally, as the arctic becomes more traversable, our northern lands are going to see a large amount of competition from all the world powers. I personally think an "in-house" arctic-fighter would have been a much better investment for our army, than to buy a couple of the F35s, which is what we did otherwise. It certainly shows where our military priorities are, but with Russia flexing its Arctic military muscles (they have had some demonstrations over the past few years) and international pressure over the NWP, idk, I'd prefer we focus less on how effective we are at bombing brown people, and more on how well we can defend our own territories.
Don't worry, if anything happens big brother America will protect its hat from the Ruskies. awesome

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I remember seeing a documentary that stated that Russian fighter pilots get about 1/10th the training of American pilots because Russia is too poor to afford that much jet fuel in peacetime.

that wouldn't surprise me either

we get a really biased view here in Canada, because we always try to play down the talent of American soldiers ("we always beat them in war games" and the like), so I really can't comment on who would have better pilots, other than to say, Canada has the best!



Originally posted by Omega Vision
Don't worry, if anything happens big brother America will protect its hat from the Ruskies. awesome

actually, this is one issue where we would probably be better served siding with the Russians over the Americans

America wants the NWP to be international water, so that they don't have to get clearance with us to use it, whereas Russia has similar claims in their north. We could easily form a bloc where we recognize the independence of eachother's claims to try and stop nations like America or China from claiming our internal waters for their own use.

that being said, I don't think its a full invasion we have to be worried about, just something that lets us assert national sovereignty.

EDIT: just as an anecdote, our arctic is larger than western europe, rugged terrain, sparsely populated and of such a brutal climate that I've seen military officials joke that Canada's response to any foreign army there would be a rescue operation. lolz... idk, i found it funny

I'm going to invade Canada and take it over.

Who's with me?

Originally posted by inimalist
that wouldn't surprise me either

we get a really biased view here in Canada, because we always try to play down the talent of American soldiers ("we always beat them in war games" and the like), so I really can't comment on who would have better pilots, other than to say, Canada has the best!





actually, this is one issue where we would probably be better served siding with the Russians over the Americans

America wants the NWP to be international water, so that they don't have to get clearance with us to use it, whereas Russia has similar claims in their north. We could easily form a bloc where we recognize the independence of eachother's claims to try and stop nations like America or China from claiming our internal waters for their own use.

that being said, I don't think its a full invasion we have to be worried about, just something that lets us assert national sovereignty.

EDIT: just as an anecdote, our arctic is larger than western europe, rugged terrain, sparsely populated and of such a brutal climate that I've seen military officials joke that Canada's response to any foreign army there would be a rescue operation. lolz... idk, i found it funny
Well I can see America's claim what with Alaska and all, but China?

They're just ridiculous with their water claims.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well I can see America's claim what with Alaska and all, but China?

They're just ridiculous with their water claims.

I'll have to look up the mandates, but it isn't that the NWP is part of American water, but rather, that it is an international shipping route that Canada should not have independent control over.

China would push for the international definition almost precisely because they have no similar claims, as it would give them access to the route without consulting Canada, and they wouldn't be losing any territory that is opening up due to climate change

Its a UN designation thing... in all fairness, I think there are reasons to suggest it should be international waters, but my feelings are that we should push back against that, **** the UN and all that.

Originally posted by Mindset
I'm going to invade Canada and take it over.

Who's with me? I'll let you handle the snipers. You got this man

Originally posted by inimalist


Its a UN designation thing... in all fairness, I think there are reasons to suggest it should be international waters, but my feelings are that we should push back against that, **** the UN and all that.
Lol UN...Canada would finally find someone feeble enough to push around. ha-som

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol UN...Canada would finally find someone feeble enough to push around. ha-som

http://www.canada.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Canada+gets+high+praise+from+defense+secretary/4925522/story.html

but ya, I lol'd for real

NATO...smh.

They can't even subdue Libya without direct American assistance.

ya, but of those nations, we are among the most willing to violently occupy a poor nation thousands of kilometers from us

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, but of those nations, we are among the most willing to violently occupy a poor nation thousands of kilometers from us
Canada is the loyal girlfriend of America...England's little sister who's always ready to give America a hand...job...

France and Germany are the skanks that expect America to spend time with them. uhuh

What the **** are you talking about? laughcry

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What the **** are you talking about? laughcry
Everything.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Canada is the loyal girlfriend of America...England's little sister who's always ready to give America a hand...job...

France and Germany are the skanks that expect America to spend time with them. uhuh All due respect, was that meant to bear any resemblance to reality?

Originally posted by Quark_666
All due respect, was that meant to bear any resemblance to reality?
All due respect, I feel like I wasted a smiley. sneer

My government insisted on me coming here and telling my american friends that this jet "totally has them laserz!"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
NATO...smh.

They can't even subdue Libya without direct American assistance.

Well they can, the thing is that the european countries have no interest in engaging in a conflict atm because of the statebudget that many of them are in some way struggling with. And war is rather expensive. Also I think a great many countries were at the point of the Libya conflict afraid of a Iraq v.2.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Well they can, the thing is that the european countries have no interest in engaging in a conflict atm because of the statebudget that many of them are in some way struggling with. And war is rather expensive. Also I think a great many countries were at the point of the Libya conflict afraid of a Iraq v.2.

European NATO allies were the ones pushing hardest for the Libyan conflict, moreso than America even, and were dragging their feet in Afghanistan long before the recession

Originally posted by inimalist
European NATO allies were the ones pushing hardest for the Libyan conflict, moreso than America even, and were dragging their feet in Afghanistan long before the recession

True but that wasn't the point I was addressing, the point was Omega Vision claiming that Nato without military assistance from America would be incapable of subduing Libya, which is simply not correct.

I then commented on that Nato have had problems with getting the required support for the conflict as it have been outlined quite a few times by Nato General secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has been out time and time again to call upon more countries joining and the countries that are already in the conflict to increase their support in terms of airplanes.

As for Afghanistan, it's from my perspective fairly simple politics. Libya is in many of the Nato allies backyard, Afghanistan isn't.

Originally posted by Utrigita
True but that wasn't the point I was addressing, the point was Omega Vision claiming that Nato without military assistance from America would be incapable of subduing Libya, which is simply not correct.

When America stopped performing air strikes and let the rest of NATO carry the burden of enforcing the no-fly zone it took just a few weeks for the European nations to run out of munitions, forcing them to borrow bombs and missiles from America.

So yeah, they do need assistance from America.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
When America stopped performing air strikes and let the rest of NATO carry the burden of enforcing the no-fly zone it took just a few weeks for the European nations to run out of munitions, forcing them to borrow bombs and missiles from America.

So yeah, they do need assistance from America.

Actually many of the countries lended munitions from each other, (Denmark lended from Belgium for instance) mostly because many of the planes used from Britain and France (which are the major players) doesn't support much of the munition that the american planes are using. Lets not forget that none thought that the conflict would last this long, so no countries had actually been preparing the required amount of munition for the planes.

So they need indirect american assistance but could easily maintain a no flight zone by themselves, and what was it again that the Americans contributated with initial besides tomahawks? It was the royal navy that maintained a naval blockade (not America), it was the Brits and the french that made the first Sortie into Libya (not America) it was the Rafale French planes that was first in the air above libya (not America). America was a important player no doubt, but Britain themselves could have subdued Libya's defenses.

edit

Like most cheap knockoffs, you get what you pay for.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
All due respect, I feel like I wasted a smiley. sneer I realize you were kidding, but I'm genuinely curious whether that's supposed to be vaguely satirical or purely fictitious.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I realize you were kidding, but I'm genuinely curious whether that's supposed to be vaguely satirical or purely fictitious.
does it really matter?

i think he wants to argue about it

It doesn't really matter, except that I enjoy understanding the dynamics between nations.

its less like a girlfriend and more like a little brother

Originally posted by Omega Vision

So does this change anything?

If its going to be just as poor as the F-22, e.g. Sit on the runway, have its parts dissolve and rust, go through extensive repairs because the materials were useless and become a trophy plane with a lot of claims behind it.

Then all it will do will make an already poor country, poorer.

While that may or may not be true, the F-22 being useless garbage with a lot of myth behind it. It is how America best defeats its rivals, making them go bankrupt.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
NATO...smh.

They can't even subdue Libya without direct American assistance.

They dont need US assistance, no one really does, but we've found out that we can make the all powerful US cripple it's own country by 'asking' for assistance in every skirmish that comes along. And the US keep saying yes, and blowing more cash and more cash and more cash, while NATO bigwigs sit back and *evil laugh. Kkekeke. Like a trophy wife letting her dying obese husband eat cake from her naked body. She doesn't mind, the calories pile up, eventually...quids in!

who says the F-22 is useless? this is akin to saying "fighter jets are useless".

the F-22 is demonstrably a top tier, if not top period, fighter.

Fighter Jets are generally fine but the F-22 is not top tier, simply stated/claimed to be. If you look up Raptor exposed or flying enron theres US coverage/sources on why the F-22 is a crappy craft.

KaoYz90giTk

What do you mean by demonstrably?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Fighter Jets are generally fine but the F-22 is not top tier, simply stated/claimed to be. If you look up Raptor exposed or flying enron theres US coverage/sources on why the F-22 is a crappy craft.

KaoYz90giTk

What do you mean by demonstrably?

interesting

I was talking earlier in this thread about the fact I thought they were coming out with a new fighter, but I couldn't find the wiki link, this sort of confirms that, thanks

the problems with the tech, such as light armor and rain issues (which Maddow never explains, just says there is a "vulnerability", what vulnerability?), are almost assuredly problematic with all current tier fighters, and the communication thing is problematic of all parts of the army. The ability to have integrated communication is a relatively new technology, and for years, the army has divided the communications deliberately, so that pilots report back to a flight command center that then coordinates with other units. This is a problem, sure, but it isn't a problem with the F22, but rather the army being slow to integrate new technology... actually, the armor thing isn't even a problem. Fighter jets aren't supposed to buzz ground targets. They aren't supposed to take shots from SAM or AA sites. Armor reduces speed, which is by far more important when strafing enemy fighters.

my point was that, compared to other fighter jets, the F22 is top tier, not that it is the most effective investment of resources possible. In fact, quality of investment would play almost no roll in a dog fight. Could america make a better one for less? probably. Does the F22 outperform equivalent Russian or Chinese fighters? afaik, yes, or if not, the performance is so close that they are all top tier.

her argument that the USSR doesn't exist means america doesn't need fighters is so problematic and naive that I don't think I need to address it.

by demonstrably, I mean, you can observe the ways in which the F22 outclasses other planes.

lol, something being a bad investment doesn't mean it isn't as good. Fighter jets are an insane piece of technology, if you expect them to be without technical fault, you are being naive.

I dont think the F-22 has anything to avoid a missle hit other than perhaps chaff/flares and as she pointed out, the RAM gets washed off. The thing with the F-22, is its RAM and stealth is its main selling point, it uses the same weapons and perhaps less payloads than similiar planes and planes like the Eurofighter and Russian equivalents can often go multi role anyway to cover ground targets.

Also what on the maintanance? A bit ridiculous, I dont think other planes have this issue do they?

heres some more information;

vIvgBbXKL5E

I dont think F-22 has off boresight capability or decoys (given decoys would defeat its stealth but as she points out, this already is ruined if theres some percipitation lol) either.

I dont think I have seen demonstrations of it being better, only claims. I only see evidence of it being a shambles both in production, cost and as a combat plantform compared to cheapter alternatives like the upgrades on F-18s I have heard about.

what role do you think the F22 plays in the American air force?

EDIT: rain is a problem for all stealth

EDIT2: evidence that a refitted F18 outperforms a F22?

Its an air superiority fighter. It "can" in theory drop JDAMs. If it gets off the landing pad or is not in its hours of maintenance.

I never said it necesserily outperforms but I have yet to see an F-22 perform well, so I couldnt advise anyone on something performing better than it. I am sure you can find a plane that does not rely on stealth for effectiveness, has according to the above flaws in its structure and tech, has more roles and is far less costly though.

more seriously:

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont think the F-22 has anything to avoid a missle hit other than perhaps chaff/flares and as she pointed out, the RAM gets washed off.

The F22 is designed such that it doesn't have a heat signature that such missiles can lock onto, making flares and other technologies archaic

Originally posted by Burning thought
The thing with the F-22, is its RAM and stealth is its main selling point, it uses the same weapons and perhaps less payloads than similiar planes and planes like the Eurofighter and Russian equivalents can often go multi role anyway to cover ground targets.

the eurofighter is a fighter/bomber and would lose handily to a f22 in air combat, as too much of its weight it devoted to air-to-ground combat. the F35 is comparable to the eurofighter (it is actually superior), but the f22 was never designed to be mixed role, that is actually one of its advantages

Russian planes don't have better stealth than the F22, in fact, the F22 is at the cutting edge in stealth technology. for instance, a B2 needs to be kept in a climate controlled hanger. no stealth is good in bad weather

Originally posted by Burning thought
Also what on the maintanance? A bit ridiculous, I dont think other planes have this issue do they?

what about it, I'm talking about performance in combat

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont think F-22 has off boresight capability or decoys (given decoys would defeat its stealth but as she points out, this already is ruined if theres some percipitation lol) either.

it doesn't need decoys, as that technology is rendered obsolete

what do you mean by boresight?

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont think I have seen demonstrations of it being better, only claims. I only see evidence of it being a shambles both in production, cost and as a combat plantform compared to cheapter alternatives like the upgrades on F-18s I have heard about.

F18 specs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet#Specifications_.28F.2FA-18C.2FD.29

F22 specs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its an air superiority fighter. It "can" in theory drop JDAMs. If it gets off the landing pad or is not in its hours of maintenance.

I never said it necesserily outperforms but I have yet to see an F-22 perform well, so I couldnt advise anyone on something performing better than it. I am sure you can find a plane that does not rely on stealth for effectiveness, has according to the above flaws in its structure and tech, has more roles and is far less costly though.

1) a plane without stealth is useless

2) a multi role plane will always lose to a fighter in a dogfight

Originally posted by inimalist
more seriously:



The F22 is designed such that it doesn't have a heat signature that such missiles can lock onto, making flares and other technologies archaic



the eurofighter is a fighter/bomber and would lose handily to a f22 in air combat, as too much of its weight it devoted to air-to-ground combat. the F35 is comparable to the eurofighter (it is actually superior), but the f22 was never designed to be mixed role, that is actually one of its advantages

Russian planes don't have better stealth than the F22, in fact, the F22 is at the cutting edge in stealth technology. for instance, a B2 needs to be kept in a climate controlled hanger. no stealth is good in bad weather



what about it, I'm talking about performance in combat



it doesn't need decoys, as that technology is rendered obsolete

what do you mean by boresight?



F18 specs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet#Specifications_.28F.2FA-18C.2FD.29

F22 specs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications

Thats not true at all, it has a reduced heat signature but all planes and engines give off heat, until they invent a cool, energy based engine or something they will always give off some heat. Where did you get information like that from?

No, its a multi-role aircraft. Depending on its mission it can arm with air, ground or a combo of both and has all the facilities required to not only out shoot an F-22 (which is likely stuck on the ground, during maintance anyway). Its speed, off boresight and weapons are all just as advanced and if you check it, in a year or so they will have the advanced meteor missle, not sure if the F-22 has an equel upgrade.

Stealth being useless in some weathers, more easily observable by ground radar and in some cases, observed by other planes, tbh I have yet to see the whole "F-22 invisible plane" in practice.

What performance if its on the ground getting repairs and maintance? its ratio seems incredible to have to stay on the ground for so long, per hour no less.

obselete how? it allows for the protection of the main craft, thats like saying chaff and flares are obselete but despite their age and use, their still on the F-22.

boresight capability is the ability to fire a missle or target an opponent at odd angles, like directly behind and to the sides and fire.

Well we can see right there the list of accidents for the F-22 is far more than F-18, we can also see that despite speed being higher on the F-22, they can use similiar loadouts. I dont know all the numbers but I think i can safely say its also cheaper and can perform all the roles an F-22 can without being stuck on the ground for maintance, or because its raining outside.



Originally posted by inimalist
1) a plane without stealth is useless

2) a multi role plane will always lose to a fighter in a dogfight

1. yes because we have never managed before now without stealth...oh wait. Seriously, you overvalue stealth, which as proven is poor in poor weather anyway.

2. Proven by what? anything? or just because you assume a multi role cant possibly be as good as the F-22? , what if said plane was stuck on the ground because it has poor parts, its raining and its fundamental design is based around its stealth being effective?

Theres also evidence to suggest a Typhoon can ace a F-22;

Eb_jqsg13wY&feature=related

huh, we just disagree then

Fair enough. I think one thing we can agree on, is that we have many decent air platforms under all out alliances both Euro and American to the point where the Eastern powers, or Russia/China are going to have to come up with something generations beyond Jet aircraft.

I am more interested in work on Unmanned aircraft anyway like Taranis and X-47

no, that is true

it wouldn't surprise me if the next american fighter craft was unmanned... im just not sure how evolved that technology is...

British one, Taranis is going into flight trials next year;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Taranis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1294037/Taranis-The-143million-unmanned-stealth-jet-hit-targets-continent.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv_mxs_3f_Y&feature=related

Sorry, bit off-topic now. But no, i dont think this plane for the Russians or a Chinese plane will affect anyone in any way, shape or form. Dont forget, were not at war technically any more and in a real war, it takes more than planes to factor into battle.

imho even if America/nato were to lose a technological advantage over russia/china, simply their huge amount of air bases and carriers would give them a far easier time at establishing control of the skies in any major conflict

Indeed, the tech advantage would have to be science fiction to make a real difference. We have a higher number of higher tech craft, bases and ships, I think our defence systems are also more developed.

but like you said, we aren't at war, and a war with russia/china/india is really unlikely

I think thats why we are seeing so many multipurpose crafts, fighter jets aren't very effective at counter insurgency

Originally posted by Burning thought
Theres also evidence to suggest a Typhoon can ace a F-22;


If you google there's equal claims that the F-22 is superior (in air combat). Supposed accounts of British pilots saying the F-22 can do things the EF can't.

Though that's not an insult on the EF, both jets were built for different purposes. Might has well claim a shotgun isn't good cos you can't use it as a sniper.

I dont think I have seen anything more than one or two pilots though, my source shows a sortie excerise rather than just a pilot or two. The difference is, iirc the EF never had to sit for maintance for 30 hours per 1 or w/e and has no reduction in performance in weather while the F-22 does.

Its payload size, uses (due to being multirole) and effectiveness in all situations are on a better cost margin. It even has better protection.

Out of interest, what source states the F-22 has actually beaten the EF in tests to counter my own? I have not actually seen a source from an event like I showed above. I just typed in F-22 beats Eurofighter and the first page of results was instead "EF beats F-22".

your source didn't say they beat it though

it selectively quoted an article where it said everyone was surprised the EF could get a long distance radar lock on the F22, though the stealth wasn't working properly, and the BBC said it performed successfully, with no context added

Id hardly call that youtube propaganda snip-it proof of anything

Once you get a lock on a plane thats supposed to be hard to find, its pretty much beat.

Its not youtube is it, its the aviation magazine which quoted events and showed images of them together, its better evidence than pretty much anything else you can hope for until the planes are fighting for real (not going to happen). Also they did not say stealth was not working properly, they just said they were "unstealthed", I think we both realise that other than not having their RAM paint on, the shape of the F-22 itself adds up to a lot of stealth or is supposed to, apparently not.

Also, I recall reading the PIRATE passive infra red tracker can observe/detect stealth planes anyway. Cant recall the info source, purely because I have not looked into this sort of thing for years.

yes, it had a single line from an article that expressed that people were surprised it was able to get a lock, when stealth was off (my mistake).

that is impressive, but I dont think that is a win, but I havent read the full article, which im sure gives much better context than a single sentence that seems assuredly chosen for the fact it made the EF look good, considering the youtube clip was fairly obviously made by someone looking to prove that point.

is that article available online?

I guess I should say, given the EF is a generation in tech ahead of the F22, it might be superior. I suppose my thoughts are that fighter jets, conceptually, are superior in air combat than are strike-fighters, if only useful in that specific role.

I dont know if its online unfortunatly, I have looked around but to no success.

I dont think the generation of tech used on either planes is much different, their going to use similiar weapons, tracking systems and their engines give off only slightly different thrust/weight ratios.


The only thing the F-22 has that the EF does not have at such high angles is stealth but, at some angels EF apprently equels it and radar is developing quicker than stealth and can lock onto a different spectram such as heat or EM.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont think I have seen anything more than one or two pilots though, my source shows a sortie excerise rather than just a pilot or two. The difference is, iirc the EF never had to sit for maintance for 30 hours per 1 or w/e and has no reduction in performance in weather while the F-22 does.

Its payload size, uses (due to being multirole) and effectiveness in all situations are on a better cost margin. It even has better protection.

Out of interest, what source states the F-22 has actually beaten the EF in tests to counter my own? I have not actually seen a source from an event like I showed above. I just typed in F-22 beats Eurofighter and the first page of results was instead "EF beats F-22".

Your video is about as useful/reliable as my google searches. Probably both biased by the creators out to prove a point.

So we're talking maintenance or actual ability once up in the air? Cos I don't think anyone is saying the F-22 isn't ridiculously priced and high to maintain.

No idea if an F-22 has "beaten" a EF in a combat simulation. Considering the countries aren't at war and they're designed for different purposes, not sure if one exist to begin with. I'd imagine it's be all over the net if so, either way.

Arguable, because your internet searches could include posters on bias forums, while the actual airforce magazine quoted is unbias as an argument point of view here even if its bias on a political point of view in the real world. Although your right, every source we can find is bias to some degree and the planes cannot be properly compared, however...things like the maintanance are undeniable.

Well its part of the system in question. How useful is the F-22 as a combat platform compared to others if it has critical failures all the time, if I had a machinegun that can spit out hundreds of more bullets, with more accuracy than yours in half the time but mine overheats before it gets to effective status and has to go to the workshop for hours of repairs before being used, mine despite being slightly less effective is the better choice.

Well the EF locking the F-22 and successfully working with it is all over the net, but a lot of people just label it as propaganda, although half the time those people are soon to speak up and call the F-22 superior to all Air to air planes, with sources that are also all propaganda.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont know if its online unfortunatly, I have looked around but to no success.

I dont think the generation of tech used on either planes is much different, their going to use similiar weapons, tracking systems and their engines give off only slightly different thrust/weight ratios.


The only thing the F-22 has that the EF does not have at such high angles is stealth but, at some angels EF apprently equels it and radar is developing quicker than stealth and can lock onto a different spectram such as heat or EM.

the EF is slower, which is crucial to air combat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Specifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications

the range on the eurofighter is vastly superior though...

as to the maintenance thing, your machine gun analogy would be apt if F22s were constantly failing mid operation. They say they average a major issue about 1 per hour of flight time. How long are typical combat operations? if they aren't over an hour of flight time, then the maintenance issue isn't going to have a major impact on combat performance a majority of the time. With the low range of the F22, I tend to think that suggests they don't have long missions?

EDIT: and in terms of a fleet, so long as you aren't using them all every 30 hours, the time required to fix them isn't an issue either, as you can fly the operational ones on missions while you repair the ones just back from missions. It increases costs and man hours, but shouldn't reduce combat effectiveness, so long as you don't need to run constant hour+ operations with all of the craft.

on the contary, the F-22 page seems to be more specific for the "Mach" number, if you look at the actual Mph you get;

F-22; 1,500 mph, 2,410 km/h
EF; 2,495 km/h/1,550 mph

The EF is also smaller and lighter and as stated in the other article, quite agile. Further, off boresight is superior (if its close to the opponent) and if your interested, I think theres a video on the EF piolot suit that allows piolots to survive such high sustained G-forces, not sure F-22 has such feature (sustained G forces).

Also, what if a mission does cover an hour or more, and theres critical errors? I would not want to be in the F-22 if I could choose.

But surely you agree, having a plane that needs so much maintance and so often, is flawed. Even if it "is" as good as propaganda claims (superior to all other planes in the air theater of war) its just not necessery in todays market and its role can be replaced by others, like the EF.

Also I am curious, because I mainly dnot know how would an F-22 function if you wanted to use it to combat a threat in Europe or east? With such a low operational range, its going to have to be shipped over to us and then launch from an allied air base, assuming you were in a code red or the need was urgent (something fanciful like a major air strike from rogue Chinese elements) then its no doubt going to need repairs and such, and take too long to be useful and operational.

that last question could be asked of any plane that can't be put on a carrier, but good point none the less

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123010102



interesting

Yes I recall that, so he claims their fairly neck and neck then overall but have different purposes. Theres no major advantage to either side based on what he could percieve anyway.

ya, i may have overestimated how specialized the F22 was, I thought there were very major differences in performance between strike fighters and pure fighters

EDIT: I still think stealth is a massive advantage in a lot of ways

well perhaps, but as he said it uses that stealth for special missions. The EF would probably have to fire a long range cruise missle like the stormshadow (shown below, also shows off boresight) or something to defeat the same target as the F-22, rather than actually fly into such territory. But I dont hold much faith in stealth, I think theres too many factors, from weather to general angles (at some angels, heat and other things more obvious on radar) and at the end of the day, stealth only has breakthroughs every few decades, iirc I read radar upgrades on a far more regular basis.

Also, just an excuse to post this video, it would probably have to launch a cruise missle like below;

HvEDSI1nf3E

Obviously, this is propaganda/sales based but as were talking about planes, somehow relevent and cool all the same.

Originally posted by Burning thought
well perhaps, but as he said it uses that stealth for special missions. The EF would probably have to fire a long range cruise missle like the stormshadow or something to defeat the same target as the F-22, rather than actually fly into such territory. But I dont hold much faith in stealth, I think theres too many factors, from weather to general angles (at some angels, heat and other things more obvious on radar) and at the end of the day, stealth only has breakthroughs every few decades, iirc I read radar upgrades on a far more regular basis.
Hasn't there even been one stealth aircraft shot down in the 30-40 years since stealth technology has been in use?

I think you're downplaying the effectiveness of stealth.

If it was really as useless as you make it out to be then governments around the world wouldn't be chomping at the bit to get their hands on it.

lol, no, im not under any impression that it makes the plane undetectable at all times, but in a dogfight, having some protection against being detected, imho, is better than not.

See, and I get the same feeling now reading about the F35, I think the Eurofighter might be superior specifically because it has been so streamlined for its specific purpose... I guess I always assumed that something like the f22 was designed only with dogfight/escort sort of things in mind, not to be this fighter-that-also-penetrates-that-can-also-do-X, etc. Or like, with the F35, how they are trying to make a single model that is useful for the airforce, army and navy.

lol, if I were a general, my "fighter" would have a very clearly defined role. I don't see what any air to ground capabilities are important in something you want to use to keep enemy planes off your strike craft... but lol, Im no general

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hasn't there even been one stealth aircraft shot down in the 30-40 years since stealth technology has been in use?

I think you're downplaying the effectiveness of stealth.

If it was really as useless as you make it out to be then governments around the world wouldn't be chomping at the bit to get their hands on it.

I think a nighthawk was shot down at some point but you cant say "no stealth planes have been shot down", theres not vast amounts of use of them is there, were not at war afterall.

Not really, stealth is useful yes, but it has a long list of weaknesses and on top of that, the uses it can be used in are concerning older generation tech. Infra red, EM emissions and radar tracking has come a long way. As pointed out, a bit of rain can reduce the stealth, and if the F-22 wants to hold more fuel or weapons to equel the kiling capacity of other planes, its got to put things on its pylons like those planes, and ruin some of its stealth. What I am saying is, stealth over complicates things.

The F-35 is mainly useful for a VTOL and carrier platform craft, or at least thats my view on why the UK is getting them. Eurofighters, just like the F-22 cannot fly from carriers.

Also, what sources state their "chomping at the bit"?, not many nations even try and build stealth aircraft, the Eurofighter does not have "much" compared to the F-22, neither do most western or eastern craft.

Originally posted by inimalist

lol, if I were a general, my "fighter" would have a very clearly defined role. I don't see what any air to ground capabilities are important in something you want to use to keep enemy planes off your strike craft... but lol, Im no general

That's the main purpose of the F-22, fly in and demolish the enemies air offensive.

The doubling as a ground attack fighter and intelligence roles are extra selling points, though there are craft that can handle those better. I can't imagine the military would send an F-22 to take out enemy tank(s) if an A-10 Warthog is available.

They should just build the jet from the film 'Firefox', that thing can outrun missiles.

Phuck jets, build a gundam.

The intelligence "roles" are the only selling point it has that other fights cannot necesserily do, although mainly redundant as I think I am right in saying there are other, more cost effective ways to get survailance.

Or the jet from "stealth" lol.

Originally posted by Mindset
Phuck jets, build a gundam.

The Japanese are working on them.

Or use swarms of Taranis UCAVs from a drone ship off shore that can recover and maintain them. Covers the problem of putting human lives on the line and makes war what it always should have been, a jolly good fun way of letting off steam.

With Steve Jobs gone Bill Gates is our last chance against the Japanese horde.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I think a nighthawk was shot down at some point but you cant say "no stealth planes have been shot down", theres not vast amounts of use of them is there, were not at war afterall.

Not really, stealth is useful yes, but it has a long list of weaknesses and on top of that, the uses it can be used in are concerning older generation tech. Infra red, EM emissions and radar tracking has come a long way. As pointed out, a bit of rain can reduce the stealth, and if the F-22 wants to hold more fuel or weapons to equel the kiling capacity of other planes, its got to put things on its pylons like those planes, and ruin some of its stealth. What I am saying is, stealth over complicates things.

The F-35 is mainly useful for a VTOL and carrier platform craft, or at least thats my view on why the UK is getting them. Eurofighters, just like the F-22 cannot fly from carriers.

Also, what sources state their "chomping at the bit"?, not many nations even try and build stealth aircraft, the Eurofighter does not have "much" compared to the F-22, neither do most western or eastern craft.
There have been plenty of conflicts where stealth aircraft have been used against enemies with air defense missiles, plenty of opportunities for kills.

Yet the only instance I can recall of a stealth plane being shot down was a Nighthawk in Yugoslavia, and that instance I believe was in large part thanks to luck.

Well there's this plane as well as China's new stealth fighter. Any nation that has aspirations of taking on the USA seems to be looking for it.

You can say the same for a lot of craft, opportunities but you dont always get jet craft of any kind falling from the sky.

You dont need stealth to take on the USA. Stealth, as I said is an additional factor to using a plane, with many disavantages for the sake of a few bonus missions it can run, like as others have said, recon and deep strikes.

You could argue that all their trying to do, is match what is percieved by America as advanced, regardless of how effective it is.

I'd imagine being in a fighter that is difficult for your opponent to lock a missile on is a huge advantage.

But hey, what do the militarizes of the world know, I'm sure you're right and it's just a waste.

We have enough missles that lock onto infarred and missles advance more quickly than jets. All you need is an AWACs or something similiar to paint a target for other planes if their tracking systems are not good enough. Of course, as Madd said, the F-22 probably cant do this because its "technologically unable to speak with other aircraft"

They know what poses a good detterant and the claim and image of a super fighter thats untouchable, they did not over publisize its RAM melting off so easily in the rain or its falts in the chasis I outlined in a previous video. It also takes third party journalism to look into its maintance costs and other vulnerabilities.

Also the militaries only know what the profit hungry salesman tell them, dont forget they could be just as well fooled by Lockheeds sales pitch on the thing as much as anyone else.

are you suggesting that, all other things being equal, a plane with stealth isn't going to be harder to lock onto than one without?

also, if you think about potential military enemies of the United States, its not the technologically advanced or powerful nations (Europe/Russia/China/India), but smaller nations with much older technology (Pakistan, North Korea , Syria, Iran, etc).

You might be right about modern radar tech, in terms of engaging a stealth fighter against the EF, but for the most like theaters for the Americans, I'm pretty sure the stealth tech would be relevant.

Though, like I said, I still think stealth is huge, /shrug

Originally posted by inimalist
are you suggesting that, all other things being equal, a plane with stealth isn't going to be harder to lock onto than one without?

Not if your using a full developed sensor suite. Obviously, older equipment using normal radar, rather than an IRST or such radar would have trouble.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, if you think about potential military enemies of the United States, its not the technologically advanced or powerful nations (Europe/Russia/China/India), but smaller nations with much older technology (Pakistan, North Korea , Syria, Iran, etc).

You might be right about modern radar tech, in terms of engaging a stealth fighter against the EF, but for the most like theaters for the Americans, I'm pretty sure the stealth tech would be relevant.

Though, like I said, I still think stealth is huge, /shrug

Exactly. Stealth is good against nations that do not have IRST, infared, large scale trackers like AWACs etc. And I would rather not have to pay the initial cost, maintance and disadvantages (lower payload, less multirole capacity, weather problems) just so I can bother less developed nations. I would argue a cruise missle launched by a EF can hit the same target the Raptor can in enemy territory.

Stealth, against todays enemis is not the difference between untouchable planes and having to try and find a new Jet because yours has been shot down, most of our enemies do not have the tech to face even older generations.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well there's this plane as well as China's new stealth fighter. Any nation that has aspirations of taking on the USA seems to be looking for it.

That would be because most nations as of now recognize that in the near future every major air to air engagement will be decided at BLOS and their stealth will play a role.

I dont know about the "near future", but in the future I would more likely champion advanced drones like Taranis rather than stealth as the most common tech to be used in a major engagement. In a major engagement its not likely to be of much use at all, as the good General said earlier, its built for precision strikes into enemy territory, if its a major air to air engagement there will no doubt be many AWACS, ground radars and more than a hundred other planes all watching the skies. I would rather a flight of non stealth aircraft at this stage, until they are cheaper and have less problems, I would hate to be about to start an engagement only to have the F-22's retreating back to base because it starts to rain.

The drones are hindered by the fact that our technology isn't advanced enough to support them, you can't as of yet have a drone observing and making the same call's in the air as pilotes can. If we truly could, there wouldn't have been a single plane, be it Harrier or Rafale flying into Libya, if drones could do all the work. And if it's a major engagement, there will be a great amount of EW (given the technology integrated into the planes), and given that in the future the air to air will most likely be above water, ground radar will only play a small role, also lets not forget that realising that a plane is there (thanks to the radar) is one thing, but getting a lock on it (BLOS) is another thing entirely as pointed out by Rebecca Grant in her Thesis about Radar Warfare. And that is where Stealth plays a role, because if I can get a lock on your plane 5-6 seconds before you can get a lock on mine, with a missile that flies over 4 mach's you'll be dead and I'll be fine.

Originally posted by Utrigita
The drones are hindered by the fact that our technology isn't advanced enough to support them, you can't as of yet have a drone observing and making the same call's in the air as pilotes can.

Yes they can. They're not magic, you know, a person is flying them from a station on the ground. That person can see what happens and make relevant calls exactly like a pilot of a normal plane.

Originally posted by Utrigita
given that in the future the air to air will most likely be above water,

Why?

I bet america has loads of better crap like this. Anyone worried about that? No?

so, just thinking about it, if the "weakness" of the raptor and the f35 is that they are specially designed to combat the enemies they are likely to fight, wtf is the purpose of the eurofighter? fighting Russia? turkey? given it specs, it seems like trying to cut bread with a broadsword, no?

it strikes me more like a cold war style tech (re: terrifying Russians) rather than something designed for battlefields European nations are likely to fight on... at least compared to the American planes...

Originally posted by inimalist
so, just thinking about it, if the "weakness" of the raptor and the f35 is that they are specially designed to combat the enemies they are likely to fight, wtf is the purpose of the eurofighter? fighting Russia? turkey? given it specs, it seems like trying to cut bread with a broadsword, no?

it strikes me more like a cold war style tech (re: terrifying Russians) rather than something designed for battlefields European nations are likely to fight on... at least compared to the American planes...

Well thats just one weakness, the Eurofighter is a defence jet. it was never designed to be a fear factor/trophy jet iirc unlike the Raptor which is just a media stunt more than anything imo and your right, but its a cheaper step forward than the F-22 and JSF (not so sure about the JSF).

You could say the same about all vehicles and weapons, no future battle is likely to be enormous and requiring a ton of the best tech. The American planes are over expensive trophy productions, over priced and filled with holes. The only place I can see for stealth planes and the F-22 is either in maintance for 30 hours OR doing an early strike before major air operations escalate. Then, once its did a first hit (if you like RPGs, the F-22 plays a rogue) then you can get the Eurofighters, other F series and more multi-role, higher yield/spec jets to knock all the opponents forces out of the fight (mages and other high DPS classes )

Originally posted by Utrigita
The drones are hindered by the fact that our technology isn't advanced enough to support them, you can't as of yet have a drone observing and making the same call's in the air as pilotes can. If we truly could, there wouldn't have been a single plane, be it Harrier or Rafale flying into Libya, if drones could do all the work. And if it's a major engagement, there will be a great amount of EW (given the technology integrated into the planes), and given that in the future the air to air will most likely be above water, ground radar will only play a small role, also lets not forget that realising that a plane is there (thanks to the radar) is one thing, but getting a lock on it (BLOS) is another thing entirely as pointed out by Rebecca Grant in her Thesis about Radar Warfare. And that is where Stealth plays a role, because if I can get a lock on your plane 5-6 seconds before you can get a lock on mine, with a missile that flies over 4 mach's you'll be dead and I'll be fine.

As said, pilots and humans work through drones, and the Taranis is on the cutting edge of that tech, its apprently supposed ot be not only able to select targets and destroy the general target but also take commands from humans on the ground.

Theres ship radars as well, there are hundreds of ground, air and AWAC radars, stealth planes are not invisible. And no, radar by itself is not the only way to get a lock, you have IRST trackers, todays stealth planes only have so much infra red protection to reduce heat but anything moving at supersonic or using weapon systems is giving off tell tale amounts of heat and further one missle does not mean death, theres a reason why most planes have large number sof counter measurers and unlike stealth planes, decoys to take at least one or two hits.

Stealth as a platform is too young to be of any use in full scale engagements like your describing, they have vulnerabilities both technical (flaws in the design, rain vulnerability, cant talk to other craft) and external, have less weapon systems and cannot hold decoys and other tell tale signs since their designed for deep strike missions. A handfull of more multi-role planes like the Eurofighter are vastly superior in large scale engagement.

The whole "fight over water" thing is a bit off anyway. What body of water? I would put more money on it being over Europe/further East than over any large body of water.

well, if you look at the various wars Israel has had against it neighbours, being able to knock out your opponents air force before the escalation of major combat is a decisive advantage

what is the eurofighter designed to defend against though? that's my point, if everything is overpriced and whatever, at least the raptor/jsf have a functional purpose designed into them that reflects their most likely use

You cant just "knock out the airforce" of large countries/nations/allies like America, EU, China etc and none of these stealth jets can knock out an airforce, only begin an assault, perhapsin vulnerable areas. This is in the realm of theorycrafting now, because we dont know the locations of all the major assets a military general would want to go for.

Any possible incursion, its like a mini nuclear bomb so to speak. We dont use our nukes but their a deterrant to everyone just steam rolling us with their own high yield weapons. They do not have any functional purpose until theres an actual major war against a more technological opponent, as for the Eurofighter, it has and will be used not just for defence but because its multi-role unlike these stealth jets it can be used as a bomber (Gadafis tank park for one falling victim to Typhoons).

They can do anything we need them for, while the US probably have to wait until thers something for their planes to do, making them not only more useless considering their cost but their not even working properly yet, hence the vulnerabilities, maintance, tech and design flaws. What you have to appreciat is that Eurofighters can do most roles, and be used in many situations while the F-22 was designed as a fear factor jet against air to air enemies of equel technology which as Madd said, is redundant while the Euro's can be used (and has been) in other roles.

but America isn't going to fight a nation like china, Russia or the EU...

Its not likely to fight anyone its jets are required for. It could probably dust off its older series jets to take out the smaller nations we have been aiding our forces against.

but, if that is the case, isn't it even more true in the case of the eurofighter? the more you talk about it, the more it sounds like it is part of some arms race to nowhere.

Why? Thier made for different things as I said, the Eurofighter can do anything we want it to do, the F-22 cannot....hence, the F-22 is useless outside of the arms race to nowhere while the Euro can just toss in a load of bombs, missles or w/e we want it for on the go.

Why would it be "more" true in the case of the Euro in any case? its a cheaper plane that can work in almost any environment as opposed to something thats only useful in one environment and inferior in others.

The F-22 is designed for enemies (high end enemy jets) that it will never face unless EU declare war on USA or theres a civil war.

but if generations old tech is still useful for the wars the EU will be fighting...

"will be" I dont know, hence why we dont just sell every weapon we have and become a peaceful nation. However, yes I think much older tech could still have blown up Gadaffis tanks, old tech could also knock out terrorist operations. But it costs us no more to use the EF now we have it than another Jet, same class of bombs more or less regardless of whats dropping it.

I dont understand what your getting at, weve gone from discussing pros and cons of certain craft to pointing out that we dont really need all this tech for current fights. You could claim the same for most weapons, we dont need level 2 Chorbrham (dorchester) covered challenger 2 tanks, we could probably use the old Challenger equipment similiar to the current American tanks now, but updating hardware is part of a growing military.

I would rather stay discussing specific jets rather than philosophical ideals around how the military should function.

lol, I'm beginning to think you work for the people who make the EF

Not at all, I just used to be interested in Jets in general and I am British, so naturally a lot of interest has been on the EF hence why I know a thing or two about it. I could probably make you belive I am a EF salesman a year or so ago but I dont recall half the information I used to.

lol, interesting that you took that as a compliment

I didnt, I just tried to make sense of why you would say that. Are you a spokesman for the F-22 then to switch your question around?

lol, it wasn't an insult either, you just seemed down with it

Its more of a strange comment that does not have a place in the discussion at hand, rather random which is confusing.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes they can. They're not magic, you know, a person is flying them from a station on the ground. That person can see what happens and make relevant calls exactly like a pilot of a normal plane.



Why?

I'm well aware of that, but seeing things through a screen doesn't suddenly equal being in the actual situation, and then why is next to none probes being deployed over Libya?

Because that is what atm is the greatest potential source of conflict, the northpole is a place with great political tension, so is much of the area around the Indian Ocean.

Originally posted by Burning thought
As said, pilots and humans work through drones, and the Taranis is on the cutting edge of that tech, its apprently supposed ot be not only able to select targets and destroy the general target but also take commands from humans on the ground.

Theres ship radars as well, there are hundreds of ground, air and AWAC radars, stealth planes are not invisible. And no, radar by itself is not the only way to get a lock, you have IRST trackers, todays stealth planes only have so much infra red protection to reduce heat but anything moving at supersonic or using weapon systems is giving off tell tale amounts of heat and further one missle does not mean death, theres a reason why most planes have large number sof counter measurers and unlike stealth planes, decoys to take at least one or two hits.

Stealth as a platform is too young to be of any use in full scale engagements like your describing, they have vulnerabilities both technical (flaws in the design, rain vulnerability, cant talk to other craft) and external, have less weapon systems and cannot hold decoys and other tell tale signs since their designed for deep strike missions. A handfull of more multi-role planes like the Eurofighter are vastly superior in large scale engagement.

The whole "fight over water" thing is a bit off anyway. What body of water? I would put more money on it being over Europe/further East than over any large body of water.

So can the predator to my knowledge.

No they are not, never said they were and if I did it was a mistake. But the amount of radars on the ocean is less then the amount of radar's on land. And the F-22 is built in order to minimize the amount of heat production, same reason why the Meteor missile was removed from the F-22, the missile simply produced to much heat when fired revealing the location of the plane. Stealth planes have flares as well and Electronic countermeassures as well.

Stealth have been used since the introduction of the Nighthawk in 1981, so I'll hardly call it new any longer, but then again if you think Stealth is to new a platform, what exactly makes the probes so much better since they are a even newer platform? Stealth planes can talk to other aircraftes, the F-22 for instance can in coordination with the f-15 and f-16 to determind if they are targetting the same aircraft, so I don't know where you got that from. So a F-22 can hold 8 missiles and the EF can hold, what 8 aswell on the wings? And ofcause the EF will be more usefull in a large engagement, because that would be war, the F-22 is meant to establish air superiority and that is basically it, other planes from the USF is meant to go in afterwards, that is not the case for the RAF, which are going to use basically the EF, and again the F-22 may have problems with it's RAM, but then again the EF couldn't fly because the RAF didn't have enough spareparts for them. Not throwing mud, just pointing out that you will always at some point of time face problems with the planes, be it RAM or something else hindering their capability.

The Indian Ocean for instance.

Originally posted by Utrigita
So can the predator to my knowledge.

No they are not, never said they were and if I did it was a mistake. But the amount of radars on the ocean is less then the amount of radar's on land. And the F-22 is built in order to minimize the amount of heat production, same reason why the Meteor missile was removed from the F-22, the missile simply produced to much heat when fired revealing the location of the plane. Stealth planes have flares as well and Electronic countermeassures as well.

Stealth have been used since the introduction of the Nighthawk in 1981, so I'll hardly call it new any longer, but then again if you think Stealth is to new a platform, what exactly makes the probes so much better since they are a even newer platform? Stealth planes can talk to other aircraftes, the F-22 for instance can in coordination with the f-15 and f-16 to determind if they are targetting the same aircraft, so I don't know where you got that from. So a F-22 can hold 8 missiles and the EF can hold, what 8 aswell on the wings? And ofcause the EF will be more usefull in a large engagement, because that would be war, the F-22 is meant to establish air superiority and that is basically it, other planes from the USF is meant to go in afterwards, that is not the case for the RAF, which are going to use basically the EF, and again the F-22 may have problems with it's RAM, but then again the EF couldn't fly because the RAF didn't have enough spareparts for them. Not throwing mud, just pointing out that you will always at some point of time face problems with the planes, be it RAM or something else hindering their capability.

The Indian Ocean for instance.

I have only read that the Pred seems to be controlled almost completly by a pilot on the ground.

It minimizes but not removes, theres no way you can remove heat from certain functions, even the engine as protected as it is will create heat. The meteor missle is not a full production model and is a EU product if I am not mistaken unless your talking of another plane or are saying the missle was considered but then passed by. I know, but they dont have decoys, a decoy can take a full strike as if its an actual target, flares and chaff are a slightly more hopeful means of stopping a missle.

Theres like two planes, those we have mentioned that are fighter designs and the F-22 has never really been in combat. Probes being unmanned mean no loss of life if their shot down, I did not mean to claim their far superior combatants to a jet. The F-22 cannot however, look back on my sources, the F-22 is incapable of communicating with other aircraft.

EF has 13 attachments, compared to the F-22 8. Thats 5 more for the Euro, its a large payload decrease for the F-22. Because the EF can do everything, the F-22 cannot, and based on its performance that the sources I previously cited outline, it does it with many set backs and weaknesses as opposed to other planes. Assuming its already on an allied airfield, the F-22 needs hours of maintance per hour of flight (more than a full day) and its stealth is compromised in the rain.

You brought up one maintance issue for one event specifically to counter the fact these isues are constant with every F-22? Its a design flaw with the F-22, the fact some Eurofighters needed to take other parts is not to do with design fault or problems with the airframe.

Why there? Also that would be terrible for the F-22, the thing has to go back for maintance every hour or so, so flying across the ocean for a future threat is not going to be in its future.