F-22 vs....

[Evil_Merlin]

Oh another addendum, the Air Force is saying at airshows the engines can each produce 37,000+ lbs of thrust...

[Soren]

LoL Adler! And in what way is what EM is doing any different ?? EM hasn’t posted sh*t in the way of sources, and yet I’m the one who you pound!

You claim you’re not after me Adler, but then how come EM avoided your searchlight here ?

And as if that isn’t enough you again put words into my mouth saying that I claimed that the EF was superior to the F-22, I NEVER claimed anything like that! nothing even close! All I ever said was that the EF is the closest to the F-22 out there, and that the F-22 isn’t as overwhelmingly superior an a/c as EM wants us to believe.

Fact is that when talking about these new generation fighters there’s very little in the way of facts & sources available to ANYONE, and therefore all ANYONE can do is speculate. So like I’ve already explained all I have said on this subject is based solely on the scarce amount of data available and then opinion.

EM,

Provide sources for all your claims or they are just speculations on your part, pure and simple.
I’d esp. like to see the sources for your claim that the F-22 is more maneuverable than the EF Typhoon and that it’s fast by Mach .42.
All the data I have on both fighters is that they both have a top speed of Mach 2+ at full power, and a similar service ceiling. The EF has the advantage of a lower wing-loading, and considering that both a/c feature LE flaps, this advantage will be noticeable in the capability to sustain G’s.

[Evil_Merlin]

Actually Soren ALL the information I posted is right off of Lockheed's or the USAF's information releases on the F-22. All information was taken from public Air Force web sites and interviews with F-22 pilots.


Care to try again?


In otherwords Soren, as people have been saying, put up, or shut up.


Merz himself has plenty to say on the topic. If you don't know who Merz is I suggest you figure it out. It was Merz who claimed the F-22 could easily do Mach 2.42

Carlo Kopp interviews F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz

Cruise speed in supercruise is Mach 1.72, 1,140 mph (1,830 km/h) at high altitude was confirmed by EX-USAF Chief of Staff Gen. John P. Jumper who said it himself.

Maximum sustaineous g-load was pegged at 9.5 g and it was has been confirmed by two Raptor's pilot in late 2007 who flew the F-22 for public demo's.

As for being more manuverable, I've said it TWICE, apparently you cannot get your biased head around it. The F-22 is capable of the Herbst maneuver, Pugachev's Cobra and the Kulbit as well as having control of roll at 60 degree AOA's. You want to explain why, if the Typhoon II was more manuverable, it cannot do the same? After all, according to the information you pull out of the air, its more manuverable than the F-22 but isn't even capable of these four manuvers.

1.) The F-22 is considerably faster than the Typhoon II
2.) The F-22 is considerably more manuverable than the TYphoon II
3.) The F-22 is far more stealthy than the Typhoon II
4.) THe avionics package carried by the F-22 is far superior than that carried by the Typhoon II.

That puts the F-22 into the quite a bit more superior than the Typhoon II in my book.

SO once again, put up or shut up.

[Soren]

LoL!

Lets see the sources EM, please, I'm getting so excited now! Esp. about the sustained 9.5 Gs and Mach 2.4 top speed!

Oh this should be good!

[FLYBOYJ]

"Capt. Brian Budde, 94th FS pilot, explained the F-22 is able to sustain more than nine Gs for much longer than the F-15, without running out of airspeed. From the pilot's perspective, the F-22 "is more power than you know what to do with," said Captain Budde. So much power, in fact, the F-22 enjoys capabilities alien to legacy fighters."

Feature - Raptors wield 'unfair' advantage at Red Flag

[Evil_Merlin]

OK Soren, keep being the ass, I'll keep posting facts like this:

Code One Magazine: F-22 Pilot Perspective — October 2000

"But I can say that this airplane will perform outside the realm of current and projected fighters. Since speedrelates to distance, such things as mutual support and strike escort take on new meanings in terms of positioning and reacting to a threat."

"Nothing can sustain supersonic conditions with the persistence of a Raptor."


"it's top speed is classified but it'll do 1600 mph. It's fast. I mean it's REALLY fast."

OK so Soren, where are your facts about the Typhoon II being more manuverable, comparible in speed and a lot less expensive?

The F-22 is capable of the Herbst maneuver, Pugachev's Cobra and the Kulbit as well as having control of roll at 60 degree AOA's. You want to explain why, if the Typhoon II was more manuverable, it cannot do the same? After all, according to the information you pull out of the air, its more manuverable than the F-22 but isn't even capable of these four manuvers. I'm still waiting for you to explain that the Typhoon II is more manuverable...


Do us all a favour, and get yourself a bit more educated. Provide FACTS Soren. Plenty of us have provided them here shooting 20mm wide holes in your attempts at Typhoon II/F-22 parity.


PS: did you even BOTHER to read the link I provided above? Doesn't sound like it.

[plan_D]

I'm still confused by this discussion; the ability of the F-22 and Typhoon to do aerobatics has no place in modern warfare. Agility is an advantage but if the Typhoon could turn 360 degrees two seconds quicker, it would make no difference. Throw the machine around like a prepaid whore, the Raptor is 100 miles away and tracking your ass from space to the ground 'n there's nothing you can do about it.

[FLYBOYJ]

Well said D - the bottom line is who ever sees the enemy first and gets the shot off wins, and right now the F-22 has that advantage - PERIOD.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

"Capt. Brian Budde, 94th FS pilot, explained the F-22 is able to sustain more than nine Gs for much longer than the F-15, without running out of airspeed. From the pilot's perspective, the F-22 "is more power than you know what to do with," said Captain Budde. So much power, in fact, the F-22 enjoys capabilities alien to legacy fighters."

Feature - Raptors wield 'unfair' advantage at Red Flag

Err you do realize that nothing is mentioned of the F-22 being capable of retaining 9 G's indefinately. That the F-22 can hold 9 G's for much longer than its predecessors is no surprise, I knew that already. The question is, can it hold 9 G's indefinately as the Typhoon can ??

[Soren]

Oooh I see your confident enough to throw out insults now as-well EM, good, now we just need those reliable sources..

I'm still waiting for the sources for your claim that the F-22 will do 9.5 G sustained.

[Evil_Merlin]

Are you blind? Are you honestly telling me that quotes, interviews and information FROM THE PILOTS THAT FLY THE F-22 isn't a reliable source?

Where the hell are yours? I've provided at least 5.



Keep sticking your fingers in your ears. You just keep looking the part of the fool.

[Soren]

No I'm not blind EM, but I still don't see where it is mentioned that the F-22 will hold over 9 G's indefinately. But feel free to point me there, and then I'll promise to keep my mouth shut on this subject. Deal ?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

You claim you’re not after me Adler, but then how come EM avoided your searchlight here ?

No Soren I am just sick and tired of your biased dribble in every single forum. Sometimes I enjoy your posts because you are a very knowledgable person, and then in others...

In fact everyone is tired of it!

Originally Posted by Soren

And as if that isn’t enough you again put words into my mouth saying that I claimed that the EF was superior to the F-22, I NEVER claimed anything like that! nothing even close! All I ever said was that the EF is the closest to the F-22 out there, and that the F-22 isn’t as overwhelmingly superior an a/c as EM wants us to believe.

No Soren go back and read your damn posts! It is quite evident what you mean or else everyone would not be jumping on you.

[qutoe="Soren"]Fact is that when talking about these new generation fighters there’s very little in the way of facts & sources available to ANYONE, and therefore all ANYONE can do is speculate. So like I’ve already explained all I have said on this subject is based solely on the scarce amount of data available and then opinion.[/quote]

Your right its only racts when it supports your biased opinion.

Originally Posted by Soren

Provide sources for all your claims or they are just speculations on your part, pure and simple.

As are all of your claims. Nothing more than speculations Soren, nothing more...

[SoD Stitch]

For anybody who's interested, here's another good on-line article from Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine; it's a few years old now, but there is still a lot of pertinent information in it:

Air & Space Magazine | Military Aviation | The Raptor Arrives

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Is the US the only nation that openly is concerned about the Chinese? And they are our leading trade partner, so a direct confrontation is unlikely, but another Vietnam where ideals are contested with technology is highly likely based upon historical precedent. Europe has no interest there, huh?

I think you're right that European countries are taking China less serious than the US does. If that is a good or a bad thing, I don't know, only time will tell, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by plan_D

I'm still confused by this discussion; the ability of the F-22 and Typhoon to do aerobatics has no place in modern warfare. Agility is an advantage but if the Typhoon could turn 360 degrees two seconds quicker, it would make no difference. Throw the machine around like a prepaid whore, the Raptor is 100 miles away and tracking your ass from space to the ground 'n there's nothing you can do about it.

Good post Plan and exactly what I wanted to post. Being able to do a nice Cobra manoeuvre will impress the crowd at a flight show, but hardly has any military value. Sadly the days of the Baron are over