NationStates Jolt Archive

The F22 performed at Langley a few weeks ago and, although there are numerous “fan” videos on the net, the one directed to below is by LM (http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/videos/F22_AirShow_Langley.wmv)and is very good quality. It's a 15 MB download, if you decide to watch it.

As an avowed military geek, I'm more of a tanks and battleships kind of guy.

But that aircraft is sweet. Very nice quality video. It's downloaded onto my desktop.

Awesome, thanks for the link

I'm waiting for the production level Su37/47 (which will probably have a different name by then).

it's very slow. are any of those tricks any good for evading missiles?

it's very slow. are any of those tricks any good for evading missiles?

Are we talking about the Su37/47?

Yes, yes the US military has a huge penis. We're all well aware, especially those whom it rams in the ass.

I'm waiting for the production level Su37/47 (which will probably have a different name by then).

And it will be another aircraft that our northern neighbors will have, that our "Joint Strike Fighter" will have bucklys of catching. Australia should just bite the bullet and get the F22a :)

I'm worried about where they want to stick their cruise missiles as well.

Are we talking about the Su37/47?

no, the one there's a video linked to.

no, the one there's a video linked to.

I havn't seen the video yet (still downloading) but the F22 is third (possibly 4th)generation stealth, missiles have a hard time finding it in the first place, ad to that its "Supercruise" capabilities and its a very hard aircraft to shoot down.

it's very slow. are any of those tricks any good for evading missiles?

Top speed so far mach 1.7. Fastest plane ever without using afterburners.

And it will be another aircraft that our northern neighbors will have, that our "Joint Strike Fighter" will have bucklys of catching. Australia should just bite the bullet and get the F22a :)

They are quite happy with the Su30's they currently have (Unless you mean PNG, they afaik they don't have many combat worthy planes).

bucklys?

We would have thought about it but U.S.A a) didn't want to sell it and b) We thought that we could get the F35 before we had to replace our current strike aircraft (which we still could have if the g'ment and millitary didn't suddenly think that not having the F35 for about 5 years will suddenly make Indonesia want to invade).

I liked the sound of the JAS 39 Gripen.

As an avowed military geek, I'm more of a tanks and battleships kind of guy.

Leopard mk2, T95 or Abrams?

I havn't seen the video yet (still downloading) but the F22 is third (possibly 4th)generation stealth, missiles have a hard time finding it in the first place, ad to that its "Supercruise" capabilities and its a very hard aircraft to shoot down.

It is a 4th (almost the 4.5 subgroup I think) generation. Supercruise on its own isn't that usefull against Tail tracking A-A missiles but if it has some manuverability it could have much of an effect.

http://i2.tinypic.com/4pkopoy.jpg Su47

http://i2.tinypic.com/4pkopoy.jpg Su47

that one looks cooler.

I'm waiting for the production level Su37/47 (which will probably have a different name by then).

The S-37/Su 47 was a technology demonstrator and not intended for production.

Russia's planned competitor for the JSF and ATF is the PAK-FA, which should be in the same size class as the MiG 29 and F/A-18. It's possible that the program will be split into a light and heavy program, one being Su 27 sized and one MiG 29 sized.

Leopard mk2, T95 or Abrams?


T95. I love Soviet/Russian hardware myself.

The T62 would have to be my favourite MBT.

Thanks for asking. :)

I should have said: Vastly modified design with a new name. I thought they were going to use the Su27 body frame as the base design. It was a tech demo.

A forward swept wing from Russia is probably a decade off. I didn't know that they were marketing the PAK-FA.

What is the ATF?

http://youtube.com/profile
every body check this out!:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :headbang: ;)

What is the ATF?
Advanced Tactical Fighter - the name of the project that spawned the F-22.

I don't know why people think Australia should get the F-22. The thing is nice, but it's ridiculously expensive. Australia isn't going to be fighting air superiority battles and stuff. The Americans would never share the software source code or anything else of importance.

The F-35 isn't as expensive, it has more uses and at least the chance that the source code will be available is a bit greater. And it's still gonna shoot down anything it will actually come across.

Hooray for the F22.

What a machine.

Stealth.

Weapons.

Pilot Self Locking System: Full blend of man and machine. => This is the most absolutely genius feature of the Raptor, check it here: http://www.counterpunch.org/bryce05032006.html

http://youtube.com/profile
every body check this out!:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :headbang: ;)

You should fix that link, it takes you to the youtube profile of whoever clicks it.

Advanced Tactical Fighter - the name of the project that spawned the F-22.

I don't know why people think Australia should get the F-22. The thing is nice, but it's ridiculously expensive. Australia isn't going to be fighting air superiority battles and stuff. The Americans would never share the software source code or anything else of importance.

The F-35 isn't as expensive, it has more uses and at least the chance that the source code will be available is a bit greater. And it's still gonna shoot down anything it will actually come across.

Australia is a high tech army; We don't have high enough millitary population to compete person to person with any nearby neighbours (only 50k or so) so we have a large amount of training.

The same applies to aircraft. We probably (decision tobuy has to be made by 2008) are getting the F35 (though I havesome apprehension about fuel capacity) but we deceided that we couldn't wait until 2013 to replace our strike aircraft (F111s I think) when Indonesia deceided to purchase Su30s.

So the G'ment and millitary are going to buy 24 F18s (Super Hornet variety I think) yet the price of them seemed rather large, considering that they will be superceded by the F35 when we get it.

The idea wasthat for an interim replacement we could get the F22 (since that would be a very good strike aircraft that we could use for a very long time.

Personally I want to see whether the newer Sukhoi and Mikoyan aircraft will be suitable as well as the Tornado and Grippen.

The Ruskies have some pretty decent fighters to, y'know.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=upYX_SISZ84
The SU-35 in particular looks quite sexy :)

As much as I love the newer planes (Until I walked around one at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo, I never realized how fucking big the Blackbirds were. Gorgeous planes...), I'm an old-fashioned girl at heart - the P-51 is my all time favorite fighter.

that one looks cooler.

Damn Straight.
I absolutely love that aircraft.

As much as I love the newer planes (Until I walked around one at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo, I never realized how fucking big the Blackbirds were. Gorgeous planes...), I'm an old-fashioned girl at heart - the P-51 is my all time favorite fighter.
I had seen a number of SR-71 take-off and landings in Okinawa, so I realized they were big airplanes, but I still wasn't ready for the size when I finally had a chance to get up close.

I was at the Pima Air museum, near Davis-Monthan, one time, and I got to crawl around in a B-24. Talk about tiny and cramped...A full load of bombs for a Liberator was about 8000 lb. That's just over half of what a A-6 could carry.

My favorite fighter is the P-38. Two engines are always better than one.:)

I had seen a number of SR-71 take-off and landings in Okinawa, so I realized they were big airplanes, but I still wasn't ready for the size when I finally had a chance to get up close.

I was at the Pima Air museum, near Davis-Monthan, one time, and I got to crawl around in a B-24. Talk about tiny and cramped...A full load of bombs for a Liberator was about 8000 lb. That's just over half of what a A-6 could carry.

My favorite fighter is the P-38. Two engines are always better than one.:)

That wsa about my reaction - no, mine was more 'holy shit, that things big!'

My attachment to the Mustang comes from my grandpa. He trained fighter pilots stateside during WW2 - he had an inner ear problem and couldn't fly combat mission. When I was little, he'd take us all to the air show and we'd spend a weekend getting sunburnt and watching all the planes. One year, they did a combat demonstration with the Mustangs and it was just the most awesome thing... /sigh I miss my grandpa...

I'm waiting for the production level Su37/47 (which will probably have a different name by then).

Sorry they scrapped the SU-37 project. No $$$. Still SU-35s aren't bad either.


Russia's planned competitor for the JSF and ATF is the PAK-FA, which should be in the same size class as the MiG 29 and F/A-18. It's possible that the program will be split into a light and heavy program, one being Su 27 sized and one MiG 29 sized.
I still can't see how the JSF will be able to do EVERYTHING like they seem to claim, but that's another subject.

You do know the US isn;t actually SELLING the F-22 right?

The JSF, yes but not the F-22.

(and as for dodging missiles... you can't get a lock on it WVR forget BVR, just look up the Red Flag reports).

Sorry they scrapped the SU-37 project. No $$$. Still SU-35s aren't bad either.

They did? Damn, I was hoping for a forward swept wingaircraft (though wikipedia has no mention of it. I thought the Su37/47 was a concept/experimental aircraft and a proper version would be highly modified).

They did the same to the X-29 aircraft in the U.S.

Australia is a high tech army; We don't have high enough millitary population to compete person to person with any nearby neighbours (only 50k or so) so we have a large amount of training.
You also have the ANZUS treaty, which makes pretty much all those considerations irrelevant. If anyone attacks Australia, they attack the US. And the US is going to do most of the fighting.

And you're right, a few second hand Tornados would have been a lot cheaper than those Super Hornets. And there's plenty around, now that the Eurofighter has started replacing them.

Australia is a high tech army; We don't have high enough millitary population to compete person to person with any nearby neighbours (only 50k or so) so we have a large amount of training.

The same applies to aircraft. We probably (decision tobuy has to be made by 2008) are getting the F35 (though I havesome apprehension about fuel capacity) but we deceided that we couldn't wait until 2013 to replace our strike aircraft (F111s I think) when Indonesia deceided to purchase Su30s.


.

One other thing that is obvious is that any scuffle Ozz would get into with it's neighbor's would likely include the US pacific fleet. So size doesn't matter if one is talking military terms of Ozz. When you got big friends and can get in a few good punches yourself then that makes for a good deterrent. that's why I think time is not a key factor in decision making here.

You also have the ANZUS treaty, which makes pretty much all those considerations irrelevant. If anyone attacks Australia, they attack the US. And the US is going to do most of the fighting..

I wouldn't want to rely too much on the U.S in the future (which means further east asia/oceania ties would be preferable).

Though if Aus did rely on the U.S for millitary support/attacks (and we were fighting a group that is not higher in preference to the U.S) then we would still need to hold an them at bay for a week to give a sufficient expiditionary force to reach here

The U.S would do most of the fighting in that case, in which case Australia would only need planes and equipment to hold the enemy at a combat line. Fast and large quantity without the need for staying power.

The other possibility is having units with high staying power, to halt the enemy and relying on the U.S for air superiority fighting and strike.

Also, who would protect NZ if it was attacked?

And you're right, a few second hand Tornados would have been a lot cheaper than those Super Hornets. And there's plenty around, now that the Eurofighter has started replacing them.

Personally I'd have liked some Grippens (cheap moderness!) and have a look at the Sukhois coming out in the next 6-7 years as viable options to either buy in addition the F35.

We are spending approx. 2.9 billion AUD on these 24 planes (with total cost at 6 billion AUD over 10 years) as interim planes because Indonesia is going to get Su30s.

I still can't see how the JSF will be able to do EVERYTHING like they seem to claim, but that's another subject.

It will at least be much more modern and capable than Aus' current plane stock.

You do know the US isn;t actually SELLING the F-22 right?

The JSF, yes but not the F-22.

(and as for dodging missiles... you can't get a lock on it WVR forget BVR, just look up the Red Flag reports).

They aren't selling that plane to anyone for forseeable future: Too much high tech and want to keep that ace in only their sleeve.

What is WVR, BVR and Red flag reports?

It will at least be much more modern and capable than Aus' current plane stock.



They aren't selling that plane to anyone for forseeable future: Too much high tech and want to keep that ace in only their sleeve.

What is WVR, BVR and Red flag reports?

Within Visual Range
Beyond Visual Range

Red Flag is a big meet where airforces fly against simulated enemies. The F-22's RULED it this time around. They even hung around after running out of ammo because they could spy with near-impunity.

They lost I think 3 aircraft, at least one in a mutual-destruction where the target got off a last-gasp shot with a missile when the F-22 got too close.

Who were they paired off against?

Also, who would protect NZ if it was attacked?
Australia and the US, as usual. Though why anyone would want to attack New Zealand is beyond me.

Personally I'd have liked some Grippens (cheap moderness!) and have a look at the Sukhois coming out in the next 6-7 years as viable options to either buy in addition the F35.
Germany tried having Western and Eastern fighters side by side for a while. It doesn't work. The things are built to different design criteria, have different spare parts, different software, different weapons and so on and so forth.

You'd either try to convert them to the same standard (ie completely redesign the jet) or just have everything in two versions. Either way isn't cost effective.

As for the Gripen, they're nice and all, but again there'd be some trickiness getting them integrated into what is essentially a US support system with spares, software and so on. I don't think they needed anything to get them over until the F-35 comes out because there's no likely scenario that they will be used, but if they had to get something, the Super Hornets were probably the best option.

We are spending approx. 2.9 billion AUD on these 24 planes (with total cost at 6 billion AUD over 10 years) as interim planes because Indonesia is going to get Su30s.
Because Indonesia is going to attack us in these next few years? It's dumb, and it's costing a lot my tax dollars.

Who were they paired off against?

F-16's and simulated SAM systems. Every time the f-16's got 'killed' they could simply recycle into the battle too.

It's not as telling as a performance against say the Typhoon would be but given that the F-16 is still arguably one of the best in the world..

Australia and the US, as usual. Though why anyone would want to attack New Zealand is beyond me.

I thought that the ANZUS treaty doesn't apply between the U.S and NZ anymore so if it is a group/state (that can of course beat the NZ millitary) that is either neutral or an ally of the U.S then there is no incentive to actually defend it other than Australia trying to push for help in defending NZ.

Only reasons that I could think of is having a hard to reach base of operations for takeover of Antartica.

Germany tried having Western and Eastern fighters side by side for a while. It doesn't work. The things are built to different design criteria, have different spare parts, different software, different weapons and so on and so forth.

You'd either try to convert them to the same standard (ie completely redesign the jet) or just have everything in two versions. Either way isn't cost effective.

I can see the logic in that. Is that part of the reason that Germany sold some of it's East German era aircraft to Poland really cheap?

As for the Gripen, they're nice and all, but again there'd be some trickiness getting them integrated into what is essentially a US support system with spares, software and so on. I don't think they needed anything to get them over until the F-35 comes out because there's no likely scenario that they will be used, but if they had to get something, the Super Hornets were probably the best option.

I was talking about viable aircraft other than the F35.

Because Indonesia is going to attack us in these next few years? It's dumb, and it's costing a lot my tax dollars.

I agree that it is idiotic considering that the RAAF will more than likely buy the strike aircraft that the F18s are going to fill, making them unneeded.

Having the aircraft built here would make any new aircraft design much cheaper but that wouldn't be too likely.

They did? Damn, I was hoping for a forward swept wingaircraft (though wikipedia has no mention of it. I thought the Su37/47 was a concept/experimental aircraft and a proper version would be highly modified).

They did the same to the X-29 aircraft in the U.S.

The Su 37 is a combat ready prototype of an upgrade Su 35. The S-37 is the internal project name for the Su 47. It started being called the Su 47 when it was decided to market it to the Russian government as a combat-ready design. The Su 47 is no longer being marketed.

Su 37 =/= Su 47. Su 37 = Flanker. S-37 = Su 47 = FSW. :)

I thought that the ANZUS treaty doesn't apply between the U.S and NZ anymore...
Well, not strictly speaking, no. In practice though, I think the Americans would be hard-pressed not to help out if Australia was.

I can see the logic in that. Is that part of the reason that Germany sold some of it's East German era aircraft to Poland really cheap?
Pretty much. They were great jets, but more of a headache than they were worth.

There was a PR element to it as well though. Poland had just joined NATO and all that, and they really needed some jets after their old ones were retiring - which of course the Russians wouldn't give them.

They kept some of the good things though and learned a lot. That was why for example Germany quit the ASRAAM program after they found out how good the Russian short-range missiles really were. So they incorporated some of the design and made their own, the IRIS-T (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8wnb27z3vc).

it's very slow. are any of those tricks any good for evading missiles?

The F22 isn't intended to evade missiles, it is designed to be stealthy and operate in pairs, where one fighter is using its radar to detect enemies, and the other is flying in stealth several miles away. When an enemy is detected, the first plane automatically relays the information to the 2nd, and the 2nd plane fires. The enemy ends up destroyed before it even knows the 2nd plane was even there.

The Su 37 is a combat ready prototype of an upgrade Su 35. The S-37 is the internal project name for the Su 47. It started being called the Su 47 when it was decided to market it to the Russian government as a combat-ready design. The Su 47 is no longer being marketed.

Su 37 =/= Su 47. Su 37 = Flanker. S-37 = Su 47 = FSW. :)

It was initially given the 37 designation, then later on had the 47. I kept using it because I did not realise that there was a Su37. Now it turns out there is one I look silly :( .

Red Flag is a big meet where airforces fly against simulated enemies. The F-22's RULED it this time around. They even hung around after running out of ammo because they could spy with near-impunity.

I remember reading about the tests and how they were slanted heavily in the F-22's favor. Starting you off behind the enemy and given a never miss first shot missile.

"I remember reading about the tests and how they were slanted heavily in the F-22's favor. Starting you off behind the enemy and given a never miss first shot missile."---Non Aligned States

fortunately for us, what you read in this case happens to be incorrect. They stayed up in the air as F-16s and F-15s regen'd again and again to come back from every which angle. They used up their simulated long-range missiles, their short range missiles, and then made some gun kills.....simulated of course

I remember reading about the tests and how they were slanted heavily in the F-22's favor. Starting you off behind the enemy and given a never miss first shot missile.

Hmmm, maybe. Although other airforces participate in the competiton as well, the Swedes sent a bunch of Gripens one time around and they didn't do brilliantly (still won but not by a lot).

The point of Red Flag is that it's a 'real-world' test. Not just the shows Airforce generals put on to prove why they need stuff but for the pilots to do some real 'combat'.

Hmmm, maybe. Although other airforces participate in the competiton as well, the Swedes sent a bunch of Gripens one time around and they didn't do brilliantly (still won but not by a lot).

The point of Red Flag is that it's a 'real-world' test. Not just the shows Airforce generals put on to prove why they need stuff but for the pilots to do some real 'combat'.

Real world tests don't give you never miss missiles and start you off behind enemy forces. I believe these were tests performed by the manufacturer.

I remember reading about the tests and how they were slanted heavily in the F-22's favor. Starting you off behind the enemy and given a never miss first shot missile.
My squadron flew in a few Red Flags back in the '80s. I don't see how you can slant the ROE to favor anyone. You must be confused with some other sort of tests.

Red Flag is a coordinated strike against some very effective aggressors. We beat them once. Back in the day, the tactic was to come in low, avoiding the SAM threat. Well, deconfliction of fighters and SAMS demand that they be used exclusively. The aggressors were getting used to looking down at the terrain from 15-20K ft. We decided to strike at 30K ft and won the day. We got blasted on the way out, but we did get the target.

My squadron flew in a few Red Flags back in the '80s. I don't see how you can slant the ROE to favor anyone. You must be confused with some other sort of tests.


Maybe. I believe these were tests by Lockheed.

Maybe. I believe these were tests by Lockheed.
I don't know what the Air Force acceptance tests require, but I would expect that they would expect to see a number of off-angle engagements. I sure would feel better, starting any series of tests, if the missile/aircraft does the simple things well.

I am curious as to what type of F16s they were.

Were they representative of the latest modern upgrades for them or were they the first type of model with the very first missiles made for it?

I am curious as to what type of F16s they were.

Were they representative of the latest modern upgrades for them or were they the first type of model with the very first missiles made for it?

Aren't all F-16s upgraded to block 60?

Aren't all F-16s upgraded to block 60?

I am not sure.

I must say that the F35, whilst a capable plane doesn't seem too well suited to being the main plane of Australia.

I'm waiting for the production level Su37/47 (which will probably have a different name by then).

Totally seconded. Anyway, it is likely that the Su-37 is reserved for the latest Flanker derivative (the one with 2-d independently steering exhaust nozzles and canards), while the aircraft built under the PAK-FA requirements (the one implementing MiG-1.44 and Sukhoj S-37 Berkut tech) is going to be designated Su-47.

Anyway, there is a nice article in wiki about the PAK-FA project. Delivery supposedly starts this October! :drool:

Aren't all F-16s upgraded to block 60?

Not the ones Silvio Berlusconi's cabinet choose to buy for Italy about five years ago to fill the gap while waiting for the EFA. Holy crap. It would have been better to lease some Tornado ADV, or to buy some MiG-29s from the Czechs and westernise them.

The F-16 is a good aircraft... but it is 40 years old, what the hell!

They did? Damn, I was hoping for a forward swept wingaircraft (though wikipedia has no mention of it. I thought the Su37/47 was a concept/experimental aircraft and a proper version would be highly modified).


No. Look on wiki about the PAK-FA, it is going to be a forward-swept design. It is awesome.

I read that Some F-22's took down thirty-five F-15's.

I read that Some F-22's took down thirty-five F-15's.

Mhhh... I doubt. Could you provide some source? The F-15 is still a great aircraft, a bit old, but still quite good. Iirc, it is also a lot faster than the Raptor.