Even if the F-22 or F-35 may be outdated. I'm sure the US government is working on new technology and airplanes that we've never seen. It is highly possible, as was the case for the F-117 Nighthawk and several other programs at Area-51.
How Area 51 Hid Secret Craft
There is even the X-37B, which is being operated by the Air Force, that no one really knows what it is doing in space. There are plenty of theories, but no facts.
Last edited by Nicholas; Feb 15 2012 at 20:59.
"The greatest way to avenge your enemy is by learning to forgive." - Takashi Tanemori
Walker, thats what you call Eurofighter PR, plenty of it, considering the mess it has made throughout development. Tranche 2 a/c in 06.. Who are you kidding Walker?Originally Posted by walker
---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------
Nicholas, your completely right. They are running on "older" technology. However in the aircraft industry it's not so easy to just snap in a Ipad with the right configs.
It seems each year we get a glimpse at another cool toy.
Last edited by Star Four One; Feb 16 2012 at 08:27.
LMAO Oh the Irony of that statement.
And you think the F-22 PR machine is truthful and accurate? What about all the F-22's failings? The obscene cost of maintaining the stealth coating? The very public and persistent oxygen system failures? The Ever increasing unit cost? Complete failure to meet capability deadlines? The complete failure to get a working Link 16 compatible datalink to the entire fleet?
Every fighter aircraft has its problems in development. Even getting into service. But only one has cost a reported $70bn for 195 airframes (so far).
Addons makers don’t get cash they get credit! Support them!
RKSL Studios Forums are BACK!! http://forums.rkslstudios.info
You forget about one thing: planes don't fight, people do. The gasket between the stick and the seat matters most of all. If the whole air force system works well, there will be victory. Just look at the early Arab-Israeli wars or Vietnam war.
If the officer can't prevent the booze then he must lead it.(c)
*you're
Pretty sweet quote if you ask me.
I love the double standard: "Raptor is most best plane, everything else is like shooting fish in a barrel" vs. "training to shoot fish in a barrel is pointless"
I love that whenever something doesnt go the way of a "prestige" project, its because the other team were breaking the rules, cheating, whatever.
I guess you have to watch Top Gear for this to make sense, but its classic "race car driver excuses". If it doesnt go your way it was the fault of the tyres, the tarmac, the weather, the engineers, etc etc.
At the end of the day, Raptor is not some invincible piece of tech, the same way the M1 Abrams isnt the "best tank in the world" (but don't suggest that it isnt if there are Americans around...) infact I'm pretty sure you'd lose a lot of them in a proper shooting war...
^ this, which brings me back to this:
I never said otherwise RKSL Rock, I know the history of the Raptor. I've followed it since the ATF.
I was responding to the ludacris PR that Walker trampled in with suggesting Tranche 2 Eurofighters obliderated the 'undertrained' American raptors. Besides his, also ludacris sources, he throws in the "stealth no longer works". I'd like to think theres nothing more to be said.
While I agree that Walker posts some ludicrous claims. I'm sorry but that wasn't one of them.
2x Tranche 2 EuroFighters did "obliterate" 2x F-22s. It was well documented in both the UK and European press at the time. The US press was strangely quiet about it.
The story goes they won all the Short Range engagements, losing out only in the BVR matches. The last implies that Stealth works but only at long range. (Which is what all of us in the aircraft industry knew all along.) But neither the USAF nor RAF officially commented. It should also be noted that there was also no denial. However subsequent events where the Typhoon and the F-22 encountered each other were strictly regulated. Wonder why that was?
EuroFighter/BAE Systems did comment but only in so much as they were "pleased with the Typhoon's Performance." Later stories and interviews - I believe Air Forces Monthly carried one - where F-22/USAF staff admitted that the Raptor pilots who engaged the Typhoons were new to the type, so to use Walkers phrase, "under trained". Something I later had confirmed by a real Raptor pilot.
In 2009 I was visiting a friend at RAF Coningsby who actually flys Typhoons. He wasn't one of the pilots who flew against the Raptors but I was introduced to one that did. He confirmed that while it wasn't a clean sweep it did prove to be "very embarrassing for the F-22 crews and their hosts." And "we didn't buy the beer for the rest of the stay."
Again in 2009 shortly after one exercise the French reported that the Rafale had recently "shot down" both the Typhoons and F22s during the wargames. A statement that both the RAF and the USAF took umbrage at forcing the French Air Force to retract and qualify their statements. Official USAF and RAF statement directly contradicted the French account. And the second "clarified statement" was widely received as an attempt at face saving after being caught lying to sell more planes to the UAE and the Libyans. The USAF and RAF again refused to give details of Typhoon vs F22. They would only comment about the French claims. Even after all this lots of un-official stories began to surface. All seemed to suggest the Raptor had egg on its face.
A year later I was invited back to Coningsby and introduced to another friend-of-a-friend. A visiting Raptor pilot; he also confirmed the story but went on to say that "at the time the Typhoon's capability was vastly underestimated and subsequent engagements had been less one sided." A statement I take to be confirmation of the original story in the news. I did press for more details but we were at a party and other people were less interested in shop talk and more interested in the next beer. when i asked my Typhoon flying friend the next day he said it had been strongly suggested to him that "keeping his mouth shut re any stories - ahem - "rumours" he'd heard would be a very good career move."
Again in late 2010 I went up to BAE Systems Warton with work. I met a few old friends from when I worked for EuroFighter, they confirmed that there had been numerous dogfights over the years. Some official, others not so official. Most recently during the weapons integration testing and Red Flag. The USAF seemed reluctant to let the Raptor "play" against any other nation's participants. All the official mission packages placed the F22 on the Blufor with Typhoon and Rafales. Several un-official engagements did take place - under the guise of burning excess fuel? - and The Typhoon reportedly did very well. Not quite as well as the first few times but it was still not all good for the Raptors. Probably the most credible story I heard myself was from both RAF and BAE Systems support personal that were present at the time. The Rafales had serious engine problems and the Raptors "cheated" ignoring the RoE several times.
Finally, my old boss - who I've mentioned several times on this forum - works at Lockheed Fort Worth on the F-35. He's very good friends with several guys that are on the F-22 programme. These are fairly senior people too. He also made comments about "how surprised the Raptor community was to have its collective ass handed to it by the inferior Typhoon". Jim also went on to say that the stories he'd heard coming from the F-22 test group had them worried that the Raptor's credibility had been irreparably damaged by the recent loses in DACT.
Just like DM, i know the Raptor isn't unbeatable. It isn't the super weapon that the Lockheed and USAF PR machines would have us all believe but it is a good tool if used properly. The same goes for the Typhoon, Rafale, SU-30 and numerous others. Unless you are going to come out and say you are actually a F-22 pilot yourself you are only speculating. Just like the rest of us.
You can choose to believe whatever you want. Now the accounts I've post above are my own personal experiences. I've never flown a Raptor nor a real Typhoon (I've been in the real sim for a few hours) so I can't report first hand. I've worked in the Aerospace/Defence industries for most of my working life. Most of that time with BAe, EuroFighter and Airbus. I work with people that can claim first hand experience. Or at least can claim to be getting the story closer to the source than the crap we see on the news sites. But there are sufficient and persistent stories/reports of Raptor 'losses' to cast significant doubt on your claims. So you might want to dial back on the national-pride bit. Nobody, no product is perfect.
On the whole issue of "which airplane is better the best", the best quote i can give, again one that was actually said in my presence, is from an RAF Squadron Leader, "Given what we've seen over the last few years I would choose the Typhoon over the Raptor, Rafale or SU (Indian Su-30MKI) for WVR (within Visual Range) combat on every day of the year and twice at Christmas."
Personally, given the cost vs. capability/flexibility I'd go with the Typhoon too. But I don't have a spare $70Bn to throw around.
Last edited by RKSL-Rock; Feb 17 2012 at 20:56. Reason: Typos
Upwards of 240 kills in training exercises and:
1 kill via a USAF F-16C
1 kill via a USN EA-18G
1 possible kill via USN F/A-18F
2 kills via RAF Typhoons
...now mean the Raptor's credibility has been irreparably damaged? Give me a break. You're implying some sort of agreement to avoid air combat training between F-22s and Typhoons?
BTW the French supposedly have a bad habit of just loitering around trying to get the best radar/IR/communications signature information they can from the F-22. No idea if this is true however.
Give me a break. Don't take the quote completely out of context. Those were the concerns of Lockheed F-22 team members in light of budget cuts and cancellation threats when the Raptor programme was being investigated by the US congress. They did eventually cut the programme short after all didn't they.
And as far as an "agreement to avoid air combat training between F-22s and Typhoons". Not avoid no. But there is certainly a gentleman's agreement not to publically discuss the results or lessons learned. I've had that from both US and RAF aircrew Remember these aren't my words either. These were the comments from actual aircrew involved. And there is a directive from the USAF about releasing any unofficial information about the F22 project and its combat effectiveness. It's been the subject of debate among people I know on the F-35 team. They find it very funny since the Raptors flaws and defeats only add to the "safety net" below the JSF programme.
As for your reckoning, I think you are a bit off. Where are you getting those figures? I've heard enough rumours and read enough stories in the press to know it's a lot higher than just 5 kills. I know you are missing atleast the famous T-38 Trainer vs F22 kill that hit headlines around the world a few years ago. Just a quick google flick through a few forums and magazines in my office kicked up these:
1x confirmed kill by T-38 where and when I dont know but its on Youtube.
1x confirmed kill by USN EF-18G
1x claimed kill by USMC F-18C - admittedly 2 vs 4. The F-22s killed 3 for 1 loss. - Forum
1x confirmed kill by a Belgian F-16 at Deci 2010 - AFM
1x claimed kill by a Spanish F-18 at Deci 2010 - AFM
3x claimed but unconfirmed kills by German Typhoons at Deci - Eurofighter Mags
5x claimed but unconfirmed kills by French Rafales 2009/10 Deci/Red Flag - Rafale Forums
2x confirmed kills by RAF Typhoons in the US 2007 - Flight International + First hand confirmation.
3x confirmed kills by RAF Typhoons at Deci 2009 - AFM/RAF Aircrew.
1x claimed kill by Italian Typhoon F2 at Deci - Forums
1x claimed kill at Red Flag 2009(?) by a French Mirage 2000 - Forums
Dates are approximate.
Even if half of them are true its still not the clean sweep some people are claiming.
The French have a habit of only commiting if they know they can win. There were complaints about it in various wargames. AFM did a very good After Action review a few years back. Around the same time as the French were claiming to have shot down Typhoons and F-22s etc. It didnt put the French tactics in a very nice light. To use a cliched British term. "Its wasn't cricket." In other words they didnt play by the spirit of the game only the letter of the law.
EDIT Another thing just came up in our Office conversation. I'm sat here with 2x BAE Staff and 1 poor soul from MBDA at Lostock. Out of those claimed 240 kills how many were BVR? How many were WVR?
Last edited by RKSL-Rock; Feb 18 2012 at 11:34.
I just noticed someone mentioning usage of the nuclear armament. My opinion on nuclear armament is:
The only people who are justifiable to be attacked with nuclear weapons, are the people who think it is justifiable to use nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are A no-no from me. It is whay harder without a nuclear armament, but the damage done by it can be irreparaible. Hiroshima still has the traces of the first atomic bomb used in combat explosion.
Now, rant over, back to planes:
I think that F-22's expensive, tad too much, but from what I read here from you guys, I assume, that the specifications required for F-22 should be fixed until achieved and all bugs fixed. Scampering all across the board will do nothing. I mean, in my eyes all projects should be reached like this:
1)set goal
2)achieve the goal
3)new specs
4)specific upgrade package (example of such planing: TUSK for M1A1/A2)
I mean scampering all across the board was proven by history wrong. That is why Panther never had all the problems fixed back in WWII. Hitler just kept adding new reqirements, without considering to fix the final drive issues, etc. Had they've been fixed, without that BS, it had been few extra weeks of existance for Nazi Germany.
Well, that's me.
Strike deep, Strike hard!
Posting Permissions
HOME 
Reply With Quote
