Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-35 vs SU30 vs Rafale---F-22 vs SU30 vs Rafale
Herc the Merc    4/19/2005 3:28:12 PM
Assume electronics & missiles capabilities are the same-loadouts per plane specs though. 1 on 1 who would win, how many times in 10 engagements. Also Will a 2 to 1 superority give advantage to say the SU-30 over the F-series. Until the SU-35 this pretty much will be the balance of airpower.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Bluewings    RE:An F-22 is to a Rafale is to an SU-30 what an F-15 is to a Viggen is to a Mig 23...   4/27/2005 4:12:50 PM
Quote : "Thats odd since the Rafale can be detected in clean configuration beyond AMRAAM range by the APG-63(v)1 radar" There is no official claim on this I am aware of . Only bla-bla on Strategy page . Show me a link . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:An F-22 is to a Rafale is to an SU-30 what an F-15 is to a Viggen is to a Mig 23...   4/27/2005 5:39:57 PM
"Thats odd since the Rafale can be detected in clean configuration beyond AMRAAM range by the APG-63(v)1 radar". I've got no doubt that this could happen, if the Rafale was flying AWAY from the APG-63(v)1 in question. However, what Rafale pilot is going to do that once his RWR picks up the radar emission from the fighter in question? None of course, he's going to turn his stealthy nose towards the F-15 and blow it out of the sky.
 
Quote    Reply

Kozmik Imperial    RE:An F-22 is to a Rafale is to an SU-30 what an F-15 is to a Viggen is to a Mig 23...   4/28/2005 11:56:14 PM
90% of gixx claims are unsupported, and as much as he ridicules anything thats not american the 90% of his arguments are all hypothetical. i'm not by any means as keen on military aviation as alot of people in this forum but i have respect for the people who post supported facts and clean arguments, and know when to admit they're wrong. gixx you praise yourself too much and i doubt you know much of anything, and if u do i'd love to hear about your credibility
 
Quote    Reply

Kozmik Imperial    rafale and mica   4/29/2005 7:23:24 PM
lets say an f-22 gets off a shot at a rafale, i was reading that the MICA has the ability to intercept missiles, what are the chances that the rafale pilot would be able to take down the incoming missile, is it possible? how much time would the rafale need? minimum distance etc.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:rafale and mica   4/29/2005 8:23:09 PM
Are you sure they werent talking about shooting down cruise missiles? BTW- an AMRAAM will not betray its presence until terminal phase which only last seconds. No human would be likely to respond that fast and by the time the MICA got off the launch rail...impact. So the Rafale pilot would have to see the incoming or his/her EW suite and hard manuver to counter it at the last moment. Not good odds if the F-22 set up the engagement properly. Especially considering the F-22 ability to remain undetected to its launch range.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunner1    RE:rafale and mica   4/29/2005 8:23:21 PM
I think you would find that the missiles it can intercept are cruise missiles, a lot bigger and slower than an AMRAAM.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:rafale and mica   4/30/2005 8:17:37 AM
MICA cannot intercept incoming Air to Air missiles (ie: AMRAAMs , etc). Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

jhaley    RE:F22 etc...   4/30/2005 11:33:11 PM
What plane would you fly into combat tomarrow and whY?
 
Quote    Reply

Tomas    RE:F22 etc...   5/5/2005 12:26:18 PM
jhaley: "what plane would you fly into combat tomarrow and whY? " The Mig I-2000 - it is a way ahead of anything available or in R&D right now. Either that or the SU-35 or flanker series. They are super maneuverable by comparison with the lumbering and over-sized F-22 'raptor' which is simply not in the same league as the Flanker or Mig I-2000. Possible also Rafale but again it is a basically a 4th generation fighter. The F-22 has many problems and it's much vaunted 'stealth' is a myth. There is no such thing as a 'stealthed' aircraft, a term which most of the airchair/nintendo warrior generation of posters here seem to believe means 'invisible' - it simply has a lowER signature. To see it: simply turn up the beam of the radar. The SU-27 already out-flies and out-maneuvres the lumbering F22! The F22 is TWICE THE SIZE of the F16! Su-35 can be retro-fitted with stealth coating but having said that, it's not stealthed because it doesn't need to be. regards, Tomas
 
Quote    Reply

Tomas    RE:F22 etc...   5/5/2005 12:47:38 PM
Most people do not realise that the F22 was not made to fight against any Russian fighter or any other fighter for that matter. US wars are directed at smaller weaker countries and therefore it does not matter that the F22 cannot perform as well as the Flanker series, the Rafale et al. It is good enough to fight the weak or practically non existent air forces and air defences of the third world countries the US attacks. Sorry guys but you know it's true! Don't get me wrong, the F22 is advanced and has many great features and pilot combat awareness characteristics, but it is lumbering, over-sized and not as maneuvarable as the Flanker/Mig I-2000/Rafale et al. Just to get the 'stealthing' by placing the weaponry (less than other fighters at that!) INSIDE a bomb bay instead of on under wing hardpoints, they had to make the whole aircraft so much bigger that it enemy pilots would see it with the naked eye from a far greater range any other aircraft! Quotes from notable Americans on the subject: "The only way to make the F-22 stealthy is to tear the eyes out of enemy pilots' heads," says retired Air Force Col. Everest Riccioni. Riccioni is one of the so-called "fighter mafia", along with the late Col. John Boyd and CounterPuncher Pierre Sprey (now the director of Mapleshade Records), who helped to design the F-16, probably the best fighter plane ever produced. The colonel is now one of the F-22's most savage critics. 'The Air Force touts the F-22's supposed stealth capabilities as a point of superiority compared with the aging but durable F-15. But the F-22 hasn't proved to be all that invisible, after all. From one discreet angle, the F-22 slips past radar screens. But from other apertures and latitudes, the plane, in the words of a Senate staffer, "lights up like the Budweiser blimp".' One intractable problem involves the F-22's complex and unwieldy avionics system, being developed by Boeing. "The avionics for the F-22 was obsolete before the plane even went into production", a Pentagon analyst tells CounterPunch. That's because the computer systems that act as the plane's brain are powered by five-volt silicon chips. These went out of date in 1992 when Intel introduced the 3.3 volt Pentium chip. Now most computers run on the even faster Pentium III, a 1-volt microchip. "Imagine if this plane ever joins the fleet and is running on computer systems that are already 10 years out of date and will be 30 years out of date in the future," a senate staffer said. "It will be like trying to run a spreadsheet with an abacus." So what's behind the F-22? The project's driven in large measure by what some Pentagon analysts call "the cult of stealth". In the mid-80s the Air Force, struggling to stay relevant, realized that "stealth" was a great marketing tool. The public was fascinated by those black, oddly configured, "invisible" airplanes and so were members of congress. It didn't matter if the stealth bomber was just as visible to most Russian radar system as the B-52 and cost 50 times as much to produce. "The F-22 is not going to be a fighter-versus-fighter airplane," says Riccioni. "And if you want that capability, you can get it if you don't design for stealth. And if you don't design for stealth, you can make it affordable. And if it's affordable, you can get the numbers you want." Riccioni's right, of course, except for the fact that the Air Force doesn't even need a new fleet of planes because there's no existing fighter threat, hasn't been one since the Korean War, and there's none in the foreseeable future. and so on....... regards, Tomas
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics