ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

#401
#401
82_VOL_83 said:
Last statement is absolute BS. I can't state that clearly enough. The Israelis would kick RAF butt. You need to stay put of this fight. You don't know who you are talking to.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm sure their F-15s would kick the Typhoon's butt. Hmmmm not computing. not computing. not computing. :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#402
#402
Grand Vol said:
The Typhoon is a generation 4.5 fighter while the F-35 and F-22 are 5th Generation. It doesn't have the stealth capabilities to be on par with those two.

And it's sold so well around the world when competing against US designs...
Click to expand...

The Typhoon would be a smoking hole and would have never seen either the 22 or 35.
 
#405
#405
82_VOL_83 said:
The Typhoon would be a smoking hole and would have never seen either the 22 or 35.
Click to expand...

They are different aircraft with different capabilities.

I've done design analysis on the 22 and 35, and given the data it is clear the 22's radar range vs detection vulnerability is unmatched by any aircraft in the world, by a long shot.

The 35 is a different animal. Personally, I think its capabilities are overstated. It was originally designed to be a joint design for all 3 branches (AF, Navy, Marines) so as to keep down cost. After design, however, all 3 branches wanted significant modifications due to their own unique mission profiles. What ended up was 3 similar aircraft not optimally designed for anything. The politics of the procurement doomed the 35 from the beginning. Not so sure a typhoon wouldn't hold its own in 1v1 combat.

The typhoon, believe it or not, has a similar flight envelope and maneuvering as the 22, even without the thrust vectoring of the 22. If it could get close enough, it would be a good fight. The problem, however, is the 22 ability to get first look, first shot, first kill. It is unmatched, and that is what makes it the best. the 22 can out maneuver almost any aircraft it goes up against, but theoretically it would never have to because nothing could get close enough to it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#406
#406
Obsessed said:
My nikes are faster than your reeboks.

:)
Click to expand...

Not saying the Typhoon is better than the F-22 it's probably not (though we'll never find out in real combat thankfully) but the assertion that the Typhoon would be a 'smoking hole' has be proven false. There's no doubting the F-22's stealth capabilities but when it comes down to it a jet can't be 100% stealthy especially if it is carrying external store, rejoins with the tankers or there is radio chatter. If the Typhoon sees the F-22 first then there's no magical vector escape, both jets are deadly in air-to-air. Certainly better than the Israelis F-15s that he seems to adore.
 
#407
#407
Going into WWII probably the 109 and the Spitfire (one of my all time favs favs). Coming out, the 51, 47, and the F4U. Korea had some awesome aircraft but nothing that carried over like the 51. Nam's fighter, both USAF and Navy was the F4. That freaking plane was awesome. Next was the 14 quickly eclipsed by the 15. Unfortunately the 14 had shiite motors or it would have been a hell of a jet. The 15 has been THE air superiority fighter for decades. The 15E is my all time favs......period. The 22 now has no equal in the world.
 
#408
#408
alexmanu said:
True, it has been said to be pretty much on par with the F22 in simulated dogfights but I get your point. The UK will be slowly phasing it out for the F-35 anyway in the next decade. In any case the Typhoon is more capable than an F-15 in air-to-air which was my initial point.
Click to expand...

The difference is the pilot sitting in the cockpit. You can put an F-15 up against a Typhoon and have it come out on top. Tactics and knowing the aircraft are just as important as bells and whistles. And the F-15 is still more than capable of holding it's own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#409
#409
alexmanu said:
Not saying the Typhoon is better than the F-22 it's probably not (though we'll never find out in real combat thankfully) but the assertion that the Typhoon would be a 'smoking hole' has be proven false. There's no doubting the F-22's stealth capabilities but when it comes down to it a jet can't be 100% stealthy especially if it is carrying external store, rejoins with the tankers or there is radio chatter. If the Typhoon sees the F-22 first then there's no magical vector escape, both jets are deadly in air-to-air. Certainly better than the Israelis F-15s that he seems to adore.
Click to expand...

I like drag racing. I've owned some bad ass cars and trucks. Sometimes I would have more hp and torque but still get beat. It's all in the driver when it comes to racing.

I would assume as much with planes. I'm not well versed in our aircraft. I just know we are bad ass. I've seen it with my own eyes. ( I live near a base)
 
#410
#410
rjd970 said:
They are different aircraft with different capabilities.

I've done design analysis on the 22 and 35, and given the data it is clear the 22's radar range vs detection vulnerability is unmatched by any aircraft in the world, by a long shot.

The 35 is a different animal. Personally, I think its capabilities are overstated. It was originally designed to be a joint design for all 3 branches (AF, Navy, Marines) so as to keep down cost. After design, however, all 3 branches wanted significant modifications due to their own unique mission profiles. What ended up was 3 similar aircraft not optimally designed for anything. The politics of the procurement doomed the 35 from the beginning. Not so sure a typhoon wouldn't hold its own in 1v1 combat.

The typhoon, believe it or not, has a similar flight envelope and maneuvering as the 22, even without the thrust vectoring of the 22. If it could get close enough, it would be a good fight. The problem, however, is the 22 ability to get first look, first shot, first kill. It is unmatched, and that is what makes it the best. the 22 can out maneuver almost any aircraft it goes up against, but theoretically it would never have to because nothing could get close enough to it.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The 35 has a lot of bugs to fix also.
 
#411
#411
alexmanu said:
Not saying the Typhoon is better than the F-22 it's probably not (though we'll never find out in real combat thankfully) but the assertion that the Typhoon would be a 'smoking hole' has be proven false. There's no doubting the F-22's stealth capabilities but when it comes down to it a jet can't be 100% stealthy especially if it is carrying external store, rejoins with the tankers or there is radio chatter. If the Typhoon sees the F-22 first then there's no magical vector escape, both jets are deadly in air-to-air. Certainly better than the Israelis F-15s that he seems to adore.
Click to expand...

The 22 driver says "what is external store"?
 
#412
#412
rjd970 said:
They are different aircraft with different capabilities.

I've done design analysis on the 22 and 35, and given the data it is clear the 22's radar range vs detection vulnerability is unmatched by any aircraft in the world, by a long shot.

The 35 is a different animal. Personally, I think its capabilities are overstated. It was originally designed to be a joint design for all 3 branches (AF, Navy, Marines) so as to keep down cost. After design, however, all 3 branches wanted significant modifications due to their own unique mission profiles. What ended up was 3 similar aircraft not optimally designed for anything. The politics of the procurement doomed the 35 from the beginning. Not so sure a typhoon wouldn't hold its own in 1v1 combat.
Click to expand...

I agree that the F-35 is becoming a technological monster and far and above the original price tag per. It's hard to get a "do all" aircraft like the USAF, USN, USMC and allied nations around the world want. But supposedly it's going to be "cheaper" in the long run. I just think it's doing far too much and is completely reminiscent of the way McNamara wanted the F-4 platform to be the do all across all the services. But ultimately was replaced by the four Teen series fighters.

I personally think a mix of high tech/low tech is the way to go for the aerial arena. You get your high tech in the F-22, maybe some F-35s, and low tech in the form of F/A-18E/Fs, A-10s (new build), F-15E or maybe even the newer Silent Eagles that they have prototypes of and round out the gaps with F-16 Block 60s with the CJ capability.

Let's face it, having a platform that can fly circles around anything that comes into the sky is all well as good but you find you can't afford as many. Plus that capability will eventually be matched and/or you face a significantly higher numbers than they can deal with (think China). Gen 5 against Gen 3 or even Gen 4 is awesome, but if you put Mike Tyson in the ring with 20 Roy Jones Juniors, eventually he'll get worn down.
 
#413
#413
Grand Vol said:
The difference is the pilot sitting in the cockpit. You can put an F-15 up against a Typhoon and have it come out on top. Tactics and knowing the aircraft are just as important as bells and whistles. And the F-15 is still more than capable of holding it's own.
Click to expand...

The guy behind the stick obviously matters, but I wouldn't call it equal. The aircraft itself and systems the pilot has at his disposal make the bigger impact. Your F-15/Typhoon example is a good one when it is pilot on pilot, but I just can't see a Typhoon, or even a F-15 beating a F-22 in combat even with a novice in the seat. The systems on board the F-22 almost make it video game like. A beginner pilot in a F-22 will come out on top of an engagement more often than not. An excellent pilot flying a F-22 is just about impossible to beat in air-to-air engagements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#415
#415
Grand Vol said:
I agree that the F-35 is becoming a technological monster and far and above the original price tag per. It's hard to get a "do all" aircraft like the USAF, USN, USMC and allied nations around the world want. But supposedly it's going to be "cheaper" in the long run. I just think it's doing far too much and is completely reminiscent of the way McNamara wanted the F-4 platform to be the do all across all the services. But ultimately was replaced by the four Teen series fighters.

I personally think a mix of high tech/low tech is the way to go for the aerial arena. You get your high tech in the F-22, maybe some F-35s, and low tech in the form of F/A-18E/Fs, A-10s (new build), F-15E or maybe even the newer Silent Eagles that they have prototypes of and round out the gaps with F-16 Block 60s with the CJ capability.

Let's face it, having a platform that can fly circles around anything that comes into the sky is all well as good but you find you can't afford as many. Plus that capability will eventually be matched and/or you face a significantly higher numbers than they can deal with (think China). Gen 5 against Gen 3 or even Gen 4 is awesome, but if you put Mike Tyson in the ring with 20 Roy Jones Juniors, eventually he'll get worn down.
Click to expand...

Bolded is the key. The F-22 is so expensive, the same missions and effectiveness can be accomplished with a series of aircraft setup in strike packages for the same and sometimes lower cost. Basically sending multiple aircraft with different specialties can achieve the same results. The cost-effectiveness of the singular F-22 has always been its downfall.
 
#417
#417
rjd970 said:
They are different aircraft with different capabilities.

I've done design analysis on the 22 and 35, and given the data it is clear the 22's radar range vs detection vulnerability is unmatched by any aircraft in the world, by a long shot.

The 35 is a different animal. Personally, I think its capabilities are overstated. It was originally designed to be a joint design for all 3 branches (AF, Navy, Marines) so as to keep down cost. After design, however, all 3 branches wanted significant modifications due to their own unique mission profiles. What ended up was 3 similar aircraft not optimally designed for anything. The politics of the procurement doomed the 35 from the beginning. Not so sure a typhoon wouldn't hold its own in 1v1 combat.

The typhoon, believe it or not, has a similar flight envelope and maneuvering as the 22, even without the thrust vectoring of the 22. If it could get close enough, it would be a good fight. The problem, however, is the 22 ability to get first look, first shot, first kill. It is unmatched, and that is what makes it the best. the 22 can out maneuver almost any aircraft it goes up against, but theoretically it would never have to because nothing could get close enough to it.
Click to expand...

Do you think we'll ever get the F-35 in order?
 
#418
#418
82_VOL_83 said:
Going into WWII probably the 109 and the Spitfire (one of my all time favs favs). Coming out, the 51, 47, and the F4U. Korea had some awesome aircraft but nothing that carried over like the 51. Nam's fighter, both USAF and Navy was the F4. That freaking plane was awesome. Next was the 14 quickly eclipsed by the 15. Unfortunately the 14 had shiite motors or it would have been a hell of a jet. The 15 has been THE air superiority fighter for decades. The 15E is my all time favs......period. The 22 now has no equal in the world.
Click to expand...

I assume this is in response to my inquiry. I don't know much about aircraft, but I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the P-51. I love that plane. You hear some people say it was ugly, but I think it's a beautiful design and a hell of a good war bird to boot.
 
#419
#419
rjd970 said:
The guy behind the stick obviously matters, but I wouldn't call it equal. The aircraft itself and systems the pilot has at his disposal make the bigger impact. Your F-15/Typhoon example is a good one when it is pilot on pilot, but I just can't see a Typhoon, or even a F-15 beating a F-22 in combat even with a novice in the seat. The systems on board the F-22 almost make it video game like. A beginner pilot in a F-22 will come out on top of an engagement more often than not. An excellent pilot flying a F-22 is just about impossible to beat in air-to-air engagements.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. And being that the F-15 series generally are far older than most Typhoons, it comes down to the advantage of the Typhoon. But a relatively new production F-15C with the 229 engines will give a Typhoon a run for the money.

You are correct that nothing is even planned that can run even with the F-22 right now. The electronics and stealth abilities are what's setting it apart. Eventually, sure, but for the moment, no.
 
#420
#420
volprof said:
Since you're an Air Force guy, I'm curious: what do you consider the best fighter/interceptor/whatever the hell you want to call it per generation/time period? In other words, for its time, which craft do you consider historically the best or at least the most capable (if never really provided the opportunity to prove itself)?

Spitfire? P-51? Messerschmitt (particularly the late jet model)? Any of the Migs or Sukhois? F-16?
Click to expand...

It's kind of an impossible question to answer. It depends on role so to speak. And even then it's hard to put a finger on one particular aircraft per generation since aircraft like the F-15 and F-16 platforms have adapted over the years. And even then, you take some Generation 2 fighters that gave Generation 3 fighters a run for their money (Vietnam: MiG-17s and 21s giving the F-4 a run for their money).

It's hard to put a finger on the "best" as some worked better in selected roles. The F-14D for example is probably the pinnacle of what an interceptor should be with the combination of the AN/AWG-9 radar and the missile platform. When it comes to maneuverability, the Su-37 is an outstanding platform, but severely lacks in the electronic warfare department.
 
#421
#421
82_VOL_83 said:
Going into WWII probably the 109 and the Spitfire (one of my all time favs favs). Coming out, the 51, 47, and the F4U. Korea had some awesome aircraft but nothing that carried over like the 51. Nam's fighter, both USAF and Navy was the F4. That freaking plane was awesome. Next was the 14 quickly eclipsed by the 15. Unfortunately the 14 had shiite motors or it would have been a hell of a jet. The 15 has been THE air superiority fighter for decades. The 15E is my all time favs......period. The 22 now has no equal in the world.
Click to expand...

Also, I figure it's about time we buried the hatchet. I take it from your posts that your job might have something to do with aircraft/military design, etc. You don't have to answer if that's sensitive information, but I've gathered that impression.

My father-in-law actually has his own business that designs resins for the F-22. He's a chemical engineer. Well, I guess that's what he's called. It's been really successful and has been expanding rapidly.
 
#423
#423
rjd970 said:
Bolded is the key. The F-22 is so expensive, the same missions and effectiveness can be accomplished with a series of aircraft setup in strike packages for the same and sometimes lower cost. Basically sending multiple aircraft with different specialties can achieve the same results. The cost-effectiveness of the singular F-22 has always been its downfall.
Click to expand...

Or lack thereof. And I recall when the USAF was planning on it being the F/A-22 and that got canned. And then in searching for a mission, they wanted it to do route clearance when we were in Iraq...which the same could be done by a C-130.

It's really hard to find the mission past the initial two weeks or most conflicts the US is currently or might be involved with at this point in time. Which right now the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and A-10 are holding their own.

They don't want me in charge of the Defense Department for six months. It would not be pretty...
 
#424
#424
volprof said:
Do you think we'll ever get the F-35 in order?
Click to expand...

I don't know. The Navy wanted short take off and landing and with upgraded F-18 super hornets aren't fully vested in the program, the marines wanted vertical take off and landing and are just fine with their harrier's anyway, and the air force didn't care, they just wanted more F-22's.

The whole program wasn't well thought out in my opinion. in the long run the JSF program was supposed to be an upgrade at reduced cost, but that seems to be a fairy tale at this point.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top