F-22 crashes into Florida - Polidicks

[QUOTE=smeismastger;38471968]What? It's not allowed to joke about American planes here?[/QUOTE] You mean Boeing and Airbus? Damn. Those planes really suck.

[QUOTE=areolop;38479156]You mean Boeing and Airbus? Damn. Those planes really suck.[/QUOTE] Airbus is French, Boeing is just Boeing.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38475536]They're guided but a flanker could easily out out maneuver it. That is the benefit of having a super maneuverable fighter. Flankers OLS-27/35 could detect the incoming missile, warning the pilot and giving him time to perform evasive maneuvers. At almost any engagement range the Su-35 will be able to out-turn a AIM-120, thus kill probability is likely to be low.[/QUOTE] Air to air missiles are more maneuverable than even your precious Flanker. Fighters maneuver when they detect a missile lock in order to make it much more difficult to track. This isn't Ace Combat. You can't just slam on the brakes and out-turn a missile.

[QUOTE=Apache249;38480906]Air to air missiles are more maneuverable than even your precious Flanker. Fighters maneuver when they detect a missile lock in order to make it much more difficult to track. This isn't Ace Combat. You can't just slam on the brakes and out-turn a missile.[/QUOTE] Its a AMRAAM. Its not an AIM-9X or R-73. It can't maneuver for shit in comparison to a F-22 or Su-35. I thought this was widely known, its kill probability is low if the target is able to bank sharper then the missile itself, which requires good defensive systems(like OLS-35 and RWR). If you out turn the missile it no longer has enough speed to be able to effectively chase a target. They were so successful in previous wars because the targets didn't even know it was coming.

[QUOTE=Aide;38472628][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M[/media] F-22 is useless an expensive.[/QUOTE] um the whole point of an f-22 is to destroy a target before the target even knows it's being attacked in other words, if an enemy knows that an f-22 has attacked them, the f-22 has failed in its reason of existing. no other declassified aircraft can do this

[QUOTE=meppers;38480998]um the whole point of an f-22 is to destroy a target before the target even knows it's being attacked in other words, if an enemy knows that an f-22 has attacked them, the f-22 has failed in its reason of existing. no other declassified aircraft can do this[/QUOTE] "No other declassified aircraft can do this". To name a few, T-50, F-35, J-31, J-20, ATD-X and the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#List_of_stealth_aircraft"]list goes on.. [/URL]

[QUOTE=laserguided;38481173]"No other declassified aircraft can do this". To name a few, T-50, F-35, J-31, J-20, ATD-X and the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#List_of_stealth_aircraft"]list goes on.. [/URL][/QUOTE] You have to be pretty thick to think an F-35 is an air superiority fighter and is meant to put up with dogfights against any gen 4+ aircraft. You also have to be pretty thick if you think the average Su-35/Russian Pilot will be able to out maneuver an AIM-120, or an F-22/F-22 pilot for that matter. Nonetheless, I guess you're just a stupid 'lol hur dur amerifat thinkin they good' poster. That's why you list off a bunch of aircraft not even close to production stages and claim they compete with the most superior air-to-air fighter.

[QUOTE=stupidass;38482103]You have to be pretty thick to think an F-35 is an air superiority fighter and is meant to put up with dogfights against any gen 4+ aircraft. You also have to be pretty thick if you think the average Su-35/Russian Pilot will be able to out maneuver an AIM-120, or an F-22/F-22 pilot for that matter. Nonetheless, I guess you're just a stupid 'lol hur dur amerifat thinkin they good' poster. That's why you list off a bunch of aircraft not even close to production stages and claim they compete with the most superior air-to-air fighter.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong he was saying F-22 was the only stealth aircraft that isn't secret. Also, you're a stupidass if you think the F-35 isn't being marketed as a all-round airforce solution, wrongly marketed but that is what Lockheed is doing and its working for the most part. And yes, a Su-35 can out maneuver a AIM-120. Your post is just unimaginbly dumb, the Su-35 can obviously out maneuver a F-22 and I also think you're trying to say Russian pilots are inferior, which is another dumb thing to say because on average the flight training is about the same. Also, I'm sorry but how can you say the F-22 is "most superior" when you have nothing to back your claims? Think before you post.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38480992]Its a AMRAAM. Its not an AIM-9X or R-73. It can't maneuver for shit in comparison to a F-22 or Su-35. I thought this was widely known, its kill probability is low if the target is able to bank sharper then the missile itself, which requires good defensive systems(like OLS-35 and RWR). If you out turn the missile it no longer has enough speed to be able to effectively chase a target. They were so successful in previous wars because the targets didn't even know it was coming.[/QUOTE] You know this how? You say AMRAAMs can't maneuver like AIM-9Xs or R-73s, but what is this based on? [editline]16th November 2012[/editline] You're pretty thick for believing an Su-35 could outfight an F-22.

[QUOTE=Apache249;38482160]You know this how? You say AMRAAMs can't maneuver like AIM-9Xs or R-73s, but what is this based on?[/QUOTE] Its a BVR missile, why do you think they use different missiles for different tasks? AIM-9/R-73 is a close range missile to be used within about 20nm and a AMRAAM is supposed to be used within about 50-70nm. It has more fuel, it has a built in radar and its alot larger. Every single analyst says the same thing, I mean fuck even Wikipedia says it. [editline]16th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Apache249;38482160]You know this how? You say AMRAAMs can't maneuver like AIM-9Xs or R-73s, but what is this based on? [editline]16th November 2012[/editline] You're pretty thick for believing an Su-35 could outfight an F-22.[/QUOTE] You are not reading what I'm saying are you, out maneuver isn't out-BVR. Within visual range the Flanker will dominate the F-22 or F-35, however in BVR it will not do so good since it isn't a VLO aircraft. That is why they are spending $30+Bn on the PAK FA programme alone. Where did I even say a Su-35 could out do a F-22 one-to-one head on BVR?

[QUOTE=laserguided;38482185]Its a BVR missile, why do you think they use different missiles for different tasks? AIM-9/R-73 is a close range missile to be used within about 20nm and a AMRAAM is supposed to be used within about 50-70nm. It has more fuel, it has a built in radar and its alot larger. [B]Every single analyst says the same thing[/B], I mean fuck even Wikipedia says it. [editline]16th November 2012[/editline] You are not reading what I'm saying are you, out maneuver isn't out-BVR.[/QUOTE] That bolded statement is straight out of daily asspull. Wikipedia doesn't have any maneuverability data for either so that's bullshit as well. The only real arguments you have are that it's bigger, has a radar, and has more fuel.

[QUOTE=Apache249;38482247]That bolded statement is straight out of daily asspull. Wikipedia doesn't have any maneuverability data for either so that's bullshit as well. The only real arguments you have are that it's bigger, has a radar, and has more fuel.[/QUOTE] It does say it, its not my fault you can't read. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#Kill_probability_and_tactics[/url] Another reputable analyst, [url]http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html[/url] You don't have to go far to see that a AIM-120 isn't mean't to outmaneuver a flanker. It was originally designed for slow moving targets and was only tested on slow moving targets. Even Sukhoi markets the capability to out maneuver a AMRAAM in their technology demo's and I'm other Rafale etc do aswell. Its globally accepted, if I had a performance graph to show you I would but I don't. Please, do source where you quoted me on saying the Flanker can out-fight a F-22 in BVR since you tried to use that against me in your earlier post.

Didn't we already establish the ausairpower is full of shit, to which you responded "it's cited by many people" as a reason for why it's legitimate? Also, [QUOTE]General considerations The kill probability (Pk) is determined by several factors, including aspect (head-on interception, side-on or tail-chase), altitude, the speed of the missile and the target, and how hard the target can turn. Typically, if the missile has sufficient energy during the terminal phase, which comes from being launched at close range to the target from an aircraft with an altitude and speed advantage, it will have a good chance of success. This chance drops as the missile is fired at longer ranges as it runs out of overtake speed at long ranges, and if the target can force the missile to turn it might bleed off enough speed that it can no longer chase the target. Operationally, the missile, which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM. One of the targets was a US Army Blackhawk helicopter.[12] [edit] Lower-capability targets This leads to two main engagement scenarios. If the target is not armed with any medium or long-range fire-and-forget weapons, the attacking aircraft need only get close enough to the target and launch the AMRAAM. In these scenarios, the AMRAAM has a high chance of hitting, especially against low-maneuverability targets. The launch distance depends upon whether the target is heading towards or away from the firing aircraft. In a head-on engagement, the missile can be launched at longer range, since the range will be closing fast. In this situation, even if the target turns around, it is unlikely it can speed up and fly away fast enough to avoid being overtaken and hit by the missile (as long as the missile is not released too early). It is also unlikely the enemy can outmaneuver the missile since the closure rate will be so great. In a tail-on engagement, the firing aircraft might have to close to between one-half and one-quarter maximum range (or maybe even closer for a very fast target) in order to give the missile sufficient energy to overtake the targets. If the targets are armed with missiles, the fire-and-forget nature of the AMRAAM is valuable, enabling the launching aircraft to fire missiles at the target and subsequently take defensive actions. Even if the targets have longer-range semiactive radar homing (SARH) missiles, they will have to chase the launching aircraft in order for the missiles to track them, effectively flying right into the AMRAAM. If the target aircraft fires missiles and then turns and runs away, those missiles will not be able to hit. Of course, if the target aircraft have long range missiles, even if they are not fire-and-forget, the fact that they force the launching aircraft to turn and run reduces the kill probability, since it is possible that without the mid-course updates the missiles will not find the target aircraft. However the chance of success is still good and compared to the relative impunity the launching aircraft enjoy, this gives the AMRAAM-equipped aircraft a decisive edge. If one or more missiles fail to hit, the AMRAAM-equipped aircraft can turn and re-engage, although they will be at a disadvantage compared to the chasing aircraft due to the speed they lose in the turn, and would have to be careful that they are not being tracked with SARH missiles. [edit] Similarly armed targets The other main engagement scenario is against other aircraft with fire-and-forget missiles like the Vympel R-77 (NATO AA-12 "Adder") — perhaps MiG-29s, Su-27s or similar. In this case engagement is very much down to teamwork and could be described as "a game of chicken." Both flights of aircraft can fire their missiles at each other beyond visual range (BVR), but then face the problem that if they continue to track the target aircraft in order to provide mid-course updates for the missile's flight, they are also flying into their opponents' missiles. Although in this regard the RVV-AE (which is the missile's export name or R-77 the official Russian Air force designation) does have an advantage as it has a greater range than the AMRAAM (when the AIM-120D is deployed the AMRAAM will have 30+ miles more range than the standard R-77[citation needed] but much less than the ramjet powered R-77M and the Meteor missiles which will also enter service along with AIM-120D). This assumes of course that all aircraft will detect each other.[/QUOTE] Where in here is there a single turning radius? Burden of proof is on you. You say it was designed for slow targets. It wasn't. It was designed to counter air to air threats, aka fighters. You were confusing it for the AIM-7. [QUOTE]AIM-7 Sparrow MRM The AIM-7 Sparrow medium range missile (MRM) was purchased by the US Navy from original developer Howard Hughes[7] in the 1950s as its first operational air-to-air missile with "beyond visual range" (BVR) capability. With an effective range of about 12 miles (19 km), it was introduced as a radar beam riding missile and then it was improved to a semiactive radar guided missile which would home in on reflections from a target illuminated by the radar of the launching aircraft. It was effective at visual to beyond visual range. The early beam riding versions of the Sparrow missiles were integrated onto the F3H Demon and F7U Cutlass, but the definitive AIM-7 Sparrow was the primary weapon for the all-weather F-4 Phantom II fighter/interceptor, which lacked an internal gun in its early U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and early U.S. Air Force versions. The F - 4 carried up to four AIM-7s in built-in recesses under its belly. Although[B] designed for non-maneuvering targets such as bombers[/B], due to poor performance against fighters over North Vietnam, these missiles were progressively improved until they proved highly effective in dogfights. Together with the short range infrared guided AIM-9 Sidewinder, they replaced the AIM-4 Falcon IR and radar guided series for use in air combat by the USAF as well. A disadvantage to semiactive homing was that only one target could be illuminated by the launching fighter plane at a time. Also, the launching aircraft had to remain pointed in the direction of the target (within the azimuth and elevation of its own radar set) which could be difficult or dangerous in air-to-air combat.[/QUOTE] [editline]16th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE]Even Sukhoi markets the capability to out maneuver a AMRAAM in their technology demo's[/QUOTE] Lol, really? They say that? Then it must be true. [editline]16th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE]Its globally accepted[/QUOTE] Well it clearly isn't.

[QUOTE=Apache249;38482418]Didn't we already establish the ausairpower is full of shit, to which you responded "it's cited by many people" as a reason for why it's legitimate? Also, Where in here is there a single turning radius? Burden of proof is on you. You say it was designed for slow targets. It wasn't. It was designed to counter air to air threats, aka fighters. You were confusing it for the AIM-7.[/QUOTE] Are you blind? [QUOTE]The kill probability (Pk) is determined by several factors, including aspect (head-on interception, side-on or tail-chase), altitude, the speed of the missile and the target, and how hard the target can turn. Typically, if the missile has sufficient energy during the terminal phase, which comes from being launched at close range to the target from an aircraft with an altitude and speed advantage, it will have a good chance of success. This chance drops as the missile is fired at longer ranges as it runs out of overtake speed at long ranges, and if the target can force the missile to turn it might bleed off enough speed that it can no longer chase the target. Operationally, the missile, which was designed for beyond visual range combat, has a Pk of 46% when fired at targets beyond visual range (13 missiles for 6 kills). In addition, the targets lacked missile warning systems, were not maneuvering, and were not attempting to engage the fighter that fired the AMRAAM. One of the targets was a US Army Blackhawk helicopter.[12][/QUOTE] And APA is infact reputable, I believe someone tried to say it was not simply because they made a article on assessment of the current state of a prototype aircraft. Which is fair, I don't see how it isn't. Why are you even bothering? If you're going to put the burden of proof on me, even though this is accepted by almost everybody including air forces why don't you provide proof saying it can't? Plus, you still have not sourced where you quoted me saying the Su-35 could out do a F-22 in BVR, the burden of proof is on you, as you say. Thats 2 sources on 0 sources, you can do the rest of the research(hint, google).

[QUOTE]Are you blind?[/QUOTE] I asked for a quantifiable comparison between an AMRAAM and other missiles in terms of maneuverability. I asked for turning radii. You provided neither. [QUOTE] they made a article on assessment of the current state of a prototype aircraft. Which is fair, I don't see how it isn't.[/QUOTE] You cited it in an argument for the production aircraft. [QUOTE]Why are you even bothering?[/QUOTE] :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Apache249;38482482]I asked for a quantifiable comparison between an AMRAAM and other missiles in terms of maneuverability. I asked for turning radii. You provided neither. You cited it in an argument for the production aircraft. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] So.. how exactly does me citing a dated but still relevant article make APA shit? I'd say your argument i If you did some research by yourself you would find numerous articles/people saying the same thing as I. Also, given that you agreed with stupidass I'm going to assume you know nothing considering his post was horribly wrong and based on nothing but "AMERICA IS DOMINATE mentality".

As a Florida native I can confirm that Florida is okay. I just texted my parents and they are okay too. Never forget.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38482517]So.. how exactly does me citing a dated but still relevant article make APA shit? I'd say your argument i[/quote] I never said that they were full of shit because you cited them. I said it wasn't fair. [QUOTE] If you did some research by yourself you would find numerous articles/people saying the same thing[/QUOTE] Show me. Don't fucking tell me to searching through the archives. It's on you.

[QUOTE=Apache249;38482541](1)I never said that they were full of shit because you cited them. I said it wasn't fair. (2)Show me. Don't fucking tell me to searching through the archives. It's on you.[/QUOTE] 1. "Didn't we already establish the ausairpower is full of shit" 2. I did, just because you don't accept the sources doesn't mean its incorrect.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38482554]1. "Didn't we already establish the ausairpower is full of shit"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Apache249;38482541]I never said that they were full of shit [B]because you cited them[/B]. I said it wasn't fair. [/QUOTE] I didn't go back and say they weren't full of shit. [QUOTE]2. I did, just because you don't accept the sources doesn't mean its incorrect.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Apache249;38482482]I asked for a quantifiable comparison between an AMRAAM and other missiles in terms of maneuverability. I asked for turning radii. You provided neither. [/QUOTE] You still haven't. You cited an article portion which stated that missiles bleed off energy to maneuver. All missiles do that. Read my post again. Specific comparisons. Specific turning radii. Not basic fucking knowledge about missile mechanics.

[QUOTE=Apache249;38482605]I didn't go back and say they weren't full of shit. You still haven't. You cited an article portion which stated that missiles bleed off energy to maneuver. All missiles do that. Read my post again. Specific comparisons. Specific turning radii. Not basic fucking knowledge about missile mechanics.[/QUOTE] The APA article had a kind of humerous section comparing the BVR strengths. You can go read the source I provided, I'm not going to post non-existent comparisons because they're likely classified. Its a marketed strength, and even American analysts say its true.. I'm going to wager on it being somewhat true since it makes sense. Its a large missile with a engine that is consistently running during operation. It can't turn well because the I'm pretty sure that the rocket motor runs out of fuel rather quickly, thus when it turns it looses speed and thus the evading jet can out run it after pulling a high g turn. Once the motor is out, its constantly decelerating, thus kill probability is low if you're a F-35 which can't catch up to the evading aircraft and has to run and hide once its precious AIM-120's are gone. That is why they use a extremely maneuverable missile for short range and a low maneuverable missile for BVR. It makes sense, otherwise they would have a universal missile for all tasks. And yeah, you said "Didn't we already establish the ausairpower is full of shit" when I provided them as a reputable source. To which I questioned you on then you backpedaled and said you never said that.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38482652]You can go read the source I provided, I'm not going to post non-existent comparisons because they're likely classified. [/QUOTE] No, it's because even if they do exist, you don't have them. [QUOTE]even American analysts say its true.. [/QUOTE] Source [QUOTE]. It can't turn that well because it bleeds speed trying to do, and its engine is always running and its a heavy missile which pretty much says large turning radius.[/QUOTE] Your reasoning is sound, other than the engine always running, but once again, you don't know the extent to which it is more maneuverable to a shorter range missile. You say "oh an AIM-9X might be able to hit it, but an AMRAAM probably won't because it's a lot less maneuverable." But you don't know the actual difference in maneuverability. [QUOTE]And yeah, you said "Didn't we already establish the ausairpower is full of shit" when I provided them as a reputable source. To which I questioned you on then you backpedaled and said you never said that.[/QUOTE] I never denied saying that it is full of shit. You said [QUOTE]And APA is infact reputable, I believe someone tried to say it was not simply because they made a article on assessment of the current state of a prototype aircraft. Which is fair, I don't see how it isn't.[/QUOTE] I said [QUOTE]You cited it in an argument for the production aircraft.[/QUOTE] You responded with [QUOTE]So.. how exactly does me citing a dated but still relevant article make APA shit? I'd say your argument i[/QUOTE] Once again, I wasn't arguing that they are shit because you cited them, but that you citing them in the context wasn't fair (the first time you cited them, not in this thread). [editline]16th November 2012[/editline] I wasn't trying to discredit them by saying you cited them. It was you who originally tried to credit them by saying that others cited them.

[QUOTE=Apache249;38482849]No, it's because even if they do exist, you don't have them. Source Your reasoning is sound, other than the engine always running, but once again, you don't know the extent to which it is more maneuverable to a shorter range missile. You say "oh an AIM-9X might be able to hit it, but an AMRAAM probably won't because it's a lot less maneuverable." But you don't know the actual difference in maneuverability. I never denied saying that it is full of shit. You said I said You responded with Once again, I wasn't arguing that they are shit because you cited them, but that you citing them in the context wasn't fair (the first time you cited them, not in this thread). [editline]16th November 2012[/editline] I wasn't trying to discredit them by saying you cited them. It was you who originally tried to credit them by saying that others cited them.[/QUOTE] Okay, I'm just saying just because the context I used them in might have been unfair in a previous thread does not make them shit. I don't know the max G load the missile can take, if I did I could give you a better answer. But given the characteristics of the missile it seems to me and many others that it would be fairly easy for a flanker to out turn it given enough time and warning. I found a good article explaining the physics, actually yeah this is a insanely good article. [QUOTE]Also some bad news for AIM-120D - physics says Su-35 can outturn the AIM-120D. Mathematics here is a bit tricky, but works like this. Missile must follow track of turning aircraft, and G force in a turn is square of true speed. After firing from Mach 1.5, slow to Mach 0.95 and descent to 12,000 metres – this about 900 kph and good turning speed for Sukhoi. AIM-120D rocket second pulse burning push speed up to about Mach 3.5. Ratio 3.5 / 0.95 = 3.7 which squared is 13.5. So AIM-120D must pull 13.5 times G bigger than Sukhoi. Some say biggest possible G of AIM-120D is 30, so divide by 13.5 and get Sukhoi to pull only 2.2 G to outturn AIM-120D. This is very easy I think[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-200408-1.html[/url]

If I was an airplane I'd have sex with the F-22.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38472007]The joke doesn't quite work when American aircraft are some of the best on the planet.[/QUOTE] What heresy. Your aircraft may be the best on the measly planet of yours, but not the best in the Universe.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38482916]Okay, I'm just saying just because the context I used them in might have been unfair in a previous thread does not make them shit.[/QUOTE] And as I've shown, I never said it does. [QUOTE]I don't know the max G load the missile can take, if I did I could give you a better answer. [/QUOTE] G load is not an accurate measure of maneuverability [QUOTE]But given the characteristics of the missile it seems to me and many others that it would be fairly easy for a flanker to out turn it given enough time and warning.[/QUOTE] It's fine if you think that. I'm perfectly accepting of your opinion and your logic, provided your though process is somewhat sound. However, stop appealing to these mysterious "masses" which are conveniently always on your side. It doesn't make you any more credible to "I believe this and so do many others."

Well it sort of does, when you turn at a high speed it requires a higher maximum G load then it does when flying at a lower speed. Thus the missile would need to pull more G to turn at the same rate the evading jet would. And turning at such a high rate of speed would cause significant speed loss if it would be out of fuel by the time it got near the jet. The math was explained in the article I recently posted.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38483139]Well it sort of does, when you turn at a high speed it requires a higher maximum G load then it does when flying at a lower speed. Thus the missile would need to pull more G to turn at the same rate the evading jet would. And turning at such a high rate of speed would cause significant speed loss considering it would be out of fuel by the time it hit. The math was explained in the article I recently posted.[/QUOTE] G load is not an accurate measurement of maneuverability. G load itself does not mean anything.

[QUOTE=Apache249;38483155]G load is not an accurate measurement of maneuverability. G load itself does not mean anything.[/QUOTE] By itself, it does infact mean.. maximum g load. It can be a accurate measurement if you know other factors such as speed/engagement range etc, the math is posted above.

[QUOTE=laserguided;38483192]By itself, it does infact mean.. maximum g load. It can be a accurate measurement if you know other factors such as speed/engagement range etc, the math is posted above.[/QUOTE] I understand that, but I me seeing a list of maximum G loads for various missiles isn't going to help me nor you. If we had access to turning radii, we'd have conclusive evidence, because flying things don't usually turn tightest at its G load.