afterburner

My Feedback: (18)

Because political correctness and the media is what controls how we fight wars today. We could win but this country doesn't have the stomach to do what it takes to fight this type of enemy.

Now, back to thrust vectored sitting targets. One positive note on the hovering jets is when the sidewinder, Amraam or guns hits him, the debris field will be much smaller and easier to clean up.

Marty

Woketman

My Feedback: (6)

It's OK with me Lee.

To keep this on-topic, I say drench the pig-sh_t bast_rd in Jet A and light him up with a Sky-Pipe!

Super Sean

My Feedback: (15)

ive seen been to several airshows were they flew the f-22. on takeoff the pilot pulled it straight up and just sat on the engines basicaly hovering. he also did a slow fly by and did a cobra. it looked like the plane stopped and went 90 degs straight up. it was pretty cool. also in san fransisco they flew right over the crowd and turned around in a very small radius. im 100% sure our f-22 could take on a mig. or sukhoi. the f-22 also has stealth and an advanced computer system in it. the f-22 is not a plane to be messed with.

just my thoughts

Airforce7

My Feedback: (31)

Super Sean,

I saw the same demo at SF this past fleet week. It was my first time seeing the production F-22. It was pretty cool to see the jet do the knife edge flight over the bay. And man were those jets loud!

Are you flying r/c jets in the Bay Area somewhere?

Ken

Strykaas

Not that impressive :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIAlQux0LZ4

Strykaas

The gun feature is neat though :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f5oIcS03_I

Fat Boy

Some of you are freakn' hilarious. Perhaps you should concider designing an attack platform...maybe one that suits your flying style...go fast, turn left...or right, depending on which direction the wind blows. Oh and "unlimited" vertical along with knife edge flight.

It's those capabilities in an aircraft that will win every confrontation.

You guys do realize that air brakes are used for more than just slowing down to land....right??

Turning radius not important??? I'd be willing to bet that any pilot that's had a missle make it past counter measures would tell you otherwise.

Go ahead...say it..."but with stealth capabilities that would never happen". Well I got news for ya'...if you can see it, you can shoot it. "Stealth" makes an aircraft "invisible" on radar....the aircraft dosen't actually "dissapear".


By the way...this is NOT directed at any one individual. It's for all you "old dogs" that can't be taught "new tricks"!!!

perttime

Somebody mentioned that the F-22 was loud. Probably not louder than a lot of other planes ...
but I believe there are systems that detect and track aircraft by sound. Sound is slow but it is still there...

JetflyerJ

My Feedback: (67)

I would love to see that type of flying live, I keep watching that video over and over. ...


I love it, thanks again for posting and sorry for all the huffing and puffing on who's best or who's got the best of anything.

Red B.

For those of you who dismiss the maneuverability of the Russians jets as useless because of the energy doctrine, I would like to remind you that doctrines have been proven wrong before.

In WWII, the Eight Air Force entered the European arena firmly believing in a doctrine that stated that US bombers were so heavily armoured and so heavily armed that they could reach their targets and destroy German war-making capabilities without any fighter support. Reality proved that theory wrong.

Prior to the Vietnam war a US doctrine claimed that dogfights where a thing of the past and hence no internal cannons where needed on fighter aircraft. When the doctrine was tested in actual combat against skilled opponents it was quickly proven wrong by pilots flying cannon-less F-4 Phantoms.

Remember when watching the movies that the MIG 29 was designed as an inexpensive aircraft for the WP countries that first flew in 1977. In contrast, the F-22 first flew in 1990(?) and according to the US Government Accountability Office (April 2006) the cost is $361 million per aircraft...

I may be uninformed, but what competent airforce will the F-22 be fighting? Will it be of any use to fight the next Fallujah? Will it be of any use in fourth generation warfare? Will it be of any help in maintaining post-conflict stability?

/Red B.

Airforce7

My Feedback: (31)

Red B.,

You seem to be well educated. But, ultimately air power is only a piece of the puzzle. You still have to win on the ground. Since you are not from US, why is the US spending so much money on defense, especially aviation, in your opinion?

By the way, I like the looks of your countries JAS 39 Gripen!

Ken

>>>>>>Looks like you edited your original post, so I'll edit mine. You don't know the answer to my question. Anybody know why we're spending so much money? Who are we staying ahead of, China? I saw a picture of there latest fighter jet, looks like a copy of the F-16/Grippen/Eurofighter.

causeitflies

Just a note... the F22 in the above movie is not doing a Cobra. It's still a nice maneuver. I could watch jets all day if they did nothing more than fly by straight and level

Red B.

It wasn't my intention to turn this topic into a political debate. I am sorry if I did.
Model flying is not about fighting each other, but about having fun together :-).

/Red B.

Fat Boy

It’s no accident that the J10 resembles the F-16, because Israel apparently sold them technology for the Israeli Lavi jet fighter. Israel abandoned the Lavi project, because of the high cost and availability of cheaper alternatives (the F-16 and F-15 from the United States.) But the Lavi was meant to be a “super F-16,� and incorporated a lot of design ideas from the F-16 (which the Israelis were very familiar with, as they used them, and had developed new components for them.)

(from Strategy.com June 2005)

Japan has the F-2 which is a "petite" (sp?) version of the F-16. Lockheed Ft.Wth. manufactures the rear section of the fuse and I believe the left wing. Kinda strange to walk thru the F-2 shop to see a quite large Japanese flag/sign within the very same plant that Consolidated manufactured aircraft to wage war against Japan.

JetflyerJ

My Feedback: (67)

How's this for a show [X(]

causeitflies

Looks like mating season

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

You know what the most impressive thing about the F-22 vs. the Mig-29 OVT is? There is more than ONE F-22. I know that for a fact because I've seen 2 or 3 flying at the same time over at Langley. Can't say that for the Mig...

Bob

F2G-1

My Feedback: (13)

Perception is reality. If we dont strive to stay on top, we will get knocked down. Sitting idle, status quo doesnt cut it, thats how you become #2, or #3. I shure as sh** woulnt under-estimate China.(theres too many of 'em and look at how many model airplanes they can produce!!!!!HAHAHA LOL) We're (the U.S.) blowing big money on everything, not just aviation. Paying the taxes stings a bit, but hey, if you wanna play.........


Ted

Strykaas

You're not the #1 in that field...

F2G-1

My Feedback: (13)

taxes or military? (LOL!)

baron-noir

My Feedback: (1)

Is this a fake ?? How can they make safe separation if no one as visuals on the other ?? Maybe they use the radio altimeter for separation

Sk

edit : Ok got it, they must be splitting / breaking formation so they go away one from the other...

Strykaas

These jets can take off from carriers with no catapult. Given that catapult maintenance is THE issue that reduces carriers ops, I would say it's a definite advantage for "real" war...

So F22s can not be there to protect carriers... which jet will then have to face these Sukhois and Migs ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J05XhJ-N_U

Airforce7

My Feedback: (31)

Are you trying to stir it up Strykaas!? Unfortunately what you don't see in this video is where the jets' initial ground role started. I would suspect that it took most of that carrier strip to take off, specially if it was loaded with weapons. This means that the carrier would have to store its jets underneath and not top side. So they wouldn't be able to transport very many jets in the first place. Ever heard of the Phalanx system? Should render air to surface missiles against navy ships useless. But if you look at the big picture, you'll see that there are a lot of bases all over the globe that could send tankers in the air and the proper fighter aircraft to search and destroy them if they enter a certain danger zone.

rcmigpilot

My Feedback: (26)

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the Kiev class aircraft carrier that the Russians mothballed several years ago because they could afford it? The video is dated 1998. What good are planes that don't need a catapult if you can't afford the ship?

Strykaas

Regarding Kuznetsov class carriers, you're wrong :



How many Phanlanx systems are emebedded on carriers ? Anyway, I guess that a salvo of Mach 2.2 / 60 ft alitude Sunburn missiles would pull through ... but this gets off topic. There is so much to discuss about this. Read http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...sia/moskit.htm if your're interested.



Yakhont too... even faster :



Why did the Koursk sink ?