Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[amalakas]

he does learning fast, try to drive off the road and confuse everybody.
the latest argument was focus on these key words, please stay on.
"WVR and (Within Visual Range), dogfight, salad and super maneuverability".


he claimed "If I were to enter a dogfighting training exercise, I would choose an F-16 or even better a MiG-29. These two planes are far better dogfighters than the F-15.", already, I trust him. but F-16 was hands down against F22 in number of dogfighting, 10-0 lost to F22 on domestic testing. can you explain why the result is far off on Typhoons?

F-15, F16, Typhoons,,, those are older generation, they may be "good", just good in maneuverability. none of these are super. guess what, only F22 is truly claimed as "super maneuverability", which was easily killed by Typhoons --- in dogfights.


fifth-generation fighters F-22 defined as big "3S".
1) Stealthy, having all-aspect stealth even when armed.
2) Super maneuverability achieve through thrust vectoring.
3) Supercruise capability.

Ok, I believe I can answer all your questions, just bear with me.

on the first question, "why the F-16 scores so bad against the F-22, while the Typhoon does not?"

The answer is simple and it has to do with the F-16. You see in all versions in US inventory the F-16 is NOT equipped with IRST or helmet mounted cueing systems. That means that essentially the plane has to turn its nose to the F-22 to target it. However in planes without an IRST the aircraft takes info from the sensor in the missile not the sensor on the plane and a large number of western IR missiles do not have a seeker capable of locking on the F-22 from the usual ranges.

So to answer you short, even if the F-16 was in favourable position, for the exercise parameters it wouldn't matter because it did NOT achieve a lock. It would have to switch to guns to get a kill. It may or may not have happened, or Guns may have not been part of the exercise. Besides, we do not know if at the particular training scenarios dogfighting with the F-16 was the goal. Perhaps they wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of the F-22 tactics against agile fighters.

You have to remember that if a tactic defeats the F-16 then it is highly likely that it will defeat the MiG-29 as well.


on the other hand the Typhoon suffers not from the same lack of equipment. The Typhoon has an IRST and a HMCS which means that in an WVR scenario all the typhoon pilot had to do was turn and look at the F-22 and he got a kill!

Your other confusion comes from misunderstanding what supermaneuverability means. It doesn't mean that a supermaneuverable plane can outfly another.

To be more precise it means that a certain aircraft can display attitude control exceeding that which is possible by pure aerodynamic maneuverability. Usually a good indicator is high alpha maneuvers. If I am not mistaken the F-22 has demonstrated it can achieve around 60 degrees of AoA.
That definitely places the F-22 in the league of supermaneuverable aircraft. It doesn't mean however that another plane cannot get on its tail or than indeed another plane needs to get on its tail.


I hope I helped.

 

[eachus]

Ok,
The answer is simple and it has to do with the F-16. You see in all versions in US inventory the F-16 is NOT equipped with IRST or helmet mounted cueing systems.

I hope I helped.

Yes, I am sure it helps, F16 equips with IRST can have salad lunch. you make a cheap shot on F22 turns out Gamgit is not happy.

 

[amalakas]

Yes, I am sure it helps, F16 equips with IRST can have salad lunch. you make a cheap shot on F22 turns out Gamgit is not happy.

I think you are not understanding me.

In an exercise the rules of engagement are chosen so that particular aspects of the pilot's training are brought to the surface.

In real world engagement, an F-16 would almost never find itself in a WVR engagement with an F-22.

Similarly a flight of Typhoons would most likely never get WVR of a flight of Raptors during actual operational circumstances, the reason being the F-22 is not meant to be used that way.

 

[eachus]

getting tired to keeping you on topic. I will let go of you.

 

[eachus]

has some more details

Facing the Raptor

‘Distant Frontier’threw up one of the most exciting opportunities for the Luftwaffe Eurofighters, as eight 1-V-1 BFM (basic fighter manoeuvres) sorties were arranged with the 525th Fighter Squadron’s F-22s.

Oberstleutnant Marc ‘Turbo’ Grune is the commander of 742 Squadron ‘Zapata’ and the operational group commander for the Alaskan detachment. He told Combat Aircraft:’ I was talking to the squadron commander of the Raptors (525th FS) and he said they were working towards taking part in ‘Red Flag’. So I said we are also there, maybe we could exchange ideas… work out synergies with the Raptor. We put two mornings in where we flew against them 1-v-1. We pulled off all the tanks to get the most Alpha on it [the Eurofighters], and it’s an animal with no tanks.

‘To tell you the truth, the Raptor is not built for air combat; you build the Raptor for other purposes. [It's] not going to the merge because you don’t want to end up there. It was a mission to get to know each other, the first contact by German Eurofighters in the continental US. We are not planning on facing each other in combat, we want to work together, but it was a starter for us to work together. They were impressed, as we were impressed by them. We expected to perform less with the Eurofighter but we didn’t… we were evenly matched.They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively!’

Maj Gumbrecht went further: ‘If I get everything right BVR (beyond visual range), I’m not going to get closer than 20 miles. The Raptor has BVR capabilities that we don’t, but we did some neutral high-aspect set-ups and both sides were surprised how the results came back.’

Col Pfeiffer summed up: ‘Its unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat, but as soon as you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area, at least, the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22 in all aspects… We gain energy better than the F-22 when we are slow, for example, and we recognise that. In the dogfight the Eurofighter is at least as capable as the F-22 with advantages in some aspects. We feel pretty comfortable in that situation right now out of the experience we have had here, and we’re in a position to survive against almost all jets in close combat.’



‘In ‘Red Flag’ we have two missions as overall Mission Commander and 11 as Package Commanders (for the air defence element). The air defence package is a mix of four Typhoons, four F-15js and four F-22s. We have a pretty good time on task; we refuel pre-strike and then we can be on station for 40-45 minutes in the VUL. We tend to be first in, last out. The F-22s have a unique capability but they don’t have as long on station as we do, because if they aren’t flying clean (without external tanks) they aren’t stealthy. All our communications with the F-22s are voice commands. We assign each formation element to an area, and if we have a ‘leaker’ (Red Air pushing through the Blue Air defences) we tell the AWACS to target them and the Package Commander works with them [to tackle the threat]. We tell the Aggressors what we want to see, and then they debrief us on what they did. They aren’t assessing our tactics, just providing the threat profiles we request.



Finally, personally I see the F22 still on the top, Typhoons can hold its own under certain conduction in WBR. and the myth of killing F16 10-0 in dogfight vanished.

 

[gambit]

getting tired to keeping you on topic. I will let go of you.

Yeah...Just as we thought...Once the details starts to make sense, you run.

I think you are not understanding me.

In an exercise the rules of engagement are chosen so that particular aspects of the pilot's training are brought to the surface.

In real world engagement, an F-16 would almost never find itself in a WVR engagement with an F-22.

Similarly a flight of Typhoons would most likely never get WVR of a flight of Raptors during actual operational circumstances, the reason being the F-22 is not meant to be used that way.

These guys have no military experience. They do not know what is and is not involved in an exercise, not its intentions and not its goals.

 

[antonius123]

everything you wrote is a mess.

On the raptors issue I have nothing more to comment. The question is why do some people think that EF2000 scoring kills in exercises with Raptors is news?

Until relatively recently (or maybe still even, Gambit will know more about this), the aggressors where still using F-5Es!

These planes regularly sweep the floor with much more advanced aircraft because of their agility and performance.

The point is exercises are mostly to sharpen a pilot's skills and get him to use his aircraft to the limit.

Combat operations have little to do with these exercises in terms of goals and use of assets.

Greek F-16s decimated the aggressors in RED FLAG a few years ago. What is that supposed to mean? That we could beat the USAF ? It simply means the pilots are excellent and they performed excellent in the test!

It is known that a Raptor would very rarely get caught in a dogfight. Why? its pilot would simply choose NOT to.

It is obviously you who write a mess as usual.

The question addressed to gambit/you is: explanation why EF2K score several Raptor kill, and your answer is going here and there as usual but not touching the core which is implied in the article.

Also regarding the nacelle and air intake, you were answering here and there without understanding what other people's mean while it is obvious in my explanation, as a result you were slapping your own master gambit.

 

[antonius123]

Bullsh1t.

Q: What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?
A: Power.

You did not know it. There goes your claim about having aviation education.

I have told you many times, idiot : You are not in the position to test me! since you failed to prove your numerous claims and to prove your self claimed expert.

You failed in aviation test (nacelle, corner reflector, etc)
You failed in control engineering knowledge.

I have proven myself to many here many times over long before you got here, little boy.

Where?? when?? post again your so called proof then.

Your so called "proof" is not more than another claim

You do not answer at all but simply danced around the question.

As I said: you are not in position to test me.
But I am willing to do that as long as you are willing to answer my test as well, and you are able to answer.

Your question about PLC is irrelevant. This is about aviation of which you claimed to have education.

PLC is still relevant even for aviation world. While DCS is not. That is the right answer

See.. you are demonstrating clueless again about aviation and control technology, then how come you dare to test me?

You do not answer my questions because you have no education. You lied.

It always prove to be you

Say that I do not know a damn thing about aviation. Why does that prevent you from answering?

So here is another one...

Q: Name two major advantages in having a reasonably circular/elliptical fuselage.

Because as I said : you are not in position to test me. And it is useless to give you answer in other numerous topics since in existing relevant topic you run away and refuse to accept other people answer with a lot of citation and proof.

If you have gut to finish the existing discussion, answering my questions properly and accept other people answer with citation then your question / test deserve to be served.

has some more details

Facing the Raptor

‘Distant Frontier’threw up one of the most exciting opportunities for the Luftwaffe Eurofighters, as eight 1-V-1 BFM (basic fighter manoeuvres) sorties were arranged with the 525th Fighter Squadron’s F-22s.

Oberstleutnant Marc ‘Turbo’ Grune is the commander of 742 Squadron ‘Zapata’ and the operational group commander for the Alaskan detachment. He told Combat Aircraft:’ I was talking to the squadron commander of the Raptors (525th FS) and he said they were working towards taking part in ‘Red Flag’. So I said we are also there, maybe we could exchange ideas… work out synergies with the Raptor. We put two mornings in where we flew against them 1-v-1. We pulled off all the tanks to get the most Alpha on it [the Eurofighters], and it’s an animal with no tanks.

‘To tell you the truth, the Raptor is not built for air combat; you build the Raptor for other purposes. [It's] not going to the merge because you don’t want to end up there. It was a mission to get to know each other, the first contact by German Eurofighters in the continental US. We are not planning on facing each other in combat, we want to work together, but it was a starter for us to work together. They were impressed, as we were impressed by them. We expected to perform less with the Eurofighter but we didn’t… we were evenly matched.They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively!’

Maj Gumbrecht went further: ‘If I get everything right BVR (beyond visual range), I’m not going to get closer than 20 miles. The Raptor has BVR capabilities that we don’t, but we did some neutral high-aspect set-ups and both sides were surprised how the results came back.’

Col Pfeiffer summed up: ‘Its unique capabilities are overwhelming from our first impressions in terms of modern air combat, but as soon as you get to the merge, which is only a very small spectrum of air combat, in that area, at least, the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22 in all aspects… We gain energy better than the F-22 when we are slow, for example, and we recognise that. In the dogfight the Eurofighter is at least as capable as the F-22 with advantages in some aspects. We feel pretty comfortable in that situation right now out of the experience we have had here, and we’re in a position to survive against almost all jets in close combat.’



‘In ‘Red Flag’ we have two missions as overall Mission Commander and 11 as Package Commanders (for the air defence element). The air defence package is a mix of four Typhoons, four F-15js and four F-22s. We have a pretty good time on task; we refuel pre-strike and then we can be on station for 40-45 minutes in the VUL. We tend to be first in, last out. The F-22s have a unique capability but they don’t have as long on station as we do, because if they aren’t flying clean (without external tanks) they aren’t stealthy. All our communications with the F-22s are voice commands. We assign each formation element to an area, and if we have a ‘leaker’ (Red Air pushing through the Blue Air defences) we tell the AWACS to target them and the Package Commander works with them [to tackle the threat]. We tell the Aggressors what we want to see, and then they debrief us on what they did. They aren’t assessing our tactics, just providing the threat profiles we request.



Finally, personally I see the F22 still on the top, Typhoons can hold its own under certain conduction in WBR. and the myth of killing F16 10-0 in dogfight vanished.

You are giving the right answer.

Instead of bunch people who self proclaimed as an aviation expert but trying to show off by answering here and there but not to the core

 

[amalakas]

I have told you many times, idiot : You are not in the position to test me! since you failed to prove your numerous claims and to prove your self claimed expert.

You failed in aviation test (nacelle, corner reflector, etc)
You failed in control engineering knowledge.




Where?? when?? post again your so called proof then.

Your so called "proof" is not more than another claim





As I said: you are not in position to test me.
But I am willing to do that as long as you are willing to answer my test as well, and you are able to answer.




PLC is still relevant even for aviation world. While DCS is not. That is the right answer

See.. you are demonstrating clueless again about aviation and control technology, then how come you dare to test me?



It always prove to be you



Because as I said : you are not in position to test me. And it is useless to give you answer in other numerous topics since in existing relevant topic you run away and refuse to accept other people answer with a lot of citation and proof.

If you have gut to finish the existing discussion, answering my questions properly and accept other people answer with citation then your question / test deserve to be served.



You are giving the right answer.

Instead of bunch people who self proclaimed as an aviation expert but trying to show off by answering here and there but not to the core

and as usual you are providing the entertainment for the night. Keep up the comedy, I told you..

If you were not so blind you would have seen that the article posted above supports what I have been saying.

You lack of expertise is so evident that it amazes me that you are even allowed to post here pretending you have some.

 

[antonius123]

and as usual you are providing the entertainment for the night. Keep up the comedy, I told you..

The joker and cheer leader here is you.

Your inability to comprehend my points and slapping your own master gambit is the blatant proof, and you like always deny and deny.

If you were not so blind you would have seen that the article posted above supports what I have been saying.

You lack of expertise is so evident that it amazes me that you are even allowed to post here pretending you have some.

Your explanation is a salad mix, and do not touch the core.

The article has implied about WVR that you dont cover yet in your here and there showing off answer

Agility, off bore sight missile, even size of the aircraft count much in WVR.

Besides agility, bigger plane like F-22 is at disadvantage against smaller one like EF2K in WVR engagement.

So amazing that people who self proclaim as expert aviation has no idea about that

 

[amalakas]

The joker and cheer leader here is you.

Your inability to comprehend my points and slapping your own master gambit is the blatant proof, and you like always deny and deny.



Your explanation is a salad mix, and do not touch the core.

The article has implied about WVR that you dont cover yet in your here and there showing off answer

Agility, off bore sight missile, even size of the aircraft count much in WVR.

Besides agility, bigger plane like F-22 is at disadvantage against smaller one like EF2K in WVR engagement.

So amazing that people who self proclaim as expert aviation has no idea about that

what are u on about? can u, do u even read? do you realise you don't even make sense?

sometimes I think your account is just a bot randomly throwing words from previous posts together.

Who is denying? who is the master ? what slap when both people are saying the same thing and only you don't understand. What on earth are you on about!

you read an article that nontheless one of your chinese friends posted, and you still fail to understand what it says..

what on earth are you smoking?

 

[antonius123]

what are u on about? can u, do u even read? do you realise you don't even make sense?

sometimes I think your account is just a bot randomly throwing words from previous posts together.

Who is denying? who is the master ? what slap when both people are saying the same thing and only you don't understand. What on earth are you on about!

you read an article that nontheless one of your chinese friends posted, and you still fail to understand what it says..

what on earth are you smoking?

Thats why if you dont understand other people argument, dont give any comment just in order to cheerlead your master gambit. If will only demonstrate your idiocy.

I've told you a few times that your master Gambit claimed the air intake of PAKFA as Nacelle when he tried to correct me as usual, dont you understand that? You have poor reading comprehension.

 

[amalakas]

Thats why if you dont understand other people argument, dont give any comment. If will only demonstrate your idiocy.

I've told you a few times that your master Gambit claimed the air intake of PAKFA as Nacelle when he tried to correct me as usual, dont you understand that? You have poor reading comprehension.

The pak fa has nacelles, 2 of them. each engine is housed in a nacelle.
it is a jet, so naturally the front of the nacelle forms the air intake, what part of this make Gambit wrong and you right?

this is why i am saying you really can't tell what is what. You don't seem to connect facts.

 

[antonius123]

The pak fa has nacelles, 2 of them. each engine is housed in a nacelle.
it is a jet, so naturally the front of the nacelle forms the air intake, what part of this make Gambit wrong and you right?

this is why i am saying you really can't tell what is what. You don't seem to connect facts.

I've told you few times, that your master Gambit refer to (the cover of) "air intake" as the nacelle, not the engine cover that you are mentioning above. Thats why this is your slapping on your master gambit.

Besides, your explanation about nacelle is also WRONG!

Nacelle is referring to engine cover that separated from fuselage.

Again this is proof that you and gambit has no clue about aviation stuff

 

[amalakas]

I've told you few times, that your master Gambit refer to (the cover of) "air intake" as the nacelle, not the engine cover that you are mentioning above. Thats why this is your slapping on your master gambit.

Besides, your explanation about nacelle is also WRONG!

Nacelle is referring to engine cover that separated from fuselage.

Again this is proof that you and gambit has no clue about aviation stuff

my explanation is from a standard english language dictionary genius......

any more comedy points to make ?????