You come to the WT Forums and expect threads to be on topic?
2 Likes
thats life
F-22 is a cold war fighter change my mind.
5 Likes
It’s a cold war fighter in the same way the IS-4 is a WW2 tank. Built and tested after the conflict ended but based off of the technology being developed during the active conflict.
4 Likes
Does F-22 have LWS?
The F22 has engaged in mock dogfights with the Eurofighter before. When people point out that the F22 lost, they leave out that it won more than it lost and that is with drop tanks to limit maneuverability and starting from the defensive. An F22 not fighting with drop tanks and from the defensive will be incredibly hard to defeat.
If the US officials lied in the first place that the F-22 didn’t lose at all, then they are not trustworthy when they then claim that the F-22 “won more than it lost”.
Dassault Rafale: The Fighter Jet That “Shot Down” an F-22 Raptor - The National Interest
Didn’t happen.
if they lied twice then why wouldnt the french disprove them again?
That’s the wrong question to ask. You don’t place more burden of proof on the person who initially proved themselves right the first time. The right question is, if the USAF lied the first time, why haven’t they released evidence for the second claim before anyone takes them seriously again?
1 Like
did USAF actually say any never got shot down or was the question if the F-22 lost against the Rafale?
The question was if the F-22 lost against the Rafale during that specific set of exercises which the USAF denied it ever losing which rightfully calls into question any other USAF claims about that specific set of exercises.
there’s also the fact that the released video has a few very sketchy things
including seeming like the fight was called off before the “kill”
so its very possible that they weren’t lying, and said it didnt lose, because that fight was called off without a kill being made
Except dang near the whole video the Rafale was on the F-22’s butt and both were constantly maneuvering before any such thing about the fight being called off would have occurred, multiple times there were chances for what I’d call a “kill”.
there were not, unless you are considering HOBs missiles, and considering those, the rafale was likely also in the engagement envelope of a 9x from the raptor for most of the fight (we have seen similar or closer over the shoulder shots)
this is only true after the F22 pilot called out that they lost sight of the rafale, to which the rafale pilot does not seem to give a standard reply
again not consistantly, after F22 pilot lost sight there was a long period of time where they were not maneuvering very effectively
you also need to consider that the fight was likely called off due to the rafale losing too much altitude and violating the floor, given the altitude visible on the HUD, so there is a good chance it was considered a win for the F22
F-22s have not dog fought with droptanks.
F-22s also have not dog fought starting from the defensive.
Reposted this on-topic post.
Multiple reports covering the exercises with the Eurofighters state the F22 was flying with drop tanks. If you have proof otherwise, please share it.
If the reports exist, I have not seen them.
The only claims of F-22s with fuel tanks have been conjecture at best, never citing reports or photographs.
Not even pilots, as wargame F-22 pilots have been interviewed multiple times.
When I hear the claim against Typhoon, one that I haven’t seen/heard prior to the 100% refutation against the claim vs Rafale after people finally accepted the photographic evidence there of a clean F-22, I am thinking “Is this the argument moving goalposts?”
Extraordinary claims require solid evidence.
I get the propaganda of F-22, but making claims like “F-22 can beat Typhoon with fuel tanks attached.” is a bit out there.
Especially when it was toe to toe with Rafale while clean.
“ Germany’s Typhoon pilots explained that when the F-22 was flying with external fuel tanks attached and fighting within visual range , Typhoons were often able to outclass the Raptor.”
1 Like
That is a third party website, not a report, not photographs.
The full quote also includes “According to David Cenciotti’s coverage for The Aviationist”.
On top of all that, the photographs shown, as well as the alleged testimony, it does not paint a complete picture.
What’s it called to cherry pick part of a report & push a false narrative based on that… whatever it’s called, that’s what it is to do so by taking David Cenciotti’s statements as complete when they aren’t.
Well, if you have access to primary source documents regarding military exercises, please share them.