F22 airshow: awesome

[Vronsky]

Amazing >>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7510364.stm

[Mistress]

Pretty swell....thanks for posting this.

[Cliff_W140]

I'm glad we took the F-22 across the pond and demonstrated how inept their Eurofighter has already become....

It's a shame that our forces will never see more than a couple squadrons of these machines. My brother is an engineer at Lockheed on the F-35 (JSF) team and from what he tells me the government reduces the funding on each of these projects, but more severely the F-22, every month. Basically, they've already quit making new F-22's. Thank goodness there's not another thing in the sky right now capable of bringing one down.

[Fulcrum525]

Originally Posted by Cliff_W140

I'm glad we took the F-22 across the pond and demonstrated how inept their Eurofighter has already become....

Thank goodness there's not another thing in the sky right now capable of bringing one down.

In what ways is the Typhoon inept? Do not compare the two as they fulfill different missions. The current F-22 is a pure fighter with little thought given to maritime/air-to-ground roles. Whereas the EF-2000 was designed as a multirole aircraft from the outset.

The F-22 can be brought down by any number of means. Don't believe all of what you read. Just because its state-of-the-art and expensive doesn't mean its invulnerable. Troops in WWII were told that the Sherman tank was the best in the world. The F-4 Phantom in Vietnam was supposidly "The best" and they got shot down all the time by "inferior" Mig-17's. Not to mention the fact that the U.S has not faced an enemy with proper front line equipment and training in over 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_model

[theref]

And the F-4 was not a pure fighter. It was a fighter bomber and as a result had a huge disadvantage in turns when in the furball with Migs. Another factor was that the early Naval Phantoms (at least and possibly the AF ones as well) did not have guns and were forced to rely on the notoriously unreliable early versions of the Sparrow which were supposed to have a kill range of ~10 miles. This caused the Phantoms to rely more upon Sidewinders which, at the time, required a tail shot from much closer in-precisely where guns would have been appropriate. Of course, a tail chase was not what a Phantom-an otherwise exceptional aircraft-was designed to do.

[Fulcrum525]

Originally Posted by theref

And the F-4 was not a pure fighter. It was a fighter bomber and as a result had a huge disadvantage in turns when in the furball with Migs. Another factor was that the early Naval Phantoms (at least and possibly the AF ones as well) did not have guns and were forced to rely on the notoriously unreliable early versions of the Sparrow which were supposed to have a kill range of ~10 miles. This caused the Phantoms to rely more upon Sidewinders which, at the time, required a tail shot from much closer in-precisely where guns would have been appropriate. Of course, a tail chase was not what a Phantom-an otherwise exceptional aircraft-was designed to do.

Exactly. The F-4 was a rare machine, essentialy and accidentally the first multi-role jet. It was designed for one role and evolved into many others.

Another problem that I read about with the Sparrow was that they were kept on the aircraft for mutiple sorties. The pounding they took from carrier landings rattled their electronics apart. Just another example of sales brochure vs the real thing.

[Cliff_W140]

Originally Posted by Fulcrum525

In what ways is the Typhoon inept? Do not compare the two as they fulfill different missions. The current F-22 is a pure fighter with little thought given to maritime/air-to-ground roles. Whereas the EF-2000 was designed as a multirole aircraft from the outset.

The F-22 can be brought down by any number of means. Don't believe all of what you read. Just because its state-of-the-art and expensive doesn't mean its invulnerable. Troops in WWII were told that the Sherman tank was the best in the world. The F-4 Phantom in Vietnam was supposidly "The best" and they got shot down all the time by "inferior" Mig-17's. Not to mention the fact that the U.S has not faced an enemy with proper front line equipment and training in over 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_model

You are exactly right that they are totally different beasts. My assertion was in response to European insistence that they have the most impressive bird in the sky.

What means are bringing it down? With it's inboard weapons storage and attention to stealth detail it's light years ahead of the Euro.

[Gurkha]

http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/139.aspx

Some perspective on a training exercise which pitted US planes against Soviet planes flown by Indian Air Force pilots.

[Fulcrum525]

Originally Posted by Gurkha

http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/139.aspx

Some perspective on a training exercise which pitted US planes against Soviet planes flown by Indian Air Force pilots.

I was going to bring that up myself but you beat me too it.

"Upgraded MiG-21 'Bison' aircraft reportedly performed well against F-15 and F-16s of the USAF during Indo-US joint air exercises, surprising American pilots with its capabilities. Reportedly in simulated air combat maneuvering the new 'Bison' variants were way ahead of the western machines and effectively managed to win the mock engagements by a large scale."

[Vronsky]

Happended to see a Discovery TV show yesterday on the F22. All missiles etc. are stored inside the plane, nothing hanging under the wings. Plane much resembles the Harrier jet. Documentary told btw. that the F15 needs major maintenance every 2,6 sortie , while the F22 every 6 or so. Never realised these things need that much service.

[Gurkha]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWLYTAYG-9U

Mig-35 in action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-35

Responding to earlier criticism, the new design is substantially more reliable than the previous variants. The airframe lifetime and its service life have been extended and it is fitted with new engines with longer mean time between overhauls (MTBO), resulting in a decrease in flight-hour cost of almost 2.5 times compared to those of the old variants. The new engines are now smokeless and include a FADEC type electronic control system for better performance. All aspect vector nozzles which had been demonstrated on MiG-29OVT are also optional.

Other technological improvements were also introduced to enhance the aircraft's ability to conduct independent operations. For example, an airborne oxygen generation plant was added. RAC MiG and the Italian company Elettronica signed a Memorandum of Understanding to provide the MIG-35 with a new multifunction self-protection jammer.

[cscmc1]

Originally Posted by Gurkha

http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/139.aspx

Some perspective on a training exercise which pitted US planes against Soviet planes flown by Indian Air Force pilots.

Without reading all of that article, I am inclined to believe that the US fighters were probably tasked as the defenders, the Indian aircraft the aggressors. In those scenarios, the latter generally heavily outnumber the former, and almost always "win." (See the iMax film "Fighter Pilot" for an example of a typical mock air battle)

That said, I have noted that the US flies far less than it used to. When I was a kid living on Air Force bases, there was a round-the-clock cacophony of fighters, bombers, tankers, and transports coming and going. Not so much anymore. When I was last on Guam, however, the Navy was there with 50+ F-18 sorties per day doing their aggressor/defender games. Pretty cool! The time before that F-15's were there to escort the B-2's on their sorties and flew often as well, but those seemed to be exceptions to the rule. My gut feeling is that US pilots have fewer training hours available to them, but I may be way off. Maybe there are just fewer aircraft in the inventory.

[Fulcrum525]

Originally Posted by Gurkha

Mig-35 in action.

(Couldn't restrain )

[dynalow]

Originally Posted by Vronsky

Happended to see a Discovery TV show yesterday on the F22. All missiles etc. are stored inside the plane, nothing hanging under the wings. Plane much resembles the Harrier jet. Documentary told btw. that the F15 needs major maintenance every 2,6 sortie , while the F22 every 6 or so. Never realised these things need that much service.

One of the reasons the US Navy retired the F-14 was it's high maintenance costs. It was still a very, very capable aircraft. I can't quote figures, but all the hi-tech electronics must add a lot to maintenance in addition to the purely mechanical components.

[Hatterasguy]

I thought they were going to make 225 F22's or something like that, and replace everything with the F22/F35 in the coming decades?


It comes down the the pilot. A lot of the Mig's are extremely capable aircraft, the problem is there training sucks. A lot of countries only get the export models to with lower specs.


A very well flown Mig 35 will give any plane and pilot in the world a run for their money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE-RQCTt1UM&feature=related

They are easy pickings until you run into someone who knows how to fly!