F-22 Raptor Thread

[Brumby]

I think it would be a reasonable assumption that a suitable equipped Su-27 can acquire, track and target an F-22 in the IR spectrum

Why would it be a reasonable assumption? Do you have credible source to make that assertion?

The arms show below has various EOTS sensors and IR air-to-air missiles available for export, with a stated detection range of 70km against an F-22.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Firstly that is a marketing brochure. There is no credible information that the Chinese has any working product besides what is on that brochure. There is a history of Chinese firms making such claims which is a copy of someone else's product. An example :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Brumby]

Another of those mind boggling kill ratios depending on your degree of believability to such exercises. I understand from unconfirmed source that in that particular exercise, the blue force achieved an overall 241-2 kill ratio by leveraging the F-22 capabilities.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

During the large-scale, force-on-force exercise, Raptor pilots flew an amazing 97 percent of their scheduled missions, achieved an unheard of 80-to-1 kill ratio against their Red Air "opponents", scored direct hits with 100 percent of their 1,000-pound

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Joint Direct Attack Munition air-to-ground weapons, and increased overall situational awareness for their entire team through the F-22's integrated avionics package.

 

[Jura The idiot]

one more opponent flying around

... the missile carrying capacity which the US is addressing through the sensor shooter concept using cooperative engagement.

source please?
and skip sales-talk (if possible and right below you can see why I'm saying this:

Why would it be a reasonable assumption? Do you have credible source to make that assertion?


Firstly that is a marketing brochure. There is no credible information that the Chinese has any working product besides what is on that brochure. There is a history of Chinese firms making such claims which is a copy of someone else's product. An example :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the above post looks mean, Brumby ... and the one below:

Another of those mind boggling kill ratios depending on your degree of believability to such exercises. I understand from unconfirmed source that in that particular exercise, the blue force achieved an overall 241-2 kill ratio by leveraging the F-22 capabilities.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

common, you're giving 2007 fanboi post, right after having challenged someone on the content of Jane's article?! that's irrational, sorry

 

[Brumby]

one more opponent flying around

source please?
and skip sales-talk (if possible and right below you can see why I'm saying this:

We know a number of initiatives are in the pipeline building 5th to 4th com link capability the purpose of which is clearly to operate a mix force of F-22/F-15 or whatever combination you can think of..

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the above post looks mean, Brumby ... and the one below:

EOTS is leading edge technology even though it has been disparage as being outdated. There is just no evidence that China's IR Optical staring technology has caught up. Additionally, such technology requires the appropriate data buses to handle the many times multiple in data transfer requirement. It is not a simple case of retrofitting into legacy airframes. It is like saying retrofitting smart phone systems into pre smart phone architecture.

common, you're giving 2007 fanboi post, right after having challenged someone on the content of Jane's article?! that's irrational, sorry

I did state the appropriate qualifier. High kill ratios are consistent with other exercises. There is corroborating evidence unlike the other jane article which is simply reporting news and not any analysis.

 

[Jura The idiot]

time will tell, Brumby, just can't resist in this point:

...
.... High kill ratios are consistent with other exercises. ...

Farnborough 2012: "Yesterday we had Raptor salad for lunch" Typhoon pilot said after dogfighting with the F-22 at Red Flag Alaska

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOL!

 

[Brumby]

time will tell, Brumby, just can't resist in this point:


Farnborough 2012: "Yesterday we had Raptor salad for lunch" Typhoon pilot said after dogfighting with the F-22 at Red Flag Alaska

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOL!

As the article said it was a dogfight which is even money. Stealth is build for BVR and when the ROE's is to dogfight it basically removes what the F-22 is primarily build for i.e. kill from a distance. I would be interested in any red flag where the F-22 got canned at BVR.

 

[AndrewS]

@Brumby

IRST and EOTS are widely credited with being able to detect the IR emissions from fighter sized aircraft. After all, they all use jet engines to burn fuel, and the end result is the same amount of heat that has to go somewhere.

Examples include the Eurofighter PIRATE and the Chinese arms shows where these sorts of sensors are available for export, and where the detection specifications are published. So EOTS doesn't seem to be particularly special these days.

Plus you're disparaging Chinese data buses and signal processing for a Su-27 pod solution?

That is a very stupid comment because we're in the computing age where a smartphone attached to a EOTS pod has vastly more signal processing power than the EOTS systems from 5 years ago. In the civilian realm, we can see that Huawei/Baidu have better commercially deployed speech/image/signal processing systems than their US counterparts.

In this field, it's all about deploying commercial technology as fast as possible for military use. Note that China runs at China speed and prefers to leverage off commercial technology for its military projects, whereas the US military is noted for being slow, bureaucratic and preferring custom solutions.

 

[Equation]

Why would it be a reasonable assumption? Do you have credible source to make that assertion?


Firstly that is a marketing brochure. There is no credible information that the Chinese has any working product besides what is on that brochure. There is a history of Chinese firms making such claims which is a copy of someone else's product. An example :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So basically Denfense News spins and speculate the story about a single Chinese scientistYang Yunchun as the source for why the Chinese AESA system is a reversed engineer of the Israeli one. And this is your source as "credible" evidence to your argument? Yes keep under estimating China's innovative ability at one's own peril. NO it doesn't have anything to do with China being "communist" therefore it can't innovate. Remember this is the country that has two successful ASBM program going on (DF-21D and DF-26) and their HGV successful launched record are no match as well.

 

[dtulsa]

Guys I don't mean to but in but as in Vietnam the rules of engagement apply to any actual warfighting BVE engagement don't they therefore the idea that a 22 or any 5,6 gen aircraft would be at a disadvantage in a 8-1 dogfight situation after all in a situation requiring visual I'd before fire all advanced technology can't make up for pure fighter person and that's been true since flight began

 

[AndrewS]

In the age of Artificial Intelligence, we can expect the computer to replace pilots in dogfighting scenarios.

They can react and process sensor input faster, and don't suffer from human G-limits.

Baidu has already developed speech and image recognition Deep Learning (AI) which can perform with better accuracy and much better speed than any human. I fully expect US technology companies to match that.

So we can look forward to both China and the US deploying equally skilled dogfighting autopilots in the cockpit, each with millions of combat hours of training.

In that sort of scenario, pilot skill is not very important.