F22 toast vs Su35

Browsing news this morning and nearly spat out my coffee..Thought I read something like this before and went WTF?Do reporters bother do ANY real research or have any idea on real world Air to Air Combat?
au.finance.yahoo.com...

The US's F-22 doesn't visibly store weapons and relies on stealth, so coming face-to-face with an advanced Russian fighter would put it at a disadvantage.

a reply to: Blackfinger

No, no they do not....

a reply to: Blackfinger

HOLY CRAP you mean every F-22 Ive ever seen was Winchester???????????

a reply to: TheLead

I am not so sure that is a very sound summary!

a reply to: Blackfinger

I read the Business Insider copy of this last year. It's just as funny now as it was then. I lost just as many IQ points then too.

a reply to: Blackfinger

I just read the article, and I feel like it is poorly written, but in context the statement isn't too extreme. The whole point of the article is that the F-22 as an interceptor under today's ROE is placed at a disadvantage by coming into visual range and parking off someone's wingtip and telling them to get lost. So if we read the bullet point with that in mind, "face-to-face" means closing within visual range and making a visual ID right next to some guy. And that certainly negates a lot of the Raptors' advantages.

It's a fluff article full of things that make me say, "No kidding" and "Why does that matter", but I don't think it's saying what you're trying to make it say with that quote.

In a real situation the SU35 would be destroyed before the pilot knew he was being targeted.

What in the world did I just read.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Blackfinger

I just read the article, and I feel like it is poorly written, but in context the statement isn't too extreme. The whole point of the article is that the F-22 as an interceptor under today's ROE is placed at a disadvantage by coming into visual range and parking off someone's wingtip and telling them to get lost. So if we read the bullet point with that in mind, "face-to-face" means closing within visual range and making a visual ID right next to some guy. And that certainly negates a lot of the Raptors' advantages.

It's a fluff article full of things that make me say, "No kidding" and "Why does that matter", but I don't think it's saying what you're trying to make it say with that quote.

I agree they give up their advantage the moment they try to warn off an aircraft. But you also will have the pilot wondering what else is out there i can't see.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Blackfinger

I read the Business Insider copy of this last year. It's just as funny now as it was then. I lost just as many IQ points then too.

You know, this is the sort of nonsense that honestly makes me fear for the future of then human race.

After our generation dies off, how are these retards going to figure out which hole to sh*t from if, God forbid, they aren't able to look it up online?

originally posted by: SR1TX
In a real situation the SU35 would be destroyed before the pilot knew he was being targeted.

Except the article is discussing a very particular very real situation where that necessarily doesn't happen. That's the entire point of the article.


And honestly, while I would much rather have two Raptors than six Sukhois, it isn't nearly that cut and dry in a "real situation" . What happens, for example, when the Raptor is out of range of ASW support and isn't radiating or encounters heavy ECM, but happens to blunder into IRST range of the Sukhoi?

So, the calculation of what is better is based on the number of missiles carried, so the Su-35 wins that comparison competition, and by extension is the better plane. Is that really what journalism has come down to?

It shouldn't be about what is the better plane but which air force has the better strategy. Obviously the F22 is the better plane but from recent announcements the Russians seem to be going down the numbers route and in that instance are a very frightening prospect. NATO run out of missiles before all targets are down..

a reply to: Blackfinger This is typically average reporting by msm standards. That’s. Moronically Stupid Media . My money is on a F22 in about any situation .

Misunderstanding Lt. Col. David "Chip" Berke to that extent is highly irritating.

The entire point is that in the age of highly maneuverable missiles, actually getting to the merge can lead to disaster, with low win:loss ratios, or even mutual kill scenarios. This is true with an F-14 flying against a Mig-28 as an F-22 flying against a Su-35. BVR, and this is something that has been true for a very long time, is where the truly lopsided advantage of the F-22, F-14 and F-15 (when they were new) develop.

That was an undebatable lesson of ACEVAL & AIMVAL:

en.wikipedia.org...

In terms of a routine intercept, excluding the speed advantage of the Raptor that allows it to get to places fast, they largely do not utilize the unique characteristics of the F-22 such as stealth and highly advanced avionics. At this point I don't think the Raptor has JHMCS or the latest version of AIM-9X either. So yes, if an intercept went "hot" during WVR, the Raptors advantages would be largely negated (of course, his wingman would probably be sitting BVR ready to blow everything out of the sky). But if the decision had already been made to blow the Russian aircraft out of the sky before the merge, then the F-22 would be very, very good at that, as the F-14 was when it still had the Phoenix.

Regarding internal weapon carriage, maybe the Russians should assume that every F-22 is armed. Also the F-22 can carry 8 missiles. It would be rare for the Su-35 to be carrying more on a long range mission. External missiles add drag - it's rare to see real world aircraft with absurd load-outs because they hinder combat performance rather than help it.

Anyway, a 40 year old upgraded F-15 armed with JHMCS, AIM-9X Block II, AIM-120D, AESA, and Legion Pod will be more than a match for a brand-spanking-new Su-35, BVR or WVR. It might be smarter to use the F-22 where it is really needed.

a reply to: biggilo

Russia has moderate but not large numbers of advanced 4th generation aircraft and are almost irrelevant on the 5th generation front.

a reply to: C0bzz

The weapon bay cycles awful quick. I'm sure you could always give them a peek. But as you say, it's probably safe to simply assume the interceptor is armed. It's one of the "so what"" -moments in the article.

I still think he's just a poor writer and people are taking "face-to-face" out of context, as it were.

And you have to remember that the F22's cannon only fires marshmallows. But the SU35 fires supper dupa killer rounds that not only kill your plane and you but everyone you love and have every known.

Bad times!

RAB

a reply to: C0bzzd
Basically this and the question is really not who will kill whom during an WVR encounter turning hostile but what happens afterwards. One downed F-22 would mean next to nothing if the ballon goes up and ROEs out of the window...

a reply to: mightmight

Also if a F-22 was taken down WVR, you can bet his BVR buddy would take out the perpetrators.

The CONOPS of 5th generation fighters generally involves a multiple aircraft flying at distances separated by at least several and sometimes tens of nautical miles, with stealthy datalinks sharing information between them, often alternating between who is emitting and who isn't. Whilst it's called the Raptor after the bird of prey, I think it is much more fitting for it to be named after the Velociraptor (the F-35 can be the Panther).

Relevant:

Start at 0:18



It's like suicide by cop. Suicide by F-22. I know this site is monitored by the Russian government, so here's a message to them. I dare you to try it. How suicidal are you feeling today? Я знаю, что этот сайт контролируется российским правительством, поэтому вот сообщение для них. Смею вас попробовать.

The Su-35 is merely "Kellogs 4th gen flakes" (see my avatar) that the F-22/F-35 eat for breakfast. Not to mention the F-22/F-35 are 6 times as numerous and 6 months of full rate F-35 production will be equivalent to every Su-35 that has ever been built. Numbers my ass.

Anyone want to link this thread to the Business Insider journalist?