04 Dec 10
1 edit
The Raptor, hands down, because it carries it's weapons internally. The others depend on 9 or more external hardpoints under the wings to carry bombs & missiles, which drastically reduces speed, range, and manueverability. Fully armed the Raptor is still Mach 2+, plus it's stealth, etc. make it the winner.
04 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf we are talking about 21stC warfare, first tell me how is it that our opponent has managed to get aircraft airborne?
for anybody that knows anything about it,
The MiG 35
The Eurofighter
The F-22 Raptor
Which would you rather fly in air to air combat?
04 Dec 10
2 edits
The F22 would obliterate both those others easily. The Mig31 isn't even a fighter. It's designed to take out bombers. The F22 and Typhoon are also interceptors, but they're also air superiority fighters.
I do love the Mig31 though. It's a cool plane. We don't have pure interceptors like that any more. Even the F-14 was required to be a capable fighter in addition to an interceptor.
04 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothWell, China invades Taiwan is one scenario.
If we are talking about 21stC warfare, first tell me how is it that our opponent has managed to get aircraft airborne?
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-61753.aspx
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3774348
04 Dec 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes very good.
The F22 would obliterate both those others easily. The Mig31 isn't even a fighter. It's designed to take out bombers. The F22 and Typhoon are also interceptors, but they're also air superiority fighters.
I do love the Mig31 though. It's a cool plane. We don't have pure interceptors like that any more. Even the F-14 was required to be a capable fighter in addition to an interceptor.
Out of curiosity I've been googling all three aircraft and their capabilities, there's simply no comparison, especially when loaded with bombs/missiles, the F-22 is the latest generation, the euro and Mig-35 are old news.
Cleaned up and unarmed they do quite well as far as speed/manueverability, but are still a smidge short of the raptor....with weapons.
Case closed
04 Dec 10
1 edit
Raptors cannot be hit with any kind of missile. They won't lock on to it.
Since we're talking about the Typhoon, we might as well bring out the Rafale too. It's the French mini-Typhoon that flies from the Charles du Gaulle aircraft carrier. It has quite a few French fanboys over at strategypage.
04 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFokker Dr. 1, built 1917,
for anybody that knows anything about it,
The MiG 35
The Eurofighter
The F-22 Raptor
Which would you rather fly in air to air combat?
powered by Thulin-built Le Rhone 9J 9-cylinder air-cooled rotary 110 HP engine,
weighed 1,289 lbs., max. speed of 103 MPH, max. ceiling of 19,685 feet,
2 synchronized Spandau machine guns
04 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonLOL yeah that was the big boy of it's time, my favorite all time is the McDonald-Douglas F-4 Phantom, used for almost 40 years and still a great all around fighter-bomber when it was finally retired in the early 90's.
Fokker Dr. 1, built 1917,
powered by Thulin-built Le Rhone 9J 9-cylinder air-cooled rotary 110 HP engine,
weighed 1,289 lbs., max. speed of 103 MPH, max. ceiling of 19,685 feet,
2 synchronized Spandau machine guns
04 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by leestaticIt's an upgrade of earlier aircraft, but still crippled by carrying it's weapons externally. It has 12 outside mounts to hang bombs/missiles off of.
If i were a beting man i'd go with the Sukhoi SU-37 Terminator not them wimpy planes.
They don't go fast or manuever well with a lotta garbage hanging off the wings.
The F-22 still wins hands down. Until they design a weapons system with internal carry, they will never equal the Raptor's speed/manueverability/stealth WHILE CARRYING WEAPONS.
Yeah it does great when flying clean and unarmed, but....so....what??
04 Dec 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Sam The Shamthe f-22 has a larger wingspan than the Eurofighter and simply cannot be as manoeuvrable as it or the MIG, its main capability is stealth, not air to air combat. That it wins hands down is hardly proven.
It's an upgrade of earlier aircraft, but still crippled by carrying it's weapons externally. It has 12 outside mounts to hang bombs/missiles off of.
They don't go fast or manuever well with a lotta garbage hanging off the wings.
The F-22 still wins hands down. Until they design a weapons system with internal carry, they will never equal the Raptor's speed/manueverability/stealth.
04 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Service_history
the f-22 has a larger wingspan than the Eurofighter and simply cannot be as manoeuvrable as it or the MIG, its main capability is stealth, not air to air combat. That it wins hands down is hardly proven.
During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, 12 F-22s of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses in simulated combat exercises.[20] In two weeks of exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat, and neither Blue Force loss was an F-22.
This was followed with the Raptor's first participation in a Red Flag exercise. Fourteen F-22s of the 94th FS supported attacking Blue Force strike packages as well as engaging in close air support sorties themselves in Red Flag 07-1 between 3 February and 16 February 2007. Against designed superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, it established air dominance using eight aircraft during day missions and six at night, reportedly defeating the Aggressors quickly and efficiently, even though the exercise rules of engagement allowed for four to five Red Force regenerations of losses but none to Blue Force.