Not denying that some of the capabilities of the F22 currently maybe are unique, but compare to this Su-35 video that was linked here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...ighlight=Su-35

The Raptor is not really that totally off-and-away Uber-plane. No plane today is that.

I heared that rumour that Typhoon(s) locked onto Raptors in an excercise and "shot" them down, but I was only vaguely told. Any link for the solid story? Reminds me of that story about the Type 212 that managed to penetrate the ASW screen of a US carrier group in the north sea two years ago or so, "torpedo" the carrier and remain undetected all the time. :lol:

Nice plane the F22 nevertheless is. It just looks ugly, like a toy. Russian planes like the Mig-29 and Su-35 are looking far more sexy these days. Thank God that wars are not won by looks. :lol:

Mig-25 could climb verticle on 3/4 power but then again they did hit speeds of mach 3.

No - it is not a tactic - that was for fun! What should be gleaned from that hover is not what he is doing, but what the aircraft is not doing - Notice you are not encountering a compressor stall? This is not a normal thing for a jet to do because a compressor stall would happen in almost every other jet due to the stall entering the engine inlet. THis is not happening!

-S

Mach 2.8 max - engine burns up past that. At Mach 3, if the aircraft comes home, the engines need to be thrown away.

Thrust to weight ratio in a MiG-25 is 1.12:1 as of current generation. That is full power - 100%, so this is not true that you say only 3/4 power. The F-15 has more power - which is why it is nicknamed the Foxbat killer. The Foxbat is barely faster in a straight line, but the F-15 can sustain the speed for longer, resulting in the Foxbats death. This was proved over Islreal and all Foxbat flights stopped after the F-15 was introduced. This is also why the F-15 Streak Eagle (Notice I did not say Strike Eagle) took the record away from the MiG-25 in the time to climb record back in 1975 (This kind of ticked off the Kremlin at the time).

Some info on the time to climb record:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...eet.asp?id=621

The F-22 now even has 'more' power than the upgraded F-15! The F-22 accelerated and pulled away from its F-15 chase planes where the F-22 was only in military power, and the F-15's were in full afterburner! Think of what kind of power this plane has when those burners are lit!

-S

I searched high and low for this elusive story. Couldn't find it. what does that say?

If it couldn't I'd ask why I spent all that money on this super sub. Our Fast Attacks do it all the time. Getting caught isn't good for ones advancement. Thats the name of the game.

Obviously nothing yet. I meant Steel-Tomb anyway, since his posting indicates he also heared of that event.

Maybe you better ask why spending money on those super carriers. ;) In any new pacific war they probably won't last long. Like In WWII carriers made battleships obsolete, I have this theory that in the next war subs will make carriers obsolete. but that is an old debate, as you certainly know.

Personally, I was more impressed with the Flankers double back flip...

No doubt the raptor is a tough customer, but at what point does the video guy get tired of watchin the F-22 point its nose in the air?

Interesting... but doubt it, seriously. Unless that's the war in 2150 when the carriers are also subs.

Carriers will never go away. It depends on preparedness. If it was an ambush before hostilities were declared a sub would probably stand a good chance of hitting a carrier. Who knows in a time of war. So many variables and never say never.

Well, being here in San Diego, seeing the S-3 retired from its intended ASW mission, the MMA taking forever and a day to get out to see . . . and the ASW School here on Harbor Drive seem at times damn near silent . . . I worry about our ASW capability in the near future.

Maybe they can develop a SV-22 for a replacement of the ASW role . . . we'll see.

But yes, a Swedish Sub did do that during war games (atleast within 2 years) and one has been stationed, at cost, here at Point Loma Naval Base . . . for further training excersizes.

----
As for the fighter discussion . . . I feel sorry for the F/A-18 & the F-2, I'd imagine that they'd be one of the first to go.

right. but in principle a CBG is more vulnerable to a sub than a sub is to a CBG. If I would need to choose on which side to fight and survive, and assuming both sides offer modern equipment, good crews and commanders, I'd always go with the sub. CBGs are nice tools with inferior enemies and for political pressuring. Against a determined enemy of more serious combat potential (Russia, China etc, and some NATO units) - that is something very different.

Found this one, about the Gotland

http://www.knbc.com/news/10116514/de...ss=la&psp=news

Ok I agree ... sort of. But what aboutt he capabilities of carriers? I mean what they allow us to do. In WWII, carriers could do the tasks of battleships. I mean they could attack and sink ships, subs, and hit ground installations. They could also defend against air attack. True battleships were more accurate with shore support than airpower, but overall the carriers could do it more flexibly and much farther away.

Problem is today can subs do the roles carriers and other surface ships do? As in WWII a CBG without subs is more vulnerable than a sub force without CBGs. But the latter can't do much to project power ashore or alone protect sea trade. They can interdict it for sure. Unless you are saying power projection will be impossible and therefore the advantage will always be with the littoral power. Sounds like jeune école stuff.

Naturally, this all goes by the wayside if we are talking nuclear strategic warfare, subs are the top there...even more so than bombers and land based missles they are the arbiters of power.

Perhaps even a fleet centred on subs would still need smaller carriers, though not the so called "through deck cruisers" like Ark Royal, and certainly amphibious support and surface escorts. At least until merchant shipping and troops can travel undersea.

No contradiction. It is all this what I meant with "inferior enemies and political pressuring". Maybe I should have made the latter more clearly - but now you did. However, these subtletities loose in importance once you are in an conventional all-out-war with let's say a coaltion of hostile forces in SE Asia, and there are several major candidates: China, Russia, India.

Wow, that's one impressive plane. Time for Tom Cruise to make Top Gun II.