Raptor vs Eagle

Stubby wrote:

It is
the electronics that lets this happen and that is independent of the
airframe and missiles.

In a nuclear exchange, much of the electronics will be useless at least some of
the time. We seem to be headed in that direction with regard to Korea.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

I suspect the "superiority" is largely a function of better radar- the
ability to track more targets at the same time or from a greater distance.
Most of these shots were probably beyond visual range AMRAAM launches, not
1v1 dogfighting.

On the other hand, if they merged, it might be a lot different fight.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:12:19 +0000, Viperdoc wrote:

I suspect the "superiority" is largely a function of better radar- the

Known as "stealth radar". Sounds wierd, but one of the new technologies
that came out of the F-22 project is the ability to actively track targets
via radar from a stealthy plane, while remaining "hidden" to enemy radar.
So yes, it is largely a function of a better radar system.

It is only known that "stealth radar" exists and is on the F-22. Exactly
what that means or how it works is not something they are openly sharing.

ability to track more targets at the same time or from a greater distance.
Most of these shots were probably beyond visual range AMRAAM launches, not
1v1 dogfighting.

This is true. Having said that, with the shoot down of a 117, enemies
have been able to get a boost in stealth technologies from the scavenged
parts. Russia is known to have their own steath program in the works, to
which parts of the downed 117 is known have have gone. Countries in
Europe are also known to have their own stealth programs underway.
Countries such as France and Russia are both known to contribute
significant technologies to rogue nations; where Iraq is a classic
example. Long story short, in a decade or two, is is possible rogue
nations will have the technology to present a real 1v1 threat. After all,
if neither side can be see on radar at range, that greatly decreases
contact range. In turn, it greatly incrases the odds where 1v1 dog
fighting becomes critical.


On the other hand, if they merged, it might be a lot different fight.

I'm not sure what that means.

Greg

Looks like Lockheed's got another winner. (I just hope it isn't the last manned fighter aircraft...)
--
The most amazing thing was watching the raptor fire missiles while the airplane was rolling very fast. I've never
seen a jet do that. The ability to super cruise and the vectored thrust would make this the best fighter in the
world without all of the electronic wizardry and stealth capability.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

JJS wrote:
The most amazing thing was watching the raptor fire missiles while the airplane was rolling very fast. I've never
seen a jet do that. The ability to super cruise and the vectored thrust would make this the best fighter in the
world without all of the electronic wizardry and stealth capability.

Good against your own is one thing, how does it do against the Mig-29,
Su-31, SAAB-Griffon, Eurofighter, Mirage, etc and foreign pilots?
I want to see that on The History Channel!

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:52:39 -0500, "JJS" jschneider@remove socks
cebridge.net wrote:

The most amazing thing was watching the raptor fire missiles while the airplane was rolling very fast. I've never
seen a jet do that. The ability to super cruise and the vectored thrust would make this the best fighter in the
world without all of the electronic wizardry and stealth capability.

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it? you already can have world
domination with the military arsenal you currently have. There is no logic
reason for even more military power.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

In article ,
Martin Hotze wrote:

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it?

Advance/upgrade. Status quo leads to stagnation. Plus, this
aircraft will allow for better survivability of the pilot. I don't
know about you, but I like the idea of the pilot having improved
odds of surviving a mission.

you already can have world domination with the military arsenal
you currently have.

World domination isn't the purpose/mssion of the US military.

There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 07:29:48 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

and what are you (the USA) going to do with it?

Advance/upgrade. Status quo leads to stagnation. Plus, this
aircraft will allow for better survivability of the pilot. I don't
know about you, but I like the idea of the pilot having improved
odds of surviving a mission.


almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

you already can have world domination with the military arsenal
you currently have.

World domination isn't the purpose/mssion of the US military.

no, not of your military.

There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

my point stays: there is no LOGIC reason. are your F22 (?) pilots falling
out of the sky without any good reason? Or are they losing air combats (too
often)?

IMHO it is useless waste of money. but this is your money, not mine.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

In article ,
Martin Hotze wrote:

almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

"almost nobody" isn't the same as "nobody". So your conclusion is incorrect.
Also, even if nobody else improved their weapon systems, the fact remains
that the F-22 is more survivable than the F-15. Since you claimed that
there is no logical reason for the F-22, and I presented one of the reasons
for the F-22, your claim is incorrect.

There is no logic reason for even more military power.

see above.

my point stays:

if you say so, not.

there is no LOGIC reason. are your F22 (?) pilots falling
out of the sky without any good reason? Or are they losing air combats (too
often)?

You need to think about future threats, not just current ones.

IMHO it is useless waste of money.

There are useful waste of money? ;-)

but this is your money, not mine.

Well, you got something right.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article , Martin Hotze wrote:

almost nobody else invest this huge pile of money into such new
developments. So you and your pilots will still stay as safe as you are
now.

Almost... "Red Chinese Military Buildup Aimed at U.S." One of a few
hundred links: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2.../27/120722.txt

I suppose the response will be that the peaceful Chinese are just
defending themselves against the U.S. imperialist running dogs