Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/20/2004 8:53:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 9:00:07 AM EST by WolverineAtWork]
Schweet!!

66.232.154.15/062904/greta_raptor_062804_300.wmv

Edit: Fixed it, thx LS..
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:57:16 AM EST
try this one.
yours needs fixed.

66.232.154.15/062904/greta_raptor_062804_300.wmv
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:58:24 AM EST
That's a bad ass airplane! They need to hurry up and get it into service!
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 8:58:43 AM EST
very cool !
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 9:00:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 9:00:41 AM EST by Greenhorn]
In the NovaLogic games, they made the F-22 the LEAST maneuverable jet in existance.
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 9:00:51 AM EST
Thats definately a sweet machine! Aren't they making some sort of newer, smaller one that is more cost effective?
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 9:02:47 AM EST
One bad mf.......

I hope next time she gets plastic surgery she gets that crooked mouth thing fixed.....
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 9:06:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
Thats definately a sweet machine! Aren't they making some sort of newer, smaller one that is more cost effective?



No your thinking of the JSF - it has a different role (and it not as capable). The F22 is replacing the F-15 and the JSF will replace the F-16 (for the USAF) and the Harries (for the USMC).
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 9:07:34 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 11:54:02 AM EST
I talked with the USAF aggressor squadron commander from Nellis a couple months ago... This is a guy who has flown both the F-16 and F-15, about 1500 hours each (which is a huge amount of hours in a fighter) so he is extremely experienced in flying our best jets and knows how the enemy is "supposed" to fight... Anyhow, he gets to fly against the Raptor from time to time and it smokes all who challenge it! This is what the USAF needs to stay above the rest of the world's air forces and all our victories since Vietnam have been based on our aerial superiority...

Spooky
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:00:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/20/2004 12:03:24 PM EST by brasspile]
Link Posted: 8/20/2004 12:13:47 PM EST
ARFCOM Group Buy... com'n guys!
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:19:04 AM EST
Very cool video.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:27:44 AM EST
Well, the cool thing, it downloaded in 1 second! But what sucked, I only got the audio. Where'd the video part go to?

I can say that if the F-22 can just "toy" with an F-16, then there isn't anything flying that is a serious challenge to it! Get that puppy into active squadrons as soon as possible. And please build more of them than current plans call for. I knew it was a damn good plane, but it sounds even better than I had thought!
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 7:40:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
Thats definately a sweet machine! Aren't they making some sort of newer, smaller one that is more cost effective?



No your thinking of the JSF - it has a different role (and it not as capable). The F22 is replacing the F-15 and the JSF will replace the F-16 (for the USAF) and the Harries (for the USMC).



Yup, exactly what I was talking about. I have to admit though...its one ugly aircraft (not the F22, the JSF).
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 7:42:31 AM EST
The F-22 and F-35 look very similar to me. The biggest difference being the F-35 has a single engine. Both look bad-assed to me and would strike terror in the hearts of MiG drivers around the world.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 7:56:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:01:26 AM EST
I like the F22, but that's a pretty crappy story.
Comparing an F16 to it? with a civie sitting inside, at that? Most maneuverable? Maybe in our arsenal, but it's certainly not the most maneuverable fighter out there. Lots of nitpicky things which make that story sound like CNN reporting on guns.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:06:00 AM EST
Can I pre-order mine yet for when the AWB expires?
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:19:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:24:50 AM EST
I have to agree. Aircraft design has pretty much reached and exceeded the limits of the pilots already. So making a plane more maneuverable than what we already have will just be wasted performance, since the pilot can't take it anyway. All of the more modern highly maneuverable planes like the F-16, F-18, MiG-29, SU-27/30/33, Mirage 2000, Eurofighter, etc have amazing performance. But I see the real advantage in the future falling to advanced avionics and weapons systems. Stealth is also a biggie as it's hard to locate, track and fire at what you can't see. So if your radar can track the enemy while you remain hidden and your weapons are more accurate, more reliable and have longer range, that's how you win. I'm really not sure at this point what we can do to aircraft to make them much better. Everyone has advanced weapons it seems these days. If the pilots were considered equal, I'd hate to see a 20 plane furball. It would be major carnage for everyone. Right now stealth is the advantage we have over our enemies. If stealth becomes obsolete (and it likely will sooner or later), then I think we'll see a shift toward remote control fighter/bombers. As weapons systems become more sophisticated, it will keep becoming more and more difficult for aircraft to survive.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:29:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
It's not affected by the ban.

But the weapons systems are DEFINITELY in the DD category!


Hey....if you've really got the bucks, I'm sure Lockheed would make you a sterilized version. No weapons systems or electronic countermeasures, and regular paint instead of radar absorptive coatings. In the time it takes them to make it for you, you can take all the flight training you'd need to be authorized to fly it. About 1500 flight hours, minimum.

Estimated cost for this special version: 120 million dollars. Cash, check, or postal money orders accepted.

Meanwhile....for a few hundred thousand bucks you could theoretically purchase a disarmed F-16A MLU (equivalent to a block 30 C model) from any of a couple of European countries that are withdrawing their older F-16s from service due to budget cuts. Belgium and Holland are both dong this. And as their planes were made in the Fokker plant, technically they're not of US origin and could legally be imported to the US under private ownership if they were in fact disarmed.

Nobody's yet tested that theory yet. Want to be the first? Estimated cost of operation per flight hour: 15,000 to 20,000 dollars.

CJ



Hey, you think we could convince Tatjana to buy one of these instead of the plane she was talking about before? I'm sure an F-16 would meet her requirements for range, maximum speed and altitude requirements!

BTW, I am only kidding. But it sure would be cool wouldn't it? An ARF.com air force would surely get the attention of the DU trolls who harass us!
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:30:29 AM EST

CooL
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 8:39:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 5:27:52 PM EST
Actually, I wouldn't call the video that misleading, other than the fact that Greta Van Sustern has nothing to base her comments on. The F-16 that was being flow was slick. Give it a typical loadout and you suddenly have a significantly g limited aircraft. The F-22 isn't g limited since it's stores are carried internally.


Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
That video was a bit misleading.

If the F-16 pilot were using his full maneuvering abilities, the superiority of the F-22 would not appear to be so great. But of course, the F-16 pilot was taking it easy on his back seater so that she could remain conscious during the flight.

Yes, the F-22 IS a more maneuverable plane, but there are certain limits on where and how that additional maneuverability can be utilized.

Both the F-16 and the F-22 limit maneuvers to 9 Gs, which at the limit of what a well trained
and prepared pilot can take. Both airframes are capable of even stiffer maneuvers, though.

If you're in the range of airspeed and altitude that allows maneuvering at a full 9 Gs, the only way that the F-22 is going to get a commanding advantage is by use of thrust vectoring. You can't pull the plane past 9 Gs no matter what you do and you wouldn't want to.

The situation is more advantageous to the F-22 at lower airspeeds when normal flight control systems can't generate the forces required to hold the plane at 9 Gs. The thrust vectoring systems now allow this to happen.

Sorry, Greta. You got the LITE version of an F-16 ride, and the F-16 is no dog! It'll outperform the pilot's endurance. The F-22's advantages are thrust vectoring, stealth, supercruise, and top speed. Those are all considerable factors. but the comparison you received is hardly a valid or accurate picture.


CJ

Link Posted: 8/21/2004 5:56:08 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:05:25 PM EST
Damn that is a bass ass bird
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:12:30 PM EST
As genius as the Raptor is, the JSF blows my skirt much farther up. Just something about the STOVL capabilities and watching the exhaust vector 90 degrees in less than a second is amazing.
Link Posted: 8/21/2004 6:17:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By blatherman:
Actually, I wouldn't call the video that misleading, other than the fact that Greta Van Sustern has nothing to base her comments on. The F-16 that was being flow was slick. Give it a typical loadout and you suddenly have a significantly g limited aircraft. The F-22 isn't g limited since it's stores are carried internally.


Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
That video was a bit misleading.

If the F-16 pilot were using his full maneuvering abilities, the superiority of the F-22 would not appear to be so great. But of course, the F-16 pilot was taking it easy on his back seater so that she could remain conscious during the flight.

Yes, the F-22 IS a more maneuverable plane, but there are certain limits on where and how that additional maneuverability can be utilized.

Both the F-16 and the F-22 limit maneuvers to 9 Gs, which at the limit of what a well trained
and prepared pilot can take. Both airframes are capable of even stiffer maneuvers, though.

If you're in the range of airspeed and altitude that allows maneuvering at a full 9 Gs, the only way that the F-22 is going to get a commanding advantage is by use of thrust vectoring. You can't pull the plane past 9 Gs no matter what you do and you wouldn't want to.

The situation is more advantageous to the F-22 at lower airspeeds when normal flight control systems can't generate the forces required to hold the plane at 9 Gs. The thrust vectoring systems now allow this to happen.

Sorry, Greta. You got the LITE version of an F-16 ride, and the F-16 is no dog! It'll outperform the pilot's endurance. The F-22's advantages are thrust vectoring, stealth, supercruise, and top speed. Those are all considerable factors. but the comparison you received is hardly a valid or accurate picture.


CJ




The F/A-22 was not performing to its full capabilities either.
Top Top