The Official F-22 Fact thread.

[maxpontiac]

This thread's sole intention is to provide the developers the neccessary information to assure the F-22 is accurately depicted in HAWX.

I do not want to see the F-22's capabilities ruined to give the game "balancing". That would be a crime.

Of course, if any one disputes one of my facts, I will gladly provide a link to where the info was obtained.

FACT 1

Supercruise: The Raptor WITHOUT afterburner covers a larger flight envelope than nearly ALL fighters in full afterburner. The Raptor cruises like any other fighter does in full afterburner, except that where any other fighter can spend mere minutes flying at that speed, this is the Raptor's normal "cruising" speed! Fighters outside of the F-22 DO NOT fly at MACH SPEEDS to conserve fuel. The second equally important advantage is that by not using its afterburner, the Raptor effectively reduces the range (due to no afterburner) and reaction time (due to its speed) of ANY IRST system trying to find and track it. The F-22 has a confirmed supercruise speed of Mach 1.82 (1200 MPH).

FACT 2

Stealth(Radar) - Its forward RCS is often quoted as 0.0001 m^2 (That's roughly the size of a marble)... This is NOT the F117 we are talking about here!... The F22 has wide-band, all-aspect stealth (The highest degree, of stealth ever fielded) designed to defeat threats such as the SA-10 and -20 systems, among others... The Russians claim they can detect (S-300V and P series) a 0.001 m^2 target at 90 km... So an F22 flying straight at the site would be detected at 45 km (It sounds like the S300P is a major threat, but if you analyze this, 45 km = approx. 25 miles... The range of the SDB is in excess of 65 miles, and the Raptor carries 8 of them (plus 2 Amraam and 2 AIM9)

FACT 3

Stealth (Infrared) The Raptor is coated with a "Paint" which reduces its IR signature due to friction (Boeing developed it)... Also, the engine nozzles are made of a high strength, temp- and pressure- tolerant, ceramic-based material, which is obviously custom-designed and expensive: It reduces the heat signature of the exhaust nozzle. So, in foul weather IR systems suck against any aircraft, and in good weather, against a Raptor, your detection range is reduced.

FACT 4

Avionincs(radar): The F22 carries the first AESA radar carried by a fighter, and the most powerful radar fielded in a tactical aircraft. The APG-77 can detect a 1m^2 target at >100 miles, in LPI (Low-Probability of Intercept) mode... The frequency of the radar changes over 1000 times per second, and each of the >1500 AESA modules can be electronically steered and its power levels changed individually... The -77s antenna element can (passively) detect an aircraft's radar from >250 miles.. This information can be used by the ALR-94 EWS system to passively target the aircraft from very long range, without ever using its own radar, passing the info directly to the Amraam guidance computer, and updating it regularly in-flight... This allows the Amraam to be launched from maximum range without ever giving away the Raptor's position... Basically, the APG-77 is unchallenged in air-to-air. The -77 has ground attack modes which allow it to hit a target with a 1000Lb JDAM from >25 miles or a 300 Lb SDB from >65 miles. The JDAM has been dropped at Mach 1.5 and 50000 ft, the SDB is being tested as we speak. Avionics(defensive)

FACT 5

The ALR-94 is the most sophisticated fully integrated Electronics Warfare System ever developed... It took one of the ten most powerful computers in the world to test and refine the system... The ALR-94 consists of multiple sensors, scattered throughout the aircraft, which give it 360 degree, very-long-range passive detection of air AND ground threats... The difference between the ALR-94 and all previous systems is the sheer power of the system (the spectrum of threats i.e., bandwidth, detected is mind-boggling) and its proven ability to identify, prioritize, geo-locate, and then target air and ground threats well before the Raptor is detected. The system's known capabilities are in actuality a MAJOR part of the Raptor's Stealth capabilities (being able to accurately detect, track and target in a passive way from very long range is one of the reasons why the USAF originally demanded, then opted out of, developing a new-gen IRST for the Raptor: Experts familiar with the design requirements for the ALR-94 now suspect that the ALR-94s bandwidth may include the IR wavelengths - essentually it can cover the role of the DAS system being developed for the F-35, or a high-power IRST like on an F-14 or SU-27).. A system like this is not something you "bolt on" to a 4th gen! - It is part of the brains of the aircraft.

FACT 6

Avionics (computer processing): The computing power of the Raptor puts it shoulders above anything else flying... This computing power is necessary to filter all the info supplied by the APG-77, the ALR-94 and its COM/Nav systems, as quickly as possible, so the Raptor can maintain its stealth advantage: This puts all aircraft it engages at a HUGE disadvantage... How do you engage an aircraft which your sensors cannot accurately target, which has been "observing you from very long range, and whose maneuvering/speed/targeting capabilities you cannot match. In 4th gen fighters, computers are used for specific tasks... In the F-22, the computer's signal processing power enables it to soak in much more info and present it to the pilot in a way that he can react quickly and end the fight on his terms.

FACT 7

Maneuverability: This is an area which is misunderstood... The F-22 uses a COMBINATION of thrust vectoring, highly refined aerodynamics, very high-thrust engines(especially in non-afterburning mode), and HUGE control surfaces to allow high maneuverability throughout its entire flight envelope, low to very high speed. No aircraft out there is going to outmaneuver a Raptor blasting in from 50000 ft at 1200 mph... The fact is, the Raptor will be able to engage and disengage any 4th gen, non-supercruising fighter at will, because they cannot match its speed and maneuverability. Most times, the Raptor pilot will simply choose to engage from long range, undetected and then move in for close-range, from-behind shots on targets who survive the BVR.

FACT 8

Wing loading: Wing loading is the loaded weight of the aircraft divided by the area of the wing. It is broadly reflective of the aircraft's lift-to-mass ratio, which affects its rate of climb, load-carrying ability, and turn performance. The F-22's wing loading is 66 lb/ft 2 (322 kg/m 2). Plus, you need to factor in the most important thing of all! There will be zero stores on the wings in stealth configuration (This is the normal operating configuration). No other aircraft can match this capablity.

FACT 9

Engine thrust: This is something I see that Ubisoft and the devs have already made an error on. Yes, the most common bit of information regarding the F-22's F119-PW-100 engine thrust have placed it in the 35,000 LB class per engine. Correction! It's 37,000 LBS per engine for an increase of 4000 lbs combined!! Major Paul "MAX" Moga (A Raptor test pilot) has publicly stated this.

[Tomcatter61]

FACT 10
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/f18fgunf22.jpg

FACT 11

That just cost $137.5 Million.

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
FACT 10
http://www.alert5.com/newsphotos/f18fgunf22.jpg

FACT 11

That just cost $137.5 Million.

I was declined access to that page. Judging by the title of the JPG, it must be the one of the F-18 having the F-22 in a gun sight.

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8453/f18fgunf22020lz.jpg
http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/7798/f18fgunf22031pc.jpg

If these are the pictures you were trying to show...Here is a couple of questions for you.

1 - Does this prove anything but the fact the Raptor was WVR gun locked?
2 - Does this picture proove the Raptor was shot down?
3 - Do you know what the ROE were during this excerise?
4 - Do you know what happened during this excerise prior to this photo?
5 - Do you know what scenerio's were in place for this exercise? Odds??

Way to many variables involved Tomcatter.

And BTW, I know of a few F-22's that have been splashed in Red Air exercises, but considering the HUNDREDS of planes downed by the F-22, I believe the Raptor enjoys an excellent record breaking KDR.

[Tomcatter61]

1. Yes, that's a pipper on the target. I believe the black square indicates trigger depressed.
2. No, but I imagine flying sans wing would be rather difficult.
3-5. Nope. But, there's nothing saying that the odds or ROE weren't in the F-22's favor either. Would the USAF want to cut the legs out from under itself by letting the 22 get waxed in exercises?


Originally posted by maxpontiac:
And BTW, I know of a few F-22's that have been splashed in Red Air exercises, but considering the HUNDREDS of planes downed by the F-22, I believe the Raptor enjoys an excellent record breaking KDR.

...in simulated combat.

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
1. Yes, that's a pipper on the target. I believe the black square indicates trigger depressed.
2. No, but I imagine flying sans wing would be rather difficult.
3-5. Nope. But, there's nothing saying that the odds or ROE weren't in the F-22's favor either. Would the USAF want to cut the legs out from under itself by letting the 22 get waxed in exercises?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by maxpontiac:
And BTW, I know of a few F-22's that have been splashed in Red Air exercises, but considering the HUNDREDS of planes downed by the F-22, I believe the Raptor enjoys an excellent record breaking KDR.

...in simulated combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1 - Agreed. But given the right scenerio, a P-51 Mustang could even have it's gun sights on your F-14. It proves nothing. Yet the Anti-Raptor-Crowd cling to this like an ace up their clueless sleeve.

2 - Speculation. No one knows what would have happened IF that was real gun fire. Speaking of flying without a wing, did you ever see the 3 winged Eagle? Amazing. Flying without a wing is possible, although improbable.

3-5 - This is where doing proper research pays off, Tomcatter. Pick a Red Flag Exercise in which the Raptor was featured and I will tell you how many Raptors were there, what there job was, and what the Red and Blue teams were allowed to do. In all likelihood (as is nearly all cases), the Raptors were flying in a 8 to 14 ship contingent, while being severely outnumbered.

6 - Please. You came into this thread, posted a pic of a "simulated" WVR lock on the F-22, and posted on how the USAF just lost 137.5 million. You then play down the significance of the Raptors exercise dominance.

Bonus - If common sense does not apply to you in regards to the F-22, we can take this to a scientific level, and use real world physics and data on lets say, the F-22 versus the F-14.

Bonus 2 - Perhaps I could post quotes from Generals, aviation experts, and Pilots (US and Foreign) alike when it comes this aircraft and what it is capable of.

We have had a discussion similar to this in the past, and for whatever reason, you continue not to embrace the Raptor for what it's worth. This tells me you are either very young and ignorant, or old and stubborn. Perhaps it's neither, and you just like to argue, albeit in a losing cause.

[Mig-29]

Fact # 12 The F-22 prototype was the YF-22

Fact # 13 The direct competitor for the YF-22 was the YF-23

Fact # 14 The YF-23 looks cooler.

Fact # 15 A close variant to the F-22 will be FB-22 if it will come into production.

Fact # 16 The X-35 and F-35 are similar in appearance to the YF-22.

[MPSSC]

everyone can read the latest air force magazine.
(the topic is:Raptor roars in)

in the article:Raptor roars in,USAF claimed that in April 2008,two F-22 squadrons joined the ORI(Operational Readiness Inspection)training,flew 112 missions,fought against a composite air force(including F-15,AT-38 and NAVY SUPER HORNET),finally the killing ratio is 220:0(in two days).

what does this mean??it means that maybe SUPER HORNET has the chance to take out Raptor one or two times while dogfighting(probably the Raptor pilot made the mistakes).but as F-22 can use it's full air combat ability(not only it's maneuverability,but also it's SA-gathering,supercruise,and stealth abilities),even SUPER HORNET has very advanced avionic system and some low observation designs,SUPER HORNET still has very little chances to defeat F-22.


also in this article about the F-22:
1.maximum speed at high altitude:Mach 2.25(in 45000ft with full AB)
2.maximum speed at low altitude:Mach 1.40(sea level,with full AB)
3.maximum supercruise speed:Mach 1.82
4.minimum 360-degree turn radius at low altitude:750ft

[GhostRiderLSOV]

Fact 1) HAWX is not a simulator.
Fact 2) One plane to rule them all sucks for multiplayer.
Fact 3) You don't get money from advertising and defending the F-22 so much. (neither do I for not worshipping it :P)

[Tomcatter61]

Originally posted by maxpontiac:
1 - Agreed. But given the right scenerio, a P-51 Mustang could even have it's gun sights on your F-14. It proves nothing. Yet the Anti-Raptor-Crowd cling to this like an ace up their clueless sleeve.

2 - Speculation. No one knows what would have happened IF that was real gun fire. Speaking of flying without a wing, did you ever see the 3 winged Eagle? Amazing. Flying without a wing is possible, although improbable.

3-5 - This is where doing proper research pays off, Tomcatter. Pick a Red Flag Exercise in which the Raptor was featured and I will tell you how many Raptors were there, what there job was, and what the Red and Blue teams were allowed to do. In all likelihood (as is nearly all cases), the Raptors were flying in a 8 to 14 ship contingent, while being severely outnumbered.

6 - Please. You came into this thread, posted a pic of a "simulated" WVR lock on the F-22, and posted on how the USAF just lost 137.5 million. You then play down the significance of the Raptors exercise dominance.

Bonus - If common sense does not apply to you in regards to the F-22, we can take this to a scientific level, and use real world physics and data on lets say, the F-22 versus the F-14.

Bonus 2 - Perhaps I could post quotes from Generals, aviation experts, and Pilots (US and Foreign) alike when it comes this aircraft and what it is capable of.

We have had a discussion similar to this in the past, and for whatever reason, you continue not to embrace the Raptor for what it's worth. This tells me you are either very young and ignorant, or old and stubborn. Perhaps it's neither, and you just like to argue, albeit in a losing cause.

You seem awfully defensive.

1. Yes, a P-51 could get guns on "my" F-14. (Is that supposed to hurt my feelings?) It would prove, same as the HUD capture, that aircraft in the gunsight is not invincible, invulnerable, invisible. You say "anti-Raptor" like there is a big conspiracy or something.

2. A little speculation. What is certain is, if the gun were loaded, there would be several 20mm cannon rounds tearing up that airframe. I never said flying without a wing was "impossible."

3-5. Please go ahead and tell us all about those exercises. My point still makes sense. The USAF would want to justify a ridiculously expensive aircraft by producing a ridiculously lopsided KDR. Bottom line is, until missiles really leave the rails, and bullets fly, we only have a "good idea" of what the outcome will be.

6. I posted a pic of an "actual" WVR gunshot (minus the bullets).

Bonus: Sure you could spin your wheels like that only to have me tell you that it comes down to the pilots. One mistake even by a superior pilot (even flying a superior aircraft) could be enough to make it a bad day. I bet the Tomcat would have a helluva time trying to bag a 22. But, yeah, I think it is still possible.

Bonus 2: Quote whatever you want, if it makes you feel better.

I was not aware we'd had a similar argument - I don't keep track of them. I would say you are incorrect either way. I think I'm more of the young and stubborn type.

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by GhostRiderLSOV:
Fact 1) HAWX is not a simulator.
Fact 2) One plane to rule them all sucks for multiplayer.
Fact 3) You don't get money from advertising and defending the F-22 so much. (neither do I for not worshipping it :P)

1 - It's not a simulator per se, but we do NOT know the extent of the realism. So what is your point?

2 - Not if HAWX is done correctly. The F-22 is a TRUE GEN-5 aircraft. There are plenty of other GEN-5 aircraft in the feilded, prototype stages, and development. This post was simply done to voice my opinion in regards to the fact on how the Raptor does not need to be in the same class as the GEN-4 and GEN-4++++ airplane.

3 - Who is worshipping the F-22. I stated FACTUAL DATA (public) on the airplane to list it's capabilities. Now, if my name had Raptor in it, and there was Raptor sig and avatar, you might have a point. I love aviation, and the Raptor just happens to be the pinnacle of it.

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by Mig-29:
Fact # 13 The direct competitor for the YF-22 was the YF-23

Fact # 14 The YF-23 looks cooler.

Problem with the YF-23 was it's ALPHA performance was worse then the YF-22, and it's ordinance storage was far more complex.

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
You seem awfully defensive.

1. Yes, a P-51 could get guns on "my" F-14. (Is that supposed to hurt my feelings?) It would prove, same as the HUD capture, that aircraft in the gunsight is not invincible, invulnerable, invisible. You say "anti-Raptor" like there is a big conspiracy or something.

2. A little speculation. What is certain is, if the gun were loaded, there would be several 20mm cannon rounds tearing up that airframe. I never said flying without a wing was "impossible."

3-5. Please go ahead and tell us all about those exercises. My point still makes sense. The USAF would want to justify a ridiculously expensive aircraft by producing a ridiculously lopsided KDR. Bottom line is, until missiles really leave the rails, and bullets fly, we only have a "good idea" of what the outcome will be.

6. I posted a pic of an "actual" WVR gunshot (minus the bullets).

Bonus: Sure you could spin your wheels like that only to have me tell you that it comes down to the pilots. One mistake even by a superior pilot (even flying a superior aircraft) could be enough to make it a bad day. I bet the Tomcat would have a helluva time trying to bag a 22. But, yeah, I think it is still possible.

Bonus 2: Quote whatever you want, if it makes you feel better.

I was not aware we'd had a similar argument - I don't keep track of them. I would say you are incorrect either way. I think I'm more of the young and stubborn type.

Defensive? If by that you mean I created a thread all the while knowing people would come and here and post something that would cause a discussion? Is this not what MB's are for? To discuss and defend one's point??

1 - Not at all. It's basic human pyschology. People tend to understand things alot better when they find or see something they identify with. Of course airplanes no matter the technology level are invincible. Anyone would be a fool to believe so. But, the same logic applies to an individual if they fail to recognize what is obvious. My point? The Legacy aircraft that the USAF and USN (F-14, F-15, F-16) introduced were a leap above the airplanes they replaced (F-4,F-5).

2 - Regardless of how "little" the speculation is, there is still guess work involved. I am not aware of the outcome of the F-22 and F-18 engagement. What excerise was this taken from? (It has been publicly stated that the first F-22 downed in combat was against an F-16 in a Red Flag excerise.) I would like some background on that picture. Do you have it?? I would love to track down where and when this occured. Plus, did you ever see the F-15 which lost one of it's wings still fly and then land???

3 - I fail to understand why are so quick to discredit any information of the F-22? What is cause of this?? Seriously??? Anyways, to be honest, there have been several dozen Red Flag exercises with the Raptor, and I could spend hours posting each one. With that said, I will post the details pertaining to the one in where the F-16 shot down the F-22 (It was 3 F-16's vs 1 F-22, with Capt. Percle at the Raptor's control - all 3 Vipers were downed, as well).

Red Flag 7-2.2

Red Air
F-15 - Nellis USA
F-16 - Nellis USA

Blue Air
F-22 - Langley USA

In this exercise, the F-22 had a record 36-1 KDR. The F-22's flew in a 6 to 8 ship formation, while the Aggressors broke off into multiple 4-8 ship groups under the protection of Jammers, undisclosed eggress locations and altitudes, and the ability to regenerate after being killed. All of which made ZERO difference, despite putting the F-22's at outnumbered odds.

6 - Completely hypocritical on your part Tomcatter. You state that the F-18's WVR gun lock is "actual" yet dismiss the Raptor's as "simulation"?? Isn't this all the same??

Bonus - There would be no spinning neccessary. I would simply define the F-22 by using numbers. Math has an excellent way of providing factual data that's impossible to dispute. While I agree that the pilot is a huge contributor in this game, he or she is STILL roughly 50% of equation. I don't care if you put the best F-15 ace in his Eagle, and match him versus Capt. Percle and his Raptor because in the end you could run 100 dogfights, and the results would be lopsided as ever. If the pilots are of equal skill, the airplane will almost always decide the outcome. This is not my opinion, it is a well known fact among pilots. And yes, pilots do make mistakes, but can you tell me what is the most common outcome in air to air engagments? Nearly all modern engagements end when Pilot A sees and kills Pilot B without "B" not even knowing what hit 'em. The F-22 is unequaled in this department (as well as others)

Bonus 2 - Whatever makes me feel better? Get a grip on how to discuss and debate things Tomcatter, posting evidence to back one's opinon has nothing to do with feelings. If you can't understand that concept, you best not enter discussions like this.

You chimed in on a discussion I was having with someone else when I first arrived here. I am incorrect? On what? Back it up with some factual data and not some inflated biased opinion that has ZERO warrant!

Young and Stubborn, eh? Explains alot. To young to no any better, all the while being to stubborn to realise the error of your ways. Makes sense.

Tell me, what makes the Tomcat so great in your eyes?

[TopCat-SE]

Whoa, Max, seriously dude, you need to get a life, or, at least a girlfriend man. You obviously have a hard on for the F22s (and that is fine I guess if that floats your boat) but if you hope/expect the developers to incorporate everything you copied/pasted at the beginning of the thread, well, I've got some airport approach land to sell ya.

Now, go outside and get some sun. Chicks dig a tan....not so crazy about the pasty skin tones one can expect to get from sitting in front of a monitor all day.

TC

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by TopCat-SE:
Whoa, Max, seriously dude, you need to get a life, or, at least a girlfriend man. You obviously have a hard on for the F22s (and that is fine I guess if that floats your boat) but if you hope/expect the developers to incorporate everything you copied/pasted at the beginning of the thread, well, I've got some airport approach land to sell ya.

Now, go outside and get some sun. Chicks dig a tan....not so crazy about the pasty skin tones one can expect to get from sitting in front of a monitor all day.

TC

Excuse me while I laugh at you for throwing out garbage in a thread with discussions in it.

Plus, it's obvious the developers look at this forum, and anyone with common sense could have figured that out if they bothered to read some of the topics.

It's a shame that you have nothing to add to this thread but insults to me, all the while generalizing people who post on MB's as those without a life.

As far as sitting at a computer screen all day, yes, it's what I do for living, and that info was handily available if you bothered to look at my profile before throwing out grade-school insults.

But, hey thanks for showing us how cool you are.

[TopCat-SE]

Ouch, sorry if I touched a raw nerve. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif But, to be honest, your response pretty much confirms my original points.

I have read quite a few of the topics on this forum. Too bad there are so many of the "gee what color flames would you paint on your plane" variety. Or, like yours, demanding the utmost in realism etc. Hello, in case you haven't noticed, developers aren't rushing to create those kind of games because they wouldn't sell. Face it, there are only soooooo many hard core sim fans. Fact of life, get over it.

And no, I didn't read your bio so I could find out all about you. Although I'm sure it is fascinating reading. Speaking of reading, while the devs may drop in here on occasion, do you really think they are basing their development on the posts here? Puleze. That's not the way it works. Sorry to burst your bubble.

TC

[Tomcatter61]

Originally posted by maxpontiac:
Defensive? If by that you mean I created a thread all the while knowing people would come and here and post something that would cause a discussion? Is this not what MB's are for? To discuss and defend one's point??

1 - Not at all. It's basic human pyschology. People tend to understand things alot better when they find or see something they identify with. Of course airplanes no matter the technology level are invincible. Anyone would be a fool to believe so. But, the same logic applies to an individual if they fail to recognize what is obvious. My point? The Legacy aircraft that the USAF and USN (F-14, F-15, F-16) introduced were a leap above the airplanes they replaced (F-4,F-5).

2 - Regardless of how "little" the speculation is, there is still guess work involved. I am not aware of the outcome of the F-22 and F-18 engagement. What excerise was this taken from? (It has been publicly stated that the first F-22 downed in combat was against an F-16 in a Red Flag excerise.) I would like some background on that picture. Do you have it?? I would love to track down where and when this occured. Plus, did you ever see the F-15 which lost one of it's wings still fly and then land???

3 - I fail to understand why are so quick to discredit any information of the F-22? What is cause of this?? Seriously??? Anyways, to be honest, there have been several dozen Red Flag exercises with the Raptor, and I could spend hours posting each one. With that said, I will post the details pertaining to the one in where the F-16 shot down the F-22 (It was 3 F-16's vs 1 F-22, with Capt. Percle at the Raptor's control - all 3 Vipers were downed, as well).

Red Flag 7-2.2

Red Air
F-15 - Nellis USA
F-16 - Nellis USA

Blue Air
F-22 - Langley USA

In this exercise, the F-22 had a record 36-1 KDR. The F-22's flew in a 6 to 8 ship formation, while the Aggressors broke off into multiple 4-8 ship groups under the protection of Jammers, undisclosed eggress locations and altitudes, and the ability to regenerate after being killed. All of which made ZERO difference, despite putting the F-22's at outnumbered odds.

6 - Completely hypocritical on your part Tomcatter. You state that the F-18's WVR gun lock is "actual" yet dismiss the Raptor's as "simulation"?? Isn't this all the same??

Bonus - There would be no spinning neccessary. I would simply define the F-22 by using numbers. Math has an excellent way of providing factual data that's impossible to dispute. While I agree that the pilot is a huge contributor in this game, he or she is STILL roughly 50% of equation. I don't care if you put the best F-15 ace in his Eagle, and match him versus Capt. Percle and his Raptor because in the end you could run 100 dogfights, and the results would be lopsided as ever. If the pilots are of equal skill, the airplane will almost always decide the outcome. This is not my opinion, it is a well known fact among pilots. And yes, pilots do make mistakes, but can you tell me what is the most common outcome in air to air engagments? Nearly all modern engagements end when Pilot A sees and kills Pilot B without "B" not even knowing what hit 'em. The F-22 is unequaled in this department (as well as others)

Bonus 2 - Whatever makes me feel better? Get a grip on how to discuss and debate things Tomcatter, posting evidence to back one's opinon has nothing to do with feelings. If you can't understand that concept, you best not enter discussions like this.

You chimed in on a discussion I was having with someone else when I first arrived here. I am incorrect? On what? Back it up with some factual data and not some inflated biased opinion that has ZERO warrant!

Young and Stubborn, eh? Explains alot. To young to no any better, all the while being to stubborn to realise the error of your ways. Makes sense.

Tell me, what makes the Tomcat so great in your eyes?

By "defensive" I mean that fact that you stated I was either "young and ignorant" or "old and stubborn" as well as implying that I'm a fool. None of that seems to be the rational, logical discussion that you think we're having; rather it sounds like someone calling names because they're upset about something. Feel free to explain.

1. I do not follow your "basic human psychology" aside. I think it seems more likely that your use of psychology was directed at provoking an emotional response from me by way of implying that a prop fighter could down an F-14. Regardless, I acknowledged that it is certainly possible. In any event, it still has nothing to do with the original question you asked: does the image prove anything other than the Raptor is WVR gun locked? Yes, asked and answered.

2. Fine. I concede we don't know if the Raptor was so badly damaged that it could no longer fly, that it was destroyed - a kill. There were no 20mm rounds flying downrange so we don't know the real results. However, if you want to claim that, then why can't we debate whether or not the Raptor's BVR kills are "speculation?" No one really fired a missile, so the pilot had no opportunity to actually try to jam, spoof or evade it. Maybe the missile exploded and only threw some shrapnel into the target aircraft. Maybe it exploded out of the damage radius and the target got away clean. Open that can of worms at your own risk.

I don't have many details on the engagement in question. All I can really tell you is the Super Hornet (to the best of my knowledge) was from VFA-11. Other than that, we've got the HUD footage. I thought you would have more information on this yourself. I'd also love to hear more about this particular encounter - especially whether the SH got WVR on the Raptor, or the fight started at the merge. Either way, it didn't seem to go well for the F-22.

Yes, I'm aware of the Israeli pilot who flew his F-15 back to base and landed after losing a wing. Again, I never said it was impossible. However, I think it's fair to say such things are rare occurrences. In fact, you yourself said it was "improbable."

3. I don't discredit "any" information on the F-22. Facts like engine thrust, weapons, wing area/loading I can accept. I do, however, question certain other figures when there is possibility of skewed numbers. I believe the Raptor would chalk up a high KDR, but quite this high, I'm not sure.

4. (Formerly 6.) I don't see it as hypocritical, but you're entitled to your opinion. First, I used the quotes somewhat in jest in my post. Second, I would give a lot more credence to a WVR guns kill than a BVR missile kill. With a WVR guns kill you are in the fight, up close, pulling G and there's no doubt when you score "hits." What happens in a simulated BVR missile engagement? Someone calls up and says, "Ok, I'm tracking you. Ok, I fired. Ok, you're dead." How does the defender get to counter the shot?

Bonus - There would be spinning necessary. You can math the hell out of the aircraft's physical properties. Until you show me math that accurately calculates the human element, you can argue until you're blue in the face (or in this case - type until you're red in the fingers). You won't sell me on that until you can define someone in numbers. Good luck.

Bonus 2 - Seriously, you can post whatever you want. What are we debating exactly? Have I ever said the Raptor isn't a potent aircraft? I don't think so. I question the limits of its potency. And really, I simply posted a picture of one getting "shot" and made a comment about how expensive it would be to replace if it were an actual combat loss. Perhaps someone needs to get a grip on what there is to discuss or debate. I'm sorry if you don't find the image as funny as I do.

I think you are incorrect about me being young and ignorant, or old and stubborn. I said young and stubborn. The only factual data I have to back that up is the awareness of my physical age and knowledge of my behavior, past and present. Since I'm the person closest to me, it'd probably be okay to take my word for it, biased though it may be.

Young enough not to "no" any better? And "to" stubborn to realize the error of my ways? That's quite a lot of assumption on your part, isn't it? You know what they say about people who assume.

There's many things that make the Tomcat great in my eyes - looks, for starters. But, really, I think we can save that for another thread.

[jonathanli]

Maxpontiac...You are extremely disrespectful in accusing people of being young/ignorant/stubborn.

Many of your facts are WRONG, having said that I can tell that you got your facts from Global Security or wikipedia. I also have a friend who has just returned home with a Reserve component of the USAF after a deployment to Iraq and we both agree that these are simply guesses. Saying that the AN/APG-77 is unchallenged A-A is a mistake. The F-35 changes at higher frequencies than the F-22's, and only has the handicap of a shorter range. But you are not going to fire an AMRAAM at a range of 80 miles. Also, they would probably not see each other visually until >8 miles, at that point which the F-35 would have a slight advantage because of the off boresight targeting system and a smaller silhouette. However, an F-35 getting a checker on an F-22 is highly unlikely. Red flag does not show anything besides "Raptors a 5th gen and F-16's are 4th gen yadayadayada" The fact is that a SPAD can shoot down an F-22 but that is highly unlikely. Now, if you were less arrogant in your response towards other members I would have let it go but the way you talk to other people you probably are simply a teenager.

Now lets get this straight.... HAWX will not be a Falcon 4.0 Allied Force (BTW an excellent game for hardcore simmers), it is Ubisofts decision whether or not to pursue these things. It is probably going to be an arcade game, and by the way Ubi does stuff they are prop not gonna listen to us anyways



EDIT: My thesis originally had a typo lol, sorry for the discrepancy

[jonathanli]

Forgot, Also in terms of sensor fusion the F-35 is without equal.


And whats with the fanboyism maxpontiac lol?

[jonathanli]

BTW, just to prove that ubi doesn't listen to us go to ghostrecon.net and look at the forums. Look at the Rainbow Six forums I am glad that there are still people that want authenticity in games like Whitenight77 (Admin for GR.net) and ColinCJ, long live GR and I hope Ground branch is good and steals the spotlight away from Ubi

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by TopCat-SE:
Ouch, sorry if I touched a raw nerve. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif But, to be honest, your response pretty much confirms my original points.

I have read quite a few of the topics on this forum. Too bad there are so many of the "gee what color flames would you paint on your plane" variety. Or, like yours, demanding the utmost in realism etc. Hello, in case you haven't noticed, developers aren't rushing to create those kind of games because they wouldn't sell. Face it, there are only soooooo many hard core sim fans. Fact of life, get over it.

And no, I didn't read your bio so I could find out all about you. Although I'm sure it is fascinating reading. Speaking of reading, while the devs may drop in here on occasion, do you really think they are basing their development on the posts here? Puleze. That's not the way it works. Sorry to burst your bubble.

TC

Folks like you crack me up.

You come into a thread, telling me to get a life due to me posting on internet, yet come back here, and reply to me.

Ignorance. That describes you to a "T". Now while I know the devs will take whatever direction they CHOOSE to take, you are a fool if you believe they don't actually listen to some of the topics.

Now do I believe my thread will actually "impact" what they said, who knows? But since the game is not yet out, NOBODY KNOWS what will or won't be in the game. You can accept one end of the spectrum while stating they won't, but brush off the possibilities of them actually listening to their prospective customers. Talk about selective.

Don't fool yourself. Over-G sold fairly well considering how horrible it was. And while Ace Combat sold more, there is not one valid reason on why HAWX can't be both.

[maxpontiac]

jonathanli -

1 - I stated the F-22 was operational. It's capabilities are operational. The F-35 is a bloated project in which even the investors are leary of. The F-22 is brings this to table TODAY. The F-35??

2 - Accuse me of being a fanboy because I like what the F-22 brings to the table? Give me a break man.

3 - Now while SOME of my information comes from Wiki and Global, a vast majority does NOT. There are plenty of other publications in which my data was retrieved from. If some of my data is inaccurate, and can be PROVED otherwise, by all means, please correct me. But if you expect me to believe someone who knows someone who states likewise, I am going to laugh. Show me where my data is wrong, correct it with PROVEN information via link to a website or PDF, and I will give offer my thanks to you.

4 - Exactly my point. My point was to prove that the F-22 is superior to the Gen-4 aircraft of today. The mathematical data can prove this, as well as statements from former Eagle and Viper drivers. Thanks.

5 - So, let me get this straight, you thrown your "teenager" insult my way, all the while getting on me for being disrespectful to other members? Makes sense, if you were attempting to be hypocrite. Arrogant? No. Confident in my threads data. If you took it as arrogance, you must feel threatened or something. What is it??

BTW - I appreciate you actually bringing something to this discussion/debate.

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
By "defensive" I mean that fact that you stated I was either "young and ignorant" or "old and stubborn" as well as implying that I'm a fool. None of that seems to be the rational, logical discussion that you think we're having; rather it sounds like someone calling names because they're upset about something. Feel free to explain.

1. I do not follow your "basic human psychology" aside. I think it seems more likely that your use of psychology was directed at provoking an emotional response from me by way of implying that a prop fighter could down an F-14. Regardless, I acknowledged that it is certainly possible. In any event, it still has nothing to do with the original question you asked: does the image prove anything other than the Raptor is WVR gun locked? Yes, asked and answered.

2. Fine. I concede we don't know if the Raptor was so badly damaged that it could no longer fly, that it was destroyed - a kill. There were no 20mm rounds flying downrange so we don't know the real results. However, if you want to claim that, then why can't we debate whether or not the Raptor's BVR kills are "speculation?" No one really fired a missile, so the pilot had no opportunity to actually try to jam, spoof or evade it. Maybe the missile exploded and only threw some shrapnel into the target aircraft. Maybe it exploded out of the damage radius and the target got away clean. Open that can of worms at your own risk.

I don't have many details on the engagement in question. All I can really tell you is the Super Hornet (to the best of my knowledge) was from VFA-11. Other than that, we've got the HUD footage. I thought you would have more information on this yourself. I'd also love to hear more about this particular encounter - especially whether the SH got WVR on the Raptor, or the fight started at the merge. Either way, it didn't seem to go well for the F-22.

Yes, I'm aware of the Israeli pilot who flew his F-15 back to base and landed after losing a wing. Again, I never said it was impossible. However, I think it's fair to say such things are rare occurrences. In fact, you yourself said it was "improbable."

3. I don't discredit "any" information on the F-22. Facts like engine thrust, weapons, wing area/loading I can accept. I do, however, question certain other figures when there is possibility of skewed numbers. I believe the Raptor would chalk up a high KDR, but quite this high, I'm not sure.

4. (Formerly 6.) I don't see it as hypocritical, but you're entitled to your opinion. First, I used the quotes somewhat in jest in my post. Second, I would give a lot more credence to a WVR guns kill than a BVR missile kill. With a WVR guns kill you are in the fight, up close, pulling G and there's no doubt when you score "hits." What happens in a simulated BVR missile engagement? Someone calls up and says, "Ok, I'm tracking you. Ok, I fired. Ok, you're dead." How does the defender get to counter the shot?

Bonus - There would be spinning necessary. You can math the hell out of the aircraft's physical properties. Until you show me math that accurately calculates the human element, you can argue until you're blue in the face (or in this case - type until you're red in the fingers). You won't sell me on that until you can define someone in numbers. Good luck.

Bonus 2 - Seriously, you can post whatever you want. What are we debating exactly? Have I ever said the Raptor isn't a potent aircraft? I don't think so. I question the limits of its potency. And really, I simply posted a picture of one getting "shot" and made a comment about how expensive it would be to replace if it were an actual combat loss. Perhaps someone needs to get a grip on what there is to discuss or debate. I'm sorry if you don't find the image as funny as I do.

I think you are incorrect about me being young and ignorant, or old and stubborn. I said young and stubborn. The only factual data I have to back that up is the awareness of my physical age and knowledge of my behavior, past and present. Since I'm the person closest to me, it'd probably be okay to take my word for it, biased though it may be.

Young enough not to "no" any better? And "to" stubborn to realize the error of my ways? That's quite a lot of assumption on your part, isn't it? You know what they say about people who assume.

There's many things that make the Tomcat great in my eyes - looks, for starters. But, really, I think we can save that for another thread.

0 - Not upset at all. I like to debate/discuss things. Do I am come off brash at times? Probably. All I can say to that is my bad. But with that said, I still believe we are having a good discussion/debate here.

1 - No, my intentions were what I stated. I used that as an example to in an attempt to get you to identify with my point, which is, so what? A F-18 (allegedly) locked an F-22. That kind of thing happens.

2 - I wasn't looking for you to concede anything. But you do bring up an intersting point. None of know the exact details of the results or engagement scenerios involved in the F-22's kills have been stated to my knowledge. All we have is documented statements by the USAF and other military agencies, whether they be foreign or domestic.

According to the site where that pic was taken from (alert-5), they place the F-18 vs F-22 on or before April 2006. Funny thing is, the F-22 did not appear in any exercises until June of 2006 (Northern Edge). According to the released reports, the F-22 was not shot down in that exercise. In 2007, the F-22 made it's Red Flag debut, and did not face a F-18, and based on PUBLISHED reports, has yet to. So what gives? Is this BS? Is that pic some photo-shopped image? I am not a Hornet expert, so I have to ask, is this even a Hornet's HUD?? Yes, I am saying that the pic of the F-22 in the HUD of an F-18 is BS until proven otherwise. The public facts do not add up.

The Israeli F-15 Pilot owes his life to an act of God. I have never seen anything like it before in a fighter aircraft.

3 - OK. Here is where you could do to aid me in understanding what you are talking about. What do you dispute exactly? Please give me details!!

4 - So wait, now what you stated was in jest? I did not know that. Gotta love the internet. It's a wonderful place for folks to make giant assumptions in. Regardless, until the F-18 has been publicly given the credit for the kill of an F-22, it's nothing more then one giant specualtion and one giant possible load of crap. I am aware of an F-16 getting a kill on an F-22, but that's it.

BONUS - I stated that IF THE PILOTS WERE EQUAL, it comes down to the plane. As far as providing mathematical data on the human element, I am afraid I can't prove that. Who can? I suppose one could dig up some research done on human tendencies when under pressure, but IMO, it's immpossible to guage the human element. Way to many variables. Way to many things left to chance!!

BONUS 2 - You doubt the F-22, yet provide ZERO reasons to why. I would like to see something besides opinions. Perhaps some concrete evidence!? How is that a valid argument?? BTW, good job, you found a typo. Sorry, didn't know you were the message board english professor.

The Tomcat - Agreed. Looks alone make this plane special, and it was my favorite aircraft prior to the F-22. Always wondered how that plane would have done in an air to air fight. Shame it never really had it's moment in the sun. But, as far as a topic for another thread goes? Ok, if you insist.

[Tomcatter61]

Originally posted by maxpontiac:
Do I am come off brash at times? Probably.


I'll go with "definitely" instead of "probably."



1 - No, my intentions were what I stated. I used that as an example to in an attempt to get you to identify with my point, which is, so what? A F-18 (allegedly) locked an F-22. That kind of thing happens.


"So what?" Are you asking: so what if a SH got a guns kill on an F-22? You tell me. I'm not the one who launched into a debate about it.

You keep saying "locked." The HUD symbology it showing a pipper on the target. The "pipper" is the part of the display that shows where your bullets are going to hit. This is pipper on, trigger down - meaning (if the gun were loaded and not safed) bullets are flying into the Raptor. The second frame you show is even better because that proves even more time with the pipper on.



2 - I wasn't looking for you to concede anything. But you do bring up an intersting point. None of know the exact details of the results or engagement scenerios involved in the F-22's kills have been stated to my knowledge. All we have is documented statements by the USAF and other military agencies, whether they be foreign or domestic.


Could you rewrite your third sentence so I can understand what you are trying to say. You may know what you meant to say, but I have only what you've written to go by. Also, where are some of these documented statements?



According to the site where that pic was taken from (alert-5), they place the F-18 vs F-22 on or before April 2006. Funny thing is, the F-22 did not appear in any exercises until June of 2006 (Northern Edge). According to the released reports, the F-22 was not shot down in that exercise. In 2007, the F-22 made it's Red Flag debut, and did not face a F-18, and based on PUBLISHED reports, has yet to. So what gives? Is this BS? Is that pic some photo-shopped image? I am not a Hornet expert, so I have to ask, is this even a Hornet's HUD?? Yes, I am saying that the pic of the F-22 in the HUD of an F-18 is BS until proven otherwise. The public facts do not add up.


How do you know the F-22 didn't take part in exercises prior to June '06? Where are you getting all of your F-22 exercise data? Where did you find the second frame of the HUD footage?



3 - OK. Here is where you could do to aid me in understanding what you are talking about. What do you dispute exactly? Please give me details!!


I question the Raptor's KDR. How accurate is its performance in that regard? Have we tested it against Soviet (sorry, Russian) aircraft - the F-22's likely opponents? Give me details. You claim to have knowledge of many exercises. How many kills are BVR? How many WVR? What weapons were employed? What were the engagement scenarios? What were the ROEs?



4 - So wait, now what you stated was in jest? I did not know that. Gotta love the internet. It's a wonderful place for folks to make giant assumptions in. Regardless, until the F-18 has been publicly given the credit for the kill of an F-22, it's nothing more then one giant specualtion and one giant possible load of crap. I am aware of an F-16 getting a kill on an F-22, but that's it.


I've heard tell of F-15s that have gotten kills on F-22s, allegedly from pilots involved. If these are true, they have not been "publicly given credit" either. Perhaps not all the true facts are given public credit. If you know of HUD footage of the F-16's kill, I'd be happy to post that since it is more valid, as far as you're concerned.



BONUS 2 - You doubt the F-22, yet provide ZERO reasons to why. I would like to see something besides opinions. Perhaps some concrete evidence!? How is that a valid argument?? BTW, good job, you found a typo. Sorry, didn't know you were the message board english professor.


I've provided several reasons. I question the Raptor's performance in exercises where the ROEs aren't known and that may have underlying agendas for future USAF fighter procurement. I question the Raptor's performance in the BVR environment without live fire. I question the Raptor's performance against aircraft that are not likely to be its primary opponents. You're the one seemingly trying to convince me of something. I'd say the burden for arguing the case falls more to you. I've stated my reasons for being skeptical.

No, I am not the message board English (should be capitalized) professor. But thank you for complimenting my attentiveness. And to be honest, those weren't the only typos I came across. You got off light.

[WhiteKnight77]

The general said, "To add to what we learned on our successful first operational deployment to the Utah Test and Training Range to drop JDAMs (joint direct attack munition), fly against double-digit SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) at Nellis and work (close air support) with F-16 FAC-As, we will conduct our first routine peacetime exercise deployment by taking 12 Raptors to Alaska in June for Northern Edge."�

F-22 Raptor Goes Operational (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/afweapons/a/f22operational.htm)

Langley AFB got the first operational Raptors (which also got the first operational Eagles back in 72). Notice the date of Dec. 15, 2005 for the linked article. June would be 2006 as quoted above.

The F-16.net F-22A Raptor goes operational (http://www.f-16.net/news_article1538.html) page even includes which bases (at that time) had F-22s.

Now the above posted pic may be real as they could have been trying out different maneuvers and tactics against other platforms to develop said tactics to fight the F-22. Being that none of use were there or in the cockpit, no one of us can say for sure if it is real or not.

Earlier this year, Langley was having drills involving the Raptors including scrambling the planes and practice runs on the base. Damned things woke me up most days for the last 7 month which ironically woke me up for their very first flights as they came off the assembly line in 2005.

[krise_madsen]

I'd like to point out to those who still haven't gotten it: HAWX is an arcade flying game, not a flight sim. The aircraft will not be authentic beyond looking like the real thing.

Hey, debate the virtues of different aircraft to your heart's content, just don't expect it to have anything to do with the game.

Also, everybody please be nice to each other.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
I'll go with "definitely" instead of "probably."

"So what?" Are you asking: so what if a SH got a guns kill on an F-22? You tell me. I'm not the one who launched into a debate about it.

You keep saying "locked." The HUD symbology it showing a pipper on the target. The "pipper" is the part of the display that shows where your bullets are going to hit. This is pipper on, trigger down - meaning (if the gun were loaded and not safed) bullets are flying into the Raptor. The second frame you show is even better because that proves even more time with the pipper on.

Could you rewrite your third sentence so I can understand what you are trying to say. You may know what you meant to say, but I have only what you've written to go by. Also, where are some of these documented statements?

How do you know the F-22 didn't take part in exercises prior to June '06? Where are you getting all of your F-22 exercise data? Where did you find the second frame of the HUD footage?

I question the Raptor's KDR. How accurate is its performance in that regard? Have we tested it against Soviet (sorry, Russian) aircraft - the F-22's likely opponents? Give me details. You claim to have knowledge of many exercises. How many kills are BVR? How many WVR? What weapons were employed? What were the engagement scenarios? What were the ROEs?

I've heard tell of F-15s that have gotten kills on F-22s, allegedly from pilots involved. If these are true, they have not been "publicly given credit" either. Perhaps not all the true facts are given public credit. If you know of HUD footage of the F-16's kill, I'd be happy to post that since it is more valid, as far as you're concerned.

I've provided several reasons. I question the Raptor's performance in exercises where the ROEs aren't known and that may have underlying agendas for future USAF fighter procurement. I question the Raptor's performance in the BVR environment without live fire. I question the Raptor's performance against aircraft that are not likely to be its primary opponents. You're the one seemingly trying to convince me of something. I'd say the burden for arguing the case falls more to you. I've stated my reasons for being skeptical.

No, I am not the message board English (should be capitalized) professor. But thank you for complimenting my attentiveness. And to be honest, those weren't the only typos I came across. You got off light.

OK - So based on our conversation, we have discovered that I am "definitely" brash when it comes to discussing things, and you are anal when it comes to being an "English" professor. Now that our quirks have been identified..

1 - Yes. That is exactly what I am stating. Anything can happen, it's a big sky up there. I just doubt the authenticity of this pic, especially when I have yet to see documented proof of the Hornet kill on the Raptor. Since you are a Navy man, what carrier was the VFA-11 assigned to during this time frame? Perhaps we can put the puzzle together the hard way. We could see if these units were involved in Northern Edge of 2006. Yeah, I initiated this discussion. Thanks for playing. LOL

2 - Hey, thanks for the class in HUD terminology. I did not need it. Was locked a poor choice of words? Perhaps, but I still question the authenticity of these pictures.

3 - What I was saying is all we have to go off is what is stated in magazines, books, and on the internet due to the public proof they provide. As far as my "documented statements" go, what do want to see? If you are referring to my posts about Captain Percle getting shot down, I found that info in a Magazine called "Combat Aircraft", the article was entitled "Raptor Flag", and the paragraph can be found on page 53.
http://combataircraft.net/issues/8_2.php

If there is anything else, let me know, and I will accomodate you.

4 - How do I know? The post by WhiteKnight77 is good place to start for you if you need "proof". There are similar links and articles all over the place. As far as my source on the 2nd frame of HUD footage, here it is.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread202946/pg1


5 - As far as the particulars involved in each of the exercises, I don't know, for I am not in the USAF. As I stated in a prior post, I know the F-22 has constantly and consistently been put at a numerically inferior disadvantage, and has still dominated in all fields. As far as the weapons used, common sense tells me that the kills have been with the AIM-9, AIM-120, and the M61A2. In the Red Flag exercises, the RED AIR has thrown everything at the Raptors including the kitchen sink and has still been trashed.

6 - With the Eagle kills, please post them. I would love to see those. Plus, if you have any info or pics on the Viper kills, please post them as well. I know I have not reviewed ALL THE INFO on the Raptor and the respective stories, never said I did. Plus, I would imagine that pilot quotes from Eagle and Viper drivers are true. Do you have one on the F-18 pilot? I doubt it, since it's probably false. Oh, and BTW, I never stated the F-22 was invincible, I simply stated that is dominating everything thrown at it and sporting KDR ratios like the 36-1 at RED FLAG. Yes, the F-22 getting shot down in simulation is bound to happen. Think about this tomcatter, the F-15 has been shot down countless times in training. How many times have the Eagles been shot down in air to air engagements when it counts??? ZERO.

7 - The burden falls on me? Not exactly. You can speculate and question all you want. Does it change anything that I have stated in regards to the F-22's performance thus far? No. By applying common sense, you can compare the F-22 to the F-14,F-15, and F-16 at this stage of their development to get an excellent indicator of what this airplane is capable of. If that doesn't work, take a look at how the planes stack up from a physical standpoint. Still need convincing? Read some statements from former Eagle and Viper pilots. Those will impress you. Need some links??

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by krise_madsen:
I'd like to point out to those who still haven't gotten it: HAWX is an arcade flying game, not a flight sim. The aircraft will not be authentic beyond looking like the real thing.

Hey, debate the virtues of different aircraft to your heart's content, just don't expect it to have anything to do with the game.

Also, everybody please be nice to each other.

Respectfully

krise madsen

""¢ Is H.A.W.X a simulator or an arcade?

H.A.W.X is a good mix between simulation and arcade gameplay. We use a fully realistic physics engine that is tuned in a way that allows every player to be able to enjoy it. The focus is being put on the gameplay depth, not on the gameplay complexity. Even if, at a first glance, our game offers a very accessible piloting experience, we also managed to keep the experience very authentic, with a huge room for skills improvement over the time.

In other words, the philosophy behind the game could be summarized this way: H.A.W.X does not aim to simulate reality, but to build on it and provide an experience that feels accurate, while allowing everybody to perform complex, fun and rewarding maneuvers.
So everybody will have the same weapons - how you use them is another matter..."


The above statement is from the official community dev thread here. While this indicates a general arcade feel, I still believe some elements of SIMULATOR could be included.

I plan to, thank you very much. I enjoy discussions, and it's the main reason I come to a MB.

Agreed. I "definitely" was brash towards tomcatter, and I have since admitted to it. With the others? A simple case of action and reaction.

[ZX3-HOSTILE]

Ubi Has A Good Reputation With Graw-2 And Graw Huge Sellers So I hope Its The Same With Hawx

"Build You Your Game Around The Community"

ZX3-Hostile
http://media.ubi.com/us/games/hawx/downloads/HAWX_sig3.jpg

[maxpontiac]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ-Mfd6K6CI

Here is a video of an interview with a RAF pilot who has been "allowed" to pilot the F-22.

Favorite quote in the vid?

"I am the obviously the luckiest pilot in the Royal Air Force" LOL!

[jasonwalker1983]

Im really impressed personally with the amount of factual information in this thread, but still, there's too many things we don't know about the hud pictures, or even about either aircraft. Even the information you guys have provided may not be completely truthful. The only fact I can say is that both the super hornet and the raptor have a ton of classified information that us civilians will never know, and for good reason; to preserve the effectiveness of these weapons for as long as possible. I mean, seriously, the raptor is the first western aircaft to truly achieve a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1, which means to a certain altitude, it can actually accerate while climbing straight up. The F-15 can't even do that and look how many world records it set to surpass the F-4 (only to be beaten by the russian flanker), and yet they say the raptor tops out @ mach 2.3 in full burner, level flight. The eagle is a mach 2.5+ aircraft. How is this possible when the raptor achieves a maximum supercruising speed of nearly mach 2, with no burners?!!! Afterburners nearly double engine thrust output!!! I truly believe if it can nearly do mach 2 with no burners, it has it be a mach 3+ airplane. Who knows? Only the damn government, to protect their investment. It's useless for us to argue with eachother about something we all know very little about. (BTW- the MiG-29a was the first turbine military jet to achieve a 1:1 thrust/weight ratio, well before the raptor)

[WhiteKnight77]

Originally posted by jasonwalker1983:
Im really impressed personally with the amount of factual information in this thread, but still, there's too many things we don't know about the hud pictures, or even about either aircraft. Even the information you guys have provided may not be completely truthful. The only fact I can say is that both the super hornet and the raptor have a ton of classified information that us civilians will never know, and for good reason; to preserve the effectiveness of these weapons for as long as possible. I mean, seriously, the raptor is the first western aircaft to truly achieve a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1, which means to a certain altitude, it can actually accerate while climbing straight up. The F-15 can't even do that and look how many world records it set to surpass the F-4 (only to be beaten by the russian flanker), and yet they say the raptor tops out @ mach 2.3 in full burner, level flight. The eagle is a mach 2.5+ aircraft. How is this possible when the raptor achieves a maximum supercruising speed of nearly mach 2, with no burners?!!! Afterburners nearly double engine thrust output!!! I truly believe if it can nearly do mach 2 with no burners, it has it be a mach 3+ airplane. Who knows? Only the damn government, to protect their investment. It's useless for us to argue with eachother about something we all know very little about. (BTW- the MiG-29a was the first turbine military jet to achieve a 1:1 thrust/weight ratio, well before the raptor)

You might want to rethink and rerresearch your statements. The Eagle has a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio and had it's first flights back in the early 70's.

An Israeli pilot flew his Eagle to a landing on one wing. Can't do that without at least a 1:0 thrust to weight ratio.

[maxpontiac]

Originally posted by jasonwalker1983:
Im really impressed personally with the amount of factual information in this thread, but still, there's too many things we don't know about the hud pictures, or even about either aircraft. Even the information you guys have provided may not be completely truthful. The only fact I can say is that both the super hornet and the raptor have a ton of classified information that us civilians will never know, and for good reason; to preserve the effectiveness of these weapons for as long as possible. I mean, seriously, the raptor is the first western aircaft to truly achieve a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1, which means to a certain altitude, it can actually accerate while climbing straight up. The F-15 can't even do that and look how many world records it set to surpass the F-4 (only to be beaten by the russian flanker), and yet they say the raptor tops out @ mach 2.3 in full burner, level flight. The eagle is a mach 2.5+ aircraft. How is this possible when the raptor achieves a maximum supercruising speed of nearly mach 2, with no burners?!!! Afterburners nearly double engine thrust output!!! I truly believe if it can nearly do mach 2 with no burners, it has it be a mach 3+ airplane. Who knows? Only the damn government, to protect their investment. It's useless for us to argue with eachother about something we all know very little about. (BTW- the MiG-29a was the first turbine military jet to achieve a 1:1 thrust/weight ratio, well before the raptor)

Thank you for noticing this. My main intentions of creating this thread were to spark some aviation conversations. Now while the thread has nearly come off topic, it's all I was after.

Agreed. There is far to much information classified on the F-22. But with that said, all I had to go off was stated and published information. I believe the F-22 is much more cabable then what is being advertised. Your example of the engine thrust is a huge indicator of that. The F-22 is lighter and has more thrust then the SR-71. What does logic dictate there? Yeah, exactly what you stated.

Useless to argue? Nah. It's what a message board is for.

With the MiG-29's 1 to 1 thrust ratio, the F-15 Eagle when created in the late 60's had to meet the requirement of 1-1. It's ratio is around 1.1 to 1. The F-15 could accelerate while in verticle flight long before the MiG-29!!

[jasonwalker1983]

In response to whiteknight77- the information I stated about the F-15 was in fact incorrect, my source was not accurate. The F-15 does achieve a 1:1 thrust/weight ratio, but 0-40000 was beaten out by the flanker a few years later. Also, your statement about the F-15I landing with one wing has nothing to do with thrust to weight ratios. It has to do with the weight of the aircraft, and it's speed of approach. For example, a T-38 has probably a third of the wing area of an F-15. Therefore the aircraft doesnt create enough lift to land at a low speed such as, a super hornet per say. The T-38 must land at approximately 150 knots; much faster than larger winged aircaft, regardless of thrust, airspeed is the deciding factor along with weight and lift. That F-15 pilot landed that plane because his skill, the survivability of the plane, and increased approach speed.

[SPEEDY-RED]

WOW,this is all about the f-22, why dont you guys see any other plane like this, like the F-14 tomcat, although it is retired, its still cool, and the su-27 FLANKER, or any plane in the FLANKER family that suriousle, i meen would you be able to do a PENECHEV COBRA IN HAWX with the su-27?, no offence, the f-22 is still one of my favorite aircraft

[WhiteKnight77]

Originally posted by jasonwalker1983:
In response to whiteknight77- the information I stated about the F-15 was in fact incorrect, my source was not accurate. The F-15 does achieve a 1:1 thrust/weight ratio, but 0-40000 was beaten out by the flanker a few years later. Also, your statement about the F-15I landing with one wing has nothing to do with thrust to weight ratios. It has to do with the weight of the aircraft, and it's speed of approach. For example, a T-38 has probably a third of the wing area of an F-15. Therefore the aircraft doesnt create enough lift to land at a low speed such as, a super hornet per say. The T-38 must land at approximately 150 knots; much faster than larger winged aircaft, regardless of thrust, airspeed is the deciding factor along with weight and lift. That F-15 pilot landed that plane because his skill, the survivability of the plane, and increased approach speed.

The Eagle now has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.3:1 with it's newer engines. While the Flanker holds the record to 40,000 ft. now, it took the Russians 11 years to beat the Eagle with the Flanker. The Eagle still holds the record to 20,000m or 65,616 ft.

[SPEEDY-RED]

You might want to rethink and rerresearch your statements. The Eagle has a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio and had it's first flights back in the early 70's.

An Israeli pilot flew his Eagle to a landing on one wing. Can't do that without at least a 1:0 thrust to weight ratio.[/QUOTE]

oh ya, i seen the video of his landing on youtube, its pretty awsome, and crazy, i mean how could the wing just blow off like that, i will find a link and put it on soon, its pretty cool

[SPEEDY-RED]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1aKxAN7bAs heres a, what i hope to be a link, if it works, should take you to the part were a video can be found were the f-15 landed with one wing, its pretty cool

[Mig-29]

Originally posted by maxpontiac:
Problem with the YF-23 was it's ALPHA performance was worse then the YF-22, and it's ordinance storage was far more complex.

Can you elaborate on that some more.

[okagebb]

I like the Mig 29 and the Sukoih Su-27 - Su-33
they are sexy

[Orkion]

in the aircraft (http://hawxgame.uk.ubi.com/aircraft.php) section of the games site the F-22's top speed is Mach 1.8, and in most sites the top speed is said to be over Mach 2 with suprecruse speed of Mach 1.83, so is it an error on the site or they just choosed to lower the plane's speed?

[WhiteKnight77]

Originally posted by Orkion:
in the aircraft (http://hawxgame.uk.ubi.com/aircraft.php) section of the games site the F-22's top speed is Mach 1.8, and in most sites the top speed is said to be over Mach 2 with suprecruse speed of Mach 1.83, so is it an error on the site or they just choosed to lower the plane's speed?

Ubi is wrong as usual.

[LexKaziDelfos]

Fact, F-22 is a great plane, fit for the 21st century, it's cool, but there's at least one plane greater in performance than the F-22 my friend, the EF-2000 can beat the F-22 in most if not all performance issues.

and I've to agree that the russian planes look way cooler than both european and american planes, and they also have those that can leave the EF-2000 and F-22 back in performance, specially in plane agility, they've done a brilliant job in the latest Sukhoi.

[Orkion]

The F-22 beats any other airpane, not in due to the top speed and, in some cases, not due to agility. It beats all planes 'cause it has an amazing supercruise speed and stealth features.
All things considered the F-22 is the best plane currently flying.
P.S.: and IMO it looks amazing.

[LexKaziDelfos]

Keep in mind, it's not unbeatable.

http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/1664/f117nn76va.jpg

Like the F-117 isn't invisible.

[Orkion]

Unlike the f-117, the F-22 is highly maneuverable, supersonic and a fighter, not an attacker.
And although the F-22 isn't unbeatable, it surly can beat any other plane when fighting in equal number, and in most cases (like against F-15s)the F-22 can win a fight even when greatly outnumbered.

[SPEEDY-RED]

Originally posted by Orkion:
Unlike the f-117, the F-22 is highly maneuverable, supersonic and a fighter, not an attacker.
And although the F-22 isn't unbeatable, it surly can beat any other plane when fighting in equal number, and in most cases (like against F-15s)the F-22 can win a fight even when greatly outnumbered.

um, the f-117 is, and although it may not seem like it, classified as a fighter in the U.S. AIR FORCE, although it is not a good dogfighter, anyway, its considered a fighter, not an attack aircraft

[Tomcatter61]

Originally posted by SPEEDY-RED:
um, the f-117 is, and although it may not seem like it, classified as a fighter in the U.S. AIR FORCE, although it is not a good dogfighter, anyway, its considered a fighter, not an attack aircraft

Just calling something a fighter doesn't necessarily make it one. Does it carry any fighter weaponry? No gun, no AAMs, - sorry not a fighter. What is its mission? Sneak in drop air-to-dirt ordnance and sneak out. Sounds like attack to me. I don't care what it's designated, the F-117 isn't a fighter.

[WhiteKnight77]

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SPEEDY-RED:
um, the f-117 is, and although it may not seem like it, classified as a fighter in the U.S. AIR FORCE, although it is not a good dogfighter, anyway, its considered a fighter, not an attack aircraft

Just calling something a fighter doesn't necessarily make it one. Does it carry any fighter weaponry? No gun, no AAMs, - sorry not a fighter. What is its mission? Sneak in drop air-to-dirt ordnance and sneak out. Sounds like attack to me. I don't care what it's designated, the F-117 isn't a fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like the F-105 Thunderchief was classed as a fighter, but actually was an attack fighter. It dropped a lot of tonnage on North Vietnam and didn't shoot down one airplane.

[Tomcatter61]

WhiteKnight, I think your info on the Thud may be incorrect. As I recall, the 105 did get at least a couple MiG kills during the war. And it did have a gun, so I'd give the mighty Thud the benefit of the doubt there.

I think the "F" in F-117 is probably some USAF cultural thing. Maybe they think it sounds cooler to have a little jet called a "fighter" rather than an "attacker." The only attack jet that the USAF has (at least that comes readily to mind) is the A-10.

[WhiteKnight77]

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
WhiteKnight, I think your info on the Thud may be incorrect. As I recall, the 105 did get at least a couple MiG kills during the war. And it did have a gun, so I'd give the mighty Thud the benefit of the doubt there.

I think the "F" in F-117 is probably some USAF cultural thing. Maybe they think it sounds cooler to have a little jet called a "fighter" rather than an "attacker." The only attack jet that the USAF has (at least that comes readily to mind) is the A-10.

You are correct. The Thud did get 27.5 kills, but as I said, it's primary role was bomber. It also preformed the original Wild Weasel role too.

[krise_madsen]

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
WhiteKnight, I think your info on the Thud may be incorrect. As I recall, the 105 did get at least a couple MiG kills during the war. And it did have a gun, so I'd give the mighty Thud the benefit of the doubt there.

I think the "F" in F-117 is probably some USAF cultural thing. Maybe they think it sounds cooler to have a little jet called a "fighter" rather than an "attacker." The only attack jet that the USAF has (at least that comes readily to mind) is the A-10.

You are correct. The Thud did get 27.5 kills, but as I said, it's primary role was bomber. It also preformed the original Wild Weasel role too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is some speculation that the F-designation of the F-117 was part of a ruse, just like the old "Century" designation (117).

The F-105 was designed back in the heyday of the Cold War, when everything was about nuclear war. If you wanted funding for an aircraft, it had better be able to carry a nuke. The F-105 even had an internal bomb bay. Heck, the US Navy even had OPLANs for using the Skyraider (a 1945-vintage piston engined attack aircraft) for nuclear strikes.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Lennart_970]

But what's with all the: ''you can't lock on an F-22''? Most lock systems and missles work on heat signatures. No plane can hide its heat. I do believe it's very hard to track with a gps rocket but in the end it all works with tracking heat.

greetz

[SPEEDY-RED]

Tomcat, your are right, and i didn't know that the f-117 didn't have a gun, i thought it did, still, it manuvers like a fighter, not an attack aircraft, while, maybe when it got rolled out, not today of course, with the f-22 and stuff

[Tomcatter61]

Originally posted by SPEEDY-RED:
Tomcat, your are right, and i didn't know that the f-117 didn't have a gun, i thought it did, still, it manuvers like a fighter, not an attack aircraft, while, maybe when it got rolled out, not today of course, with the f-22 and stuff

What do you mean by "maneuvers like a fighter?"

By attack aircraft, I'm not talking about B-52's, I'm talking more like A-10s, A-6s, A-4s, or A-7s. Something small, subsonic, and usually brings a lot of bombs to the fight. The F-117 got the small, subsonic parts, but it didn't bring a lot of bombs. On the other hand, it did bring smarter bombs, and it used stealth to get to its targets - so it was effective for its mission.

However, if the F-117 got into a dogfight, even with a relatively poor fighter, it'd still probably get killed. The F-117 just wasn't designed for air-to-air. It has no air-to-air weapons, and IIRC it doesn't even have chaff/flares - it might not even have ECM. If the bad guy sees you, it's probably game over. Your best bet would be to scream for help over the radio and hope a friendly fighter is nearby.

[SPEEDY-RED]

Originally posted by Tomcatter61:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SPEEDY-RED:
Tomcat, your are right, and i didn't know that the f-117 didn't have a gun, i thought it did, still, it manuvers like a fighter, not an attack aircraft, while, maybe when it got rolled out, not today of course, with the f-22 and stuff

I mean, unlike the A-10, the F-117 can accually fly UPSIDE DOWN and fly upside down, plus the F-117 doesn't have a good payload, unlike the A-10, plus, how can you have a good attack aircraft without a powerful gun

What do you mean by "maneuvers like a fighter?"

By attack aircraft, I'm not talking about B-52's, I'm talking more like A-10s, A-6s, A-4s, or A-7s. Something small, subsonic, and usually brings a lot of bombs to the fight. The F-117 got the small, subsonic parts, but it didn't bring a lot of bombs. On the other hand, it did bring smarter bombs, and it used stealth to get to its targets - so it was effective for its mission.

However, if the F-117 got into a dogfight, even with a relatively poor fighter, it'd still probably get killed. The F-117 just wasn't designed for air-to-air. It has no air-to-air weapons, and IIRC it doesn't even have chaff/flares - it might not even have ECM. If the bad guy sees you, it's probably game over. Your best bet would be to scream for help over the radio and hope a friendly fighter is nearby. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[WhiteKnight77]

What makes you think the A-10 can't fly upside down? Is it due to having bombs and missles on the wing pylons? If that were the case, no other aircraft could fly upside down that the military has.

[SPEEDY-RED]

well, it can fly upside down, but not for long it looses altitude, have you ever played ACE COMBT, try flying upside down in there, even with pulling down on the stick(upside down would make you go up) and you still lower altitude, thats why i said that

[Tomcatter61]

Originally posted by SPEEDY-RED:
well, it can fly upside down, but not for long it looses altitude, have you ever played ACE COMBT, try flying upside down in there, even with pulling down on the stick(upside down would make you go up) and you still lower altitude, thats why i said that

Don't base your expectations for realistic flight physics on anything you've experienced in an Ace Combat game.

As soon as you start to roll past 90 degrees in Ace Combat, the Velocity Vector dives for the top of the HUD. By the time you're fully inverted, the VV is off the HUD and you're falling from the sky.

In reality, you will start to arc downward as the lift produced by your wings is trying to pull you in the same direction as gravity (down). However, the fall off will not be nearly as drastic as what you experience in Ace Combat - as if rolling your jet on its back is equivalent to a stall.

I'm sure in reality, an A-10 can fly inverted - in level flight - for at least a brief time. Most jets are limited in inverted flight by some type of mechanical limitation (such as starving the engine of fuel or oil), not by instantly falling 1000's of feet out of the sky. Another limit is the pilot. In order to maintain altitude in inverted flight, you have to push 1G, negative. As a pilot, that get pretty uncomfortable pretty quickly.

[SPEEDY-RED]

i see, but i was just using ACE COMBAT as an example, and, well, they are really dramatic in upside down flight, like you said, but, it also can matter if the A-10 is fully loaded or not.

[WhiteKnight77]

Planes can fly upside down, you just have to give forward stick to keep altitude (equivelent to diving in normal flight). Depending where the feed lines are located on the oil reserviors and on the fuel cells dictates whether or not a bird will suffer a fuel stall or sieze up due to lack of oil. Still, both have pumps to ensure that the engines are fed properly.

One thing to remember is that combat aircraft are built differently than civilian aircraft, even passanger jets.

[SPEEDY-RED]

YEs, i know this, but with the A-10, even pushing the stick hard down, it will still loose altitude rather quickly, but, then again why would you need too fly upside down in an A-10 anyway, plus it is an attack aircraft, not a fighter jet, plus, the A-10 is still, an AWESOME JET. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Ace349]

This kind of debate hs happend before...The debate was decide weather to buy a smaller number of more powerful planes or a large number of (weaker) planes. This was debated over the F-15 before it enterned service back in the 70's. But they compromised and made the F-15 (expensive) and the F-16 (cheap). With this little tid bit of info then you can see why the Airforce wants the F-22 otomised for air superority which does a whole of lot better than the F-15 and the new F-35 A,B,C for ground attack which so far seems to be better than the F-16. When resherching these two planes you meet all your needs with 2 planes instead of 5 the A-10, F-16, F-18, F-15 and harrier.

[DarkAngelGuyver]

Personally comparing the F-22 to previous generation aircraft is moot to a certain extent.

There will be cases where an exceptional pilot (and the pilot makes the real difference, regardless of the aircraft) where the pilot will manage to take down a more advanced fighter.

The one I'd much rather see (and sadly likely never will without someone getting killed for real) is how all of the new next gen fighters and their different design philosophies all stack up against each other.