Do you think the USAAF would send such a rare and expensive plane like the F22 on a CAS or strike mission when they could send a F-16 that makes the job better than the F-22?
Yes. The F-22 can do anything the F-16 can, but it can do so without being detected, do it more accurately, and do it faster.
Quote:
I really doubt that. This kinda reminds me of the HMS Gotland's, a submarine in the Swedish navy, trip to San Diego.
The main reason the F-22 can take on so many fighters at once is that it is stealthy enough. Like I said eight F-22s engaged 33 F-15s and were never detected, ever. The F-22s were not detected until after the exercise was over when they flew overhead of the F-15s.
That is where your comparison fails. The sub you are talking about has the same advantage in the sea as the F-22 has in the air. And i'm not saying the F-22 is invincible. A good pilot could certainly shoot it down in a Typhoon or Gripen but they would have to be substantially better thenthe F-22 pilot. If you put two pilots with the exact same skill level, one in an F-22 and one in a Gripen the Gripen would always lose.
Sending that same deisel across the ocean by itself to launch a multi focus strike on a carrier group, land targets and convoy on the way home is a bit more difficult than had say a Seawolf been doing it.
The Gotland class is designed to destroy any hostile navy that crosses Swedish territorial waters, it's not designed to do missions across the atlantic and it's not designed to attack land targets. And I'm sure that if lets say Iran got a sub comparable to the Gotland they wouldn't sent it away on some Pearl Harbor mission. They would have it at home scaring away US carrier groups.
Quote:
It actually SAVES money in the long run to buy a next gen uber fighter than to constantly seek to upgrade you current gen stuff hence the JSF popularity.
I wouldn't say that the JSF project is popular, Norway and Denmark is already looking for Gripens or Eurofighters instead.
Quote:
Despite anything you might have heard, the EF2000 and Gripen and all the other late 4th gen aircraft are still cold war relics utilizing little more than updated avionics inside what essentially is an unremarkable airframe
I hardly disagree. If anything Gripen is the plane that's most suited for modern warfare. What kind of help can the F22 offer in Iraq that your current fleet of fighters can't handle? Or in a possible war with Iran or North Korea?
To explain why I need to talk alittle about the background of the Gripen and the Swedish airforce. The Gripen wasn't designed to be an air superiority fighter or a strike fighter. It was designed to protect Sweden from the Russians and everything they could throw at us. The Gripen is designed to be on the field, not in a hangar. Actually the Gripen will never be on an airbase if war breaks out, it will be out on the field the whole time (literally). We have something called BAS 90 (aka road bases) here in Sweden. Roadbases are just that: Roads. There's alot of roadbases shattered across Sweden (roadbases are basically 800 meters of reinforced country-road and a little "parkinglot". Ordinary roads can be used in emergencies if they're straight enough. The Gripen only needs 800 meters to land/take off. On the roadbase the Gripen can be refueled, rearmed and be on it's way on a new mission within 10 minutes (missions with waypoints, satellite pictures etc. can be sent to the cockpit via the datalink when it's in the air). The engine can be changed in the field in one hour. Come back when the F22 can land on a road in the middle of the night and it's -30c outside . The Gripen can do all tasks a modern fighter faces extremely well (air-to-air, air-to-ground, air-to-sea, reconnaissance). It has to, it's the only plane we got, the F22 can't (don't tell me that the F22 is a good CAS plane, because that's a lie).
I think most wars during the lifespan of the Gripen will be fought in under-developed countries with crappy infra structure. There the Gripen would have a huge advantage.
Then we have the whole datalink system which doesn't have a counterpart in any other fighter, but I can't get arsed to explain all that, I've written enough in this post .
But we can't compare the F22 to the Gripen really, they're made to do 2 completely different things.
Quote:
Yes. The F-22 can do anything the F-16 can, but it can do so without being detected, do it more accurately, and do it faster.
No it can't (well it can do it, but alot worse). I can promise you that you will never see a F22 on a CAS mission. Why? Because the F-16 does the job alot better (it can carry much more payload than the F22, unless you use those weapon "racks" on the wings but that moots the whole stealth thing) and it doesn't cost nearly as much to repair if it gets hit by an AK-47 bullet/shrapnel from the bombs it dropped/ground-to-air missile that explodes close to it. Not to mention if the whole plane would get shot down. The F22 is too fancy to risk being shot down on a mission like that.
Quote:
That is where your comparison fails.
I think you misunderstood my comparison then. My point was that if I'd say that a Swedish submarine could kick the ass out of an American carrier group two years ago the Americans on this forum would've laughed and started to throw statistics of different weapon systems at me.
Quote:
If you put two pilots with the exact same skill level, one in an F-22 and one in a Gripen the Gripen would always lose.
I'd love to see a duel between the Gripen and the F22.
To explain why I need to talk alittle about the background of the Gripen and the Swedish airforce. The Gripen wasn't designed to be an air superiority fighter or a strike fighter. It was designed to protect Sweden from the Russians and everything they could throw at us. The Gripen is designed to be on the field, not in a hangar. Actually the Gripen will never be on an airbase if war breaks out, it will be out on the field the whole time (literally). We have something called BAS 90 (aka road bases) here in Sweden. Roadbases are just that: Roads. There's alot of roadbases shattered across Sweden (roadbases are basically 800 meters of reinforced country-road and a little "parkinglot". Ordinary roads can be used in emergencies if they're straight enough. The Gripen only needs 800 meters to land/take off. On the roadbase the Gripen can be refueled, rearmed and be on it's way on a new mission within 10 minutes (missions with waypoints, satellite pictures etc. can be sent to the cockpit via the datalink when it's in the air). The engine can be changed in the field in one hour. Come back when the F22 can land on a road in the middle of the night and it's -30c outside . The Gripen can do all tasks a modern fighter faces extremely well (air-to-air, air-to-ground, air-to-sea, reconnaissance). It has to, it's the only plane we got, the F22 can't (don't tell me that the F22 is a good CAS plane, because that's a lie).
And the F-22 is designed to, primarily, keep control of the skies. It can also perform in the strike role. For CAS we have the F-16 and the A-10 so the F-22 doesn't need to fill that role.
Quote:
But we can't compare the F22 to the Gripen really, they're made to do 2 completely different things.
I agree, which is why I was very specific in the title. Air Superiority. The main point of my question was this: Assuming you have two pilots of equal skill what aircraft will come out on top?
Quote:
No it can't (well it can do it, but alot worse). I can promise you that you will never see a F22 on a CAS mission. Why? Because the F-16 does the job alot better (it can carry much more payload than the F22, unless you use those weapon "racks" on the wings but that moots the whole stealth thing) and it doesn't cost nearly as much to repair if it gets hit by an AK-47 bullet/shrapnel from the bombs it dropped/ground-to-air missile that explodes close to it. Not to mention if the whole plane would get shot down. The F22 is too fancy to risk being shot down on a mission like that.
Actually your right. I completely forgot the F-16 also performs CAS. And yes the F-22 is too expensive for CAS but that isn't what it is designed for. It is designed to keep control of the skies and to perform with the rest of our stealth fleet in taking down targets behind enemy lines.
Quote:
I think you misunderstood my comparison then. My point was that if I'd say that a Swedish submarine could kick the ass out of an American carrier group two years ago the Americans on this forum would've laughed and started to throw statistics of different weapon systems at me.
I wouldn't have laughed. Generally speaking Europe has some very good submarines(for what they are designed for) and they are especially stealthy and good at defending Europe's shores. But subs don't have anything to do with the F-22 other then they are both high-tech. The F-22 however is designed to kill not just enemy fighters, but multiple enemy fighters at once. A carrier fleet is not designed to kill subs, the F-22 is designed to kill fighters, big difference. In fact the last thing I heard about the F-22 is that wing mates will deploy BVR from each other because the aircraft is so fast and effective they don't need to be flying with one aircraft covering the other.
Quote:
I'd love to see a duel between the Gripen and the F22.
The F-22 could come out on top, because that is what it is designed for. Now if you were to have a fleet of only F-22s or only Gripens then I would go with the Gripen because it is a true multirole craft where as the F-22 can't perform some missions aas well. But in a dog fight between an F-22 and a Gripen figuring equal pilots the F-22 would win.
Actually, should an F16 take an Ak47 hit, its liable to bring the entire aircraft down. You probably WONT ever see the F22 doing CAS, thats the whole reasoning behind the JSF. The aircraft the F16 is being replaced by. F16's BTW are terrible at CAS. They have pissy loiter time, carry little ordanance, and arent the most accurate platforms to bomb by. A better aircraft would be the A10 of course or combat helicopters but i digress.
On a seprate note, the JSF is HUGELY popular from a order perspective. If you combine all the nations which have ordered the EF2000, the Rafale AND the Gripen, its still less than half of how many nations are actively pursuing the JSF (not adding those with 'interest to buy' im talking already put the money up for it.)
The rafale has been bought by nobody with Saudi Arabia, Germany and England being the only nations planning any real deployment of the EF2000. 2 of those nations have already put money down for the JSF in any event. That indicates 'popular' in my book.
I for one dont understand where this 'too expensive for combat' idea comes from. One of the most expensive birds in the US fleet get used ALL THE TIME. Im talking about the 3 billion a pop B2, and the 90million a bird F15E. If anything, the F22's increased survival likliness would have it being used over both aircraft for the tactical strike role.
In any event im not doubting the operational benefits of the Gripen, i am hoever stating, point blank, that it is NOT the same caliber of fighter that the F22 is. It doesnt matter how fast it can get in the air or how little runway space it takes up because if it cant kill what its flying against its a moot point anyway. Or are you of the belief that the Gripen is a superior Air Superiority bird? because thats what this thread is all about.
CANNON, n. An instrument employed in the rectification of national boundaries. - Ambrose Bierce
The F/A-22 has the A in the name to show it can do close air support. The thing is do you want to take a aircraft optimized for air superiority and tun it into a mud mover when cheaper and more expendable aircraft can do the job.
A F-15C/D can move mud but its cheaper and more efficient to use a F-16/18/35.
I am curious to see what a AK-47 round would do to a F/A-22 since the Raptors carbon fiber body is darn near bulletproof.
When the first Raptor prototype crashed it was consumed in the fire.
The reason was the contemporary fire fighting rigs used a probe that pierced the aircrafts skin and pumped the fuselage full of fire smothering foam.
The probes could not penetrate the Raptors carbon fiber skin no matter how hard they tried so the prototype was destroyed. New fire fighting gear was developed that would drill through the carbon fiber skin.
The F/A-22 has the A in the name to show it can do close air support.
Actually last I heard the A was dropped and the service aircraft is now known just as the F-22a(the "a" is just the type letter, it doesn't signify attack). But the F-22 makes a superb strike aircraft if not CAS.
Actually last I heard the A was dropped and the service aircraft is now known just as the F-22a(the "a" is just the type letter, it doesn't signify attack). But the F-22 makes a superb strike aircraft if not CAS.
I bow to your superior web browsing Kung Fu.
It was indeed the F/A-22 but was officially changed to F-22A upon its official adoption by the USAF.
When it is ready for combat if it isnt already is the F-35 that this is a Fighter and a Bomber and has stheal techonlogy. The F-35 has a top speed of mach 2.5-3 if im not misstaken.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
History and Warfare 
Re: Best Service Air Superiority Fighter 
. The Gripen can do all tasks a modern fighter faces extremely well (air-to-air, air-to-ground, air-to-sea, reconnaissance). It has to, it's the only plane we got, the F22 can't (don't tell me that the F22 is a good CAS plane, because that's a lie).
.
Linear Mode
