PAF and the JXX Fifth Gen Fighter

[gambit]

You're right. The F22 is good, but it just isn't as good as people hyped it up to be. F-22 is more of a propaganda than a fighting machine. It has never been used anywhere outside the US, and it hasn't engaged any fighter aircraft outside US yet.

US seems to glorify it beyond sanity, and yet shut down the program. The F-22 is not invincible, and can be shot down. According to me 2 Su30s should be enough to take it down.

90% claims regarding F-22's performance are propaganda. Nothing else.

And yours are not? I see nothing there that qualify remotely as a cogent analysis.

 

[Martian2]

You're right. The F22 is good, but it just isn't as good as people hyped it up to be. F-22 is more of a propaganda than a fighting machine. It has never been used anywhere outside the US, and it hasn't engaged any fighter aircraft outside US yet.

US seems to glorify it beyond sanity, and yet shut down the program. The F-22 is not invincible, and can be shot down. According to me 2 Su30s should be enough to take it down.

90% claims regarding F-22's performance are propaganda. Nothing else.

They said that the F-117 Nighthawk could not be seen by radar or shot down. A minor country named Serbia shot it out of the sky. I am reserving judgment on the F-22 until it faces some real air defenses (e.g. multiple AWACS, powerful ground-based phased-array radars, bistatic radars of the Serb variety, etc.) and pilots. I'm not willing to swallow RAAF squadron leader's propaganda that defies common sense.

 

[gambit]

They said that the F-117 Nighthawk could not be seen by radar or shot down. A minor country named Serbia shot it out of the sky.

NATO flew roughly 40k sorties, including about sixty B-2s non-stop from CONUS, over Yugoslavia. Lost: one F-16 and one F-117. That is not an air defense combat record to boast about.

I am reserving judgment on the F-22 until it faces some real air defenses (e.g. multiple AWACS, powerful ground-based phased-array radars, bistatic radars of the Serb variety, etc.) and pilots. I'm not willing to swallow RAAF squadron leader's propaganda that defies common sense.

The Serb back then never had bi-static radars. Am willing to bet you do not know what is it. And if you actually read with an open mind on other's experience, you might learn something other than what you falsely think is 'common sense'.

 

[jagjitnatt]

They said that the F-117 Nighthawk could not be seen by radar or shot down. A minor country named Serbia shot it out of the sky. I am reserving judgment on the F-22 until it faces some real air defenses (e.g. multiple AWACS, powerful ground-based phased-array radars, bistatic radars of the Serb variety, etc.) and pilots. I'm not willing to swallow RAAF squadron leader's propaganda that defies common sense.

Yes. US has never had a powerful rival after the WW-II. All its weapons are tested only against weak opponents, not to say that these weapons are bad, they are good. But whether or not they are the best, remains to be seen.

When the F-22 was new, the test pilots always talked about its maneuverability, how it was so great with TVC. Then slowly they started saying how its so easy to fly, then stealth, and now they say its invincible. F-22 is more like Chuck Norris

And yours are not? I see nothing there that qualify remotely as a cogent analysis.

Ever heard of common sense? I'm afraid not.

 

[gambit]

Yes. US has never had a powerful rival after the WW-II.

The Soviet Union.

All its weapons are tested only against weak opponents, not to say that these weapons are bad, they are good. But whether or not they are the best, remains to be seen.

That is one of the most ridiculous arguments around. Here is an example...

Operation Bolo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have said it before and I will repeat: In any fight, the goal is to make your opponent fight under your rules, not you under his. And cheating is allowed.

The MIG-21 was superior to the F-4 in many ways, but in Operation Bolo, the Americans forced the North Vietnamese pilots to fight under the F-4's advantages. So if we go by your strict hardware versus hardware argument, can we say that the F-4 was superior?

When the F-22 was new, the test pilots always talked about its maneuverability, how it was so great with TVC. Then slowly they started saying how its so easy to fly, then stealth, and now they say its invincible. F-22 is more like Chuck Norris

For now, the F-22 is the 'Chuck Norris' of the air.

Ever heard of common sense? I'm afraid not.

YOU have not heard of common sense? Sorry to hear that. Wish I could give you some of mine.

 

[Martian2]

All its weapons are tested only against weak opponents, not to say that these weapons are bad, they are good. But whether or not they are the best, remains to be seen.

That is one of the most ridiculous arguments around. Here is an example...

If you manage to attribute the quote to the right person, you might have a little credibility. Hint: see post #109.

By the way, I'm not budging from my original position. Within eyeball-range, a F-22 can be shot down with a heat-seeking missile (e.g. AIM-9 Sidewinder). I don't care what you or that RAAF squadron leader claims. Common sense trumps silly claims.

 

[gambit]

If you manage to attribute the quote to the right person, you might have a little credibility. Hint: see post #109.

Are you really that sensitive over what is usually dismissed as minor 'clerical' error that does not affect the contents and contexts of the debate? Aawww....Let me shed a couple tears for you...

 

[SBD-3]

This doesn't sound right. The F-22 is within eyesight through the canopy of the F-15 pilot. Yet, RAAF Squadron Leader Chappell is too dumb to maneuver his plane behind the F-22 and fire a heat-seeking missile? His claim and your analysis both sound like propaganda that we hear from a defense contractor.

When the F-22 is within eyeball-range, it has a large engine heat-signature. It is vulnerable from behind. A competent pilot would maneuver his plane behind the F-22 and try to win Red Flag.

Here is the heat signature of a F-22 at eyeball-range. Do you see that bright orange flame? An AIM-9 Sidewinder would score a quick kill.

Do you know F-22's exhaust system ensures that even at full afterburner the heat signature is not as augmented as of another fighter. F-22 is optimized for every aspect of stealth. This also inspired Snecma to work on similar lines and come up with M88 2 which is also optimized for IR signature reduction

 

[gambit]

By the way, I'm not budging from my original position. Within eyeball-range, a F-22 can be shot down with a heat-seeking missile (e.g. AIM-9 Sidewinder). I don't care what you or that RAAF squadron leader claims. Common sense trumps silly claims.

I do not expect you to 'care'. This is a publicly accessible forum. My goal is not to convince you but to prove you wrong. The reading public will make up their minds after they see what you falsely believe to be 'common sense' based from ignorance and no experience versus this...

It is impossible to adequately describe how DACT between friendly nations is done. Gambit made a very good effort. The public commonly thinks of them as all-out brawls, like boxing. Two heavyweights go at it, and only one remains standing. It is NEVER like that in DACT.

In my years of ACT/DACT, every single mission had what are called "learning objectives", and one or both sides act a role, so as to maximize training. When the USAF aggressors came to support a unit, everyone outside of the environment thinks "The Aggressors will go in and fight as hard as they can; may the best man win." It doesn't work that way. I (in an instructor role) may take a new wingman, and make use of a single Aggressor, placing him in what are called perch setups, canned setups designed to train the new wingman. I may handcuff the Aggressor further, telling him he is limited to AIM-9P equivalent. I'll have him start behind on some setups, and I'll have him start in front, so that I may teach the new wingman the art of good COMM and maneuvering with a partner in both offensive and defensive setups.

This can get expanded into a 4 V 4. I will ask the Aggressors on the first engagement to execute a lead-trail formation, with the leaders dragging out, or some sort of difficult sorting problem for our flight. On the next, I may say "We are all AIM-9P and guns" meaning no BVR, no front-aspect shots. Everything is crafted to maximize training. I "died" hundreds if not thousands of times in training. That's how you get better.

In this sort of situation as described, the F-15's may be acting in an Aggressor role. They may have been intentionally limited. Or, it is entirely possible they got waxed. That doesn't mean that the next day, they won't crush the opponent. That's how it goes from day to day.

One other thing people rarely consider is the psychological factor of watching your friends and flight leaders go down in flames. It is easy to say "8 MiG-21's can kill 2 F-15's", but I will guarantee when your friends are blowing up all around you, and there are shouts and frantic calls on the radio, the best plan in the world will flush right down the toilet.

Those who are willing to exercise critical thinking skills, which apparently you are not a member of said group, would understand that in an exercise as explained by a former F-15 pilot/instructor, RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell described what clearly was a controlled exercise designed to highlight an important characteristic of the F-22. Chappell was describing a 'snapshot' from a greater event. For all we know, it could have been a 'radar' only engagement to train pilots on how best to use a radar guided missile. When a pilot say 'visual' it does not mean what he sees filled up his entire view. It mean he can see the aircraft with his own eyes, be it one meter away or one hundred meters or one thousand meters. In casual language, that is what he meant by 'eyeball'. Do not inject what you falsely believe to be 'common sense', which is based upon ignorance and non-experience, into something specialized.

 

[Martian2]

Do you know F-22's exhaust system ensures that even at full afterburner the heat signature is not as augmented as of another fighter. F-22 is optimized for every aspect of stealth. This also inspired Snecma to work on similar lines and come up with M88 2 which is also optimized for IR signature reduction

Sorry, I'm not buying the propaganda. I see a bright burning orange flame coming from both engines. If I can see it then the heat-seeking missile can also see it. It is simple common sense. I fail to see any heat-mitigating equipment between the flame and my eyeballs. Do you see anything to impede that bright infrared signature from the engines? I don't.

 

[Martian2]

I do not expect you to 'care'. This is a publicly accessible forum. My goal is not to convince you but to prove you wrong. The reading public will make up their minds after they see what you falsely believe to be 'common sense' based from ignorance and no experience versus this...


Those who are willing to exercise critical thinking skills, which apparently you are not a member of said group, would understand that in an exercise as explained by a former F-15 pilot/instructor, RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell described what clearly was a controlled exercise designed to highlight an important characteristic of the F-22. Chappell was describing a 'snapshot' from a greater event. For all we know, it could have been a 'radar' only engagement to train pilots on how best to use a radar guided missile. When a pilot say 'visual' it does not mean what he sees filled up his entire view. It mean he can see the aircraft with his own eyes, be it one meter away or one hundred meters or one thousand meters. In casual language, that is what he meant by 'eyeball'. Do not inject what you falsely believe to be 'common sense', which is based upon ignorance and non-experience, into something specialized.

I read the article in the Red Flag newslink that you provided. They provided no details. Why did you agree with RAAF squadron leader Chappell, who made a vague and broad generalization without any supporting evidence?

At its heart, this is a debate between common sense and fanboys. I'm on the side of common sense. Which side are you on?

 

[gambit]

I read the article in the Red Flag newslink that you provided. They provided no details. Why did you agree with RAAF squadron leader Chappell, who made a vague and broad generalization without any supporting evidence?

Because I have DIRECT experience in aviation and avionics, specialties during and after the military: Flight Controls and Radar.

At its heart, this is a debate between common sense and fanboys. I'm on the side of common sense. Which side are you on?

I have yet to be disproved on technical grounds. Everything I said anyone can be researched further. Everything I said can be found in the public domain. Far more than your version of 'common sense'.

 

[jagjitnatt]

I read the article in the Red Flag newslink that you provided. They provided no details. Why did you agree with RAAF squadron leader Chappell, who made a vague and broad generalization without any supporting evidence?

At its heart, this is a debate between common sense and fanboys. I'm on the side of common sense. Which side are you on?

Oh, forget it Martian. He's a an American.
He's good with what he does, but when it comes to US of A, bias is clearly visible in his posts. But that's what we expect from an American. Don't we?

 

[gambit]

Oh, forget it Martian. He's a an American.
He's good with what he does, but when it comes to US of A, bias is clearly visible in his posts. But that's what we expect from an American. Don't we?

You mean we should expect YOU to exercise bias in favor of Pakistan or even America? Who/what do you expect me to favored based upon my own technical experience?

 

[Martian2]

Oh, forget it Martian. He's a an American.
He's good with what he does, but when it comes to US of A, bias is clearly visible in his posts. But that's what we expect from an American. Don't we?

Jagjitnatt, thank you for the reminder. It is pointless to argue with a fanboy. I think it is clear that whatever RAAF squadron leader Chappell claims (e.g. F-22 is invincible!), "gambit" will gladly accept the claim without any critical examination. That is actually quite sad and not what I had expected. I am disappointed.