Russia's new stealth fighter, co-developed with India

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.

YouTube video

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;

YouTube video

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. [b]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 [/B]

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.