What the **** OVER!!!!!!!

[Crazy Horse]

You are a dumbass

I've already seen photos of the F-22 carrying external fuel tanks. I asked for a photo of an F-22 carrying external missiles. Keep looking.

Look you ****stick......................where do you think they place the missles externally. Find your own ****ing pictures, The F-22 has hard points on it;s wings, hence it will carry missles on them if needed.

Again answer the damn question..............

[The Night Owl]

Look you ****stick......................where do you think they place the missles externally. Find your own ******* pictures, The F-22 has hard points on it;s wings, hence it will carry missles on them if needed.

Again answer the damn question..............

I don't doubt that the F-22 can be configured to carry external missiles, but I have not seen evidence that the external combat configuration and its associated software has undergone the certification process required by the USAF before it can be employed. Fitting the F-22 with external missiles is probably not a big priority for the USAF. Or, the USAF may have decided against having the F-22 carry external missiles on conventional rail launchers. I vaguely remember reading that the USAF is developing stealth pods which will allow the F-22 to carry missiles externally without causing a great reduction in stealth and maneuverability.

Maybe you should pay attention to everything............again I ask, Why could a F-22 not shoot down 12 F-18's?

According to the pilots and technicians interviewed in the Future Weapons segment on the F-22, the F-22 is designed to take on roughly 4 or 5 air targets.

[Rebel]

Fitting the F-22 with external missiles is probably not a big priority for the USAF.

Priorities change with the mission. You should know that from your days in the military. Remind me, when did you serve, BTW?

The fact of the matter is, the F-22 has 3 loadouts that are dictated by the mission requirements. Those 3 loadouts can increase the number of missiles from the 8 you mentioned, to well above that number. The simulation that was mentioned earlier was, more than likely, performed under those circumstances.

In summation, the F-22 can carry more than 8 missiles that can be used in air-to-air combat. Just admit your wrong and move on.

[Rebel]

According to the pilots and technicians interviewed in the Future Weapons segment on the F-22, the F-22 is designed to take on roughly 4 or 5 air targets.

Yeah? And the AH-1 Super Cobra was never meant to carry troops, but it did in Afghanistan. Your point? It was a simulation. Saying they are designed to take on "roughly" 4-5 targets isn't the same as saying they can ONLY take out 4-5 targets. The F-4 was never meant to dogfight jets with cannons either. It was supposed to take'em out before they got close enough to use the cannons, hence why cannons weren't included on the earlier versions. I think Duke Cunningham proved that it could go head to head with one when he took out Colonel Toon.

[Bh]

Look Mr. Owl, let's say you're right and it only has 8 air to air missiles, then the guy must have said the F-22 was 8-0.

The guy did not say that the Raptor shot down 8 Hornets.

Dude there's been more than just the show you posted. I get it, in the video you posted he didn't mention shooting down F-18's. In the show I saw the pilot talked about going 8-0 against a bunch of F-18's, GET IT?

[The Night Owl]

Priorities change with the mission. You should know that from your days in the military. Remind me, when did you serve, BTW?

The fact of the matter is, the F-22 has 3 loadouts that are dictated by the mission requirements. Those 3 loadouts can increase the number of missiles from the 8 you mentioned, to well above that number. The simulation that was mentioned earlier was, more than likely, performed under those circumstances.

In summation, the F-22 can carry more than 8 missiles that can be used in air-to-air combat. Just admit your wrong and move on.

No dice. Until someone can show me a photo of the F-22 carrying external missiles in a combat configuration, I have no reason to think that the external combat configuration and associated software has undergone certification and implementation. Keep in mind that the external combat configuration was not a requirement for the F-22 to enter service.

[Rebel]

No dice. Until someone can show me a photo of the F-22 carrying external missiles in a combat configuration, I have no reason to think that the external combat configuration and associated software has undergone certification and implementation. Keep in mind that the external combat configuration was not a requirement for the F-22 to enter service.

No dice? What are we, playing a ****ing game here? First off, you totally discount the 20MM CANNON MOUNTED on the damn thing, secondly, you discount the thrust-vectoring capabilities of the aircraft, something only seen in the JSF, the F-22, and some Russian POS, and thirdly, you've been shown the loadout.

By the way, the damn thing was a simulation. I don't know how many times that has to be told to you.

[Rebel]

Another configuration:

[TheSarge]

Track, Lock, Fire. Not that hard.

Especially when the piloting skills of those on the stick of the inbound aren't near that of the ones shooting back

[The Night Owl]

No dice? What are we, playing a ******* game here? First off, you totally discount the 20MM CANNON MOUNTED on the damn thing, secondly, you discount the thrust-vectoring capabilities of the aircraft, something only seen in the JSF, the F-22, and some Russian POS, and thirdly, you've been shown the loadout.

Like I wrote earlier, a Raptor with only its gun might be able to survive an engagement against 4 Hornets but it wouldn't be able to shoot all of them down because, without missiles, it can't chase more than 1 plane at a time.

Be realistic... A Raptor would be putting itself at great risk by getting into a dogfight with 4 Hornets. For the Raptor to achieve a firing solution for one of the Hornets it would inevitably expose it to the risk of giving one or more of the other Hornets a firing solution.

[The Night Owl]

Another configuration:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f22/f22_schem_04.jpg

Correction: A possible configuration.

The fact that drawings are the only images we have of the F-22 carrying external missiles tells me that the external combat configuration for the F-22 has not been implemented. The reason why it has not been implemented is anyone's guess.

[Rebel]

Like I wrote earlier, a Raptor with only its gun might be able to survive an engagement against 4 Hornets but it wouldn't be able to shoot all of them down because, without missiles, it can't chase more than 1 plane at a time.

Be realistic... A Raptor would be putting itself at great risk by getting into a dogfight with 4 Hornets. For the Raptor to achieve a firing solution for one of the Hornets it would inevitably expose it to the risk of giving one or more of the other Hornets a firing solution.

You don't think it can get into a dog fight with 4 Hornets, given that it has 8 air-to-air missiles, stealth technology, thrust vectoring technology, and the mere fact that it can fly supersonic without lighting the afterburners? 

As for a "firing solution", never heard that term used for an aircraft, but what the hell.

[The Night Owl]

As for a "firing solution", never heard that term used for an aircraft, but what the hell.

The term "firing solution" is a generic term describing the position from which weapons can be fired effectively against a target.

You don't think it can get into a dog fight with 4 Hornets, given that it has 8 air-to-air missiles, stealth technology, thrust vectoring technology, and the mere fact that it can fly supersonic without lighting the afterburners?

What I argued is that even if an F-22 can use its missiles to shoot down 8 out of 12 F-18s, it can't shoot down all of the remaining 4 with its guns. Impossible.

[Rebel]

As for a "firing solution", never heard that term used for an aircraft, but what the hell.

The term "firing solution" is a generic term describing the position from which weapons can be fired effectively against a target.

....and I've never heard of it used in terms of air-to-air combat. I spent 8 years in the military and have spent the last 7 as a defense contractor working on some of the birds flying, or that are going to be flying, now.

[Rebel]

What I argued is that even if an F-22 can use its missiles to shoot down 8 out of 12 F-18s, it can't shoot down all of the remaining 4 with its guns. Impossible.

Nothing's impossible. Improbable? Maybe. Impossible? Hell no. Stranger things have happened. The Hornet can't turn on a dime like the Raptor, nor does it have the speed. Not to mention, the original post was about a simulation. Does it or does it not stand to reason that the simulation included ALL available configurations?

Oh, and just because you've never seen a pic of a full loadout does not mean it doesn't happen. To my knowledge, the F-22 has yest to see combat. There are developing technologies to this day for the Raptor. ...and those hard points CH was talking about? Can be used for an external loadout. We have a lot of military people on this board. This isn't DU.

[The Night Owl]

...and I've never heard of it used in terms of air-to-air combat. I spent 8 years in the military and have spent the last 7 as a defense contractor working on some of the birds flying, or that are going to be flying, now.

I can't think of a reason why the term "firing solution" should not be used in a discussion about air combat. Can you?

[Rebel]

I can't think of a reason why the term "firing solution" should not be used in a discussion about air combat. Can you?

Because the term firing solution is generally used for warships, subs, etc., when there is a calculated effort to track and fire on a target. In air-to-air no one is going to say, "I have a firing solution and I'm taking it". Could it be? Sure. The real question is, "why would it be used"? Firing against another aircraft doing Mach 1.2 while you're doing Mach 1.4 really isn't as calculated as a ship firing on a moving enemy sub, approaching bird, or warship. I would assume once you have tone, you launch.

[The Night Owl]

Oh, and just because you've never seen a pic of a full loadout does not mean it doesn't happen. To my knowledge, the F-22 has yest to see combat. There are developing technologies to this day for the Raptor. ...and those hard points CH was talking about? Can be used for an external loadout. We have a lot of military people on this board. This isn't DU.

Like I wrote earlier, the fact that the F-22 has external hardpoints does not mean that the plane has been certified to carry external weapons. Configuring the F-22 to use external missiles requires the testing and development of software which the plane was not required to have to enter service.

[The Night Owl]

Because the term firing solution is generally used for warships, subs, etc., when there is a calculated effort to track and fire on a target. In air-to-air no one is going to say, "I have a firing solution and I'm taking it". Could it be? Sure. The real question is, "why would it be used"? Firing against another aircraft doing Mach 1.2 while you're doing Mach 1.4 really isn't as calculated as a ship firing on a moving enemy sub, approaching bird, or warship. I would assume once you have tone, you launch.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that the term "firing solution" is the kind of term a pilot would need to use in combat, but it can be used in discussions about air combat. For instance, the following abstract about Stochastic Trajectory Optimisation for Aircraft in Air Combat uses the term "firing solution" twice...

www.siaa.asn.au/get/2411853304.pdf

[Rebel]

Like I wrote earlier, the fact that the F-22 has external hardpoints does not mean that the plane has been certified to carry external weapons. Configuring the F-22 to use external missiles requires the testing and development of software which the plane was not required to have to enter service.

...and like I said earlier, I don't even think it's seen combat. There are still improvements being made to the Raptor. The simulation, however, can be made to include ALL configurations utilizing the same maneuverability and performance of the current Raptor.

[Airwolf]

An d People on here wonder why Me and TheSarge have no warm feelings towards this idiot TNO. You are all wasting your time trying to educate someone who's only experience with the Military is from watching TV.

[TheSarge]

What I argued is that even if an F-22 can use its missiles to shoot down 8 out of 12 F-18s, it can't shoot down all of the remaining 4 with its guns. Impossible.

You fantasy only works if the F-22 flies without a wingman.

When is the last time you saw that happen?

Roll your d20 and try again.

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

The F-14's that the Iranians have...had just been delivered to the Shah in 1979...they've never flown to my knowledge...the Grumman Tech's did something to disable them just before they left town.

Not to mention they are early models with the less powerful engines and older tech radar and firing systems.

They'd never get in range of a U.S. Navy Battle group.  The DG's would pick them up long before they'd pose a threat.

The Iranians are just grasping in the dark hoping the "spare parts" contain something to get those planes working again.

Yeah, I saw that on either Modern Marvels or some other show like that. The F-14s were sweet for the time, but we got bigger and better now. If Iran were to have the balls to try to send those against our carriers..... they'd be wiped out in no time. It's like we have the X Box 360, and they have the Commadore 64 still.

[Airwolf]

In case the news has yet to filter through here. Those Iranian F-14s are still able to do what they did years ago,The Russians and the Chinese have both been doing everything they could to help the little nut jobs keep their tomcats going. They have both done business as fronts for the Iranains to get spare parts and they have supposedly tried to upgrade the engines and electronics of the F-14s. When you add to that they are getting new model S)-30s and possibly new built J-10s from China then its not as easy as most want to believe, There is also the fact that the United States trained and equipped the IIAF/IRIAF for years so they have had time to learn to be able to maintain a decent level of skills needed to fly those kinds of planes and I wouldn't put it past Putin to be giving them a hand in continuing the training for something on the side from Iran.

We have a few squadrons now of the F-22 but they are not combat ready to be deployed. The Red Flag guys at Nellis just got thier first one so its going to be awhile before we really see  the combat capabilities of the F-22. So far nothing that the US Military has thrown at it has beat it in any aspect of air to air combat. All in all The Iranians would still have a hard time going toe to toe with any F-22 squadron since it looks like even during the War years and with the purges of their air Force they didn't really do them selves any favors by killing some of their better pilots and shying away from real combat.

[JohnMatrix]

Look Mr. Owl, let's say you're right and it only has 8 air to air missiles, then the guy must have said the F-22 was 8-0. The point is the stealth capability of the F-22 allowed it to remain essentially invisible to the F-18's while the F-22 locked on them and fired it's missiles. Maybe it was on the Military channel, there's been several shows produced on the F-22. For starters the Iranian F-14's radar's would get jammed as soon as they took off, no contest. And this is what's next:


F-35 Joint Strike fighter, probably the last manned fighter.

right, we have hundreds of those in service!  oh wait...