Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63

Thread: The Official F-22 Fact thread. | Forums

  1. #21
    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.
    Faith Based Risk.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  2. #22
    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.
    Faith Based Risk.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  3. #23
    Tomcatter61's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Somewhere in the Mediterranean...
    Posts
    262
    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.
    Anytime, Baby!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #24
    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

    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 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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #25
    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
    "crisis" is my middle name...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #26
    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??
    Faith Based Risk.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #27
    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.
    Faith Based Risk.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #28
    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
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #29
    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!
    Faith Based Risk.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #30
    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)
    Hmmm.......uhhh.......w-where's my t-tool box?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •