Fulcrum vs Raptor
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
In term of pure dogfighting alone, who would win?
>>28359943
The MiG has head tracking IR missiles, but those aside, I would have to side with the 22 simply cause thrust vectoring.
>>28360004
AIM-9X has the same capability now. The Mig is dead before it gets a shot off realistically.
>>28359943
What do you mean by "dogfighting"? Do you mean a guns only engagement?
Probably about even. At such close distances, the stealthy aspects of the F-22 would not longer be able to protect it, although it still might get the element of surprise at it swoops in.
>>28360076
Let's just say that they have head on encounter and they only have both the gun and IR missiles (R-73 and AIM-9x respectively)
>>28359943
If a MiG-29 and a F-22 get in a dogfight the F-22 done goofed big time.
>>28360197
Raptor wins.
MiG-29's can't even beat F-15's or F-16's. How the fuck is it supposed to stack against the F-22?
http://theaviationist.com/2015/04/08/mig-29-in-close-air-combat/
>As Koeck recalls “Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ (which is the NATO designation for the R-73 missile) I can’t be beaten. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’ (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!”
>>28360045
The AIM-9X does, but the F-22's pilot doesn't; they'll eventually get an upgraded helmet, but not for a while.
>>28359943
Depends on the version of the MiG. Really, if they start head on, wheover has the longer range missile (AIM-9X) will fire first, the other will go evasive and die to it. That being said, the MiG-29 is quite ridiculous maneuverable close range.
I'm gonna say if the Raptor has a helmet mounted sight, then yes, and otherwise only in a a head-on with an older MiG.
>>28360684
Times have changed, the Fulcrum would likely get it's ass kicked today.
F-22 has better TWR and I think better AoA.
It would be a close fight.
>>28360761
MiG-35 (which is a heavily upgraded MiG-35), also has helmet mounted sight, as well as more powerful (albeit still a PESA) radar, more advanced IRST, 21st century building technique(no more of that obvious rivetting), fly by wire capability as well as extended range and better engines (no more of that ugly bulge and no more of of that black smoke thing)
Sadly, up to now nobody is interested, since MiG-35 is about as expensive as Su-30 and people would rather buy the flankers than Fulcrum
>>28363783
/which is a heavily upgraded MiG-29
fuck I'm sleepy
>>28363783
You can buy Mig-35 with AESA, they have that option. Russian space forces will ugrade their Mig-35 to AESA later.
>>28360684
>http://theaviationist.com/2015/04/08/mig-29-in-close-air-combat/
>18 archers
>17 miss
Western electronics and countermeasures are vastly superior to their russian counterparts. Archer still uses old infra-red tech where everyone else in the world has moved on to imaging infra-red with digital signal processing.
>>28363783
radar won't matter in a dog fight as I imagine they won't be shooting radar guided missiles at each other and they would both be in visual range.
>>28365391
Current Archers aren't that bad.. but.. no MiG-29 operator is going to have the training to really use the off-boresite ability effectively. Just because you can lock doesn't mean the missile can catch the target if fired at that angle, with your current momentum and vector.
Even without countermeasures most shots a MiG driver takes with a Archer is going to sail into oblivion without endangering anyone.
>>28359943
Mig is low altitude while F22 is both.
>>28360004
>I would have to side with the 22 simply cause thrust vectoring.
There are Fulcrums that have 3D TVC, which is superior to the 22's 2D TVC.
>>28360366
>MiG-29's can't even beat F-15's or F-16's
Polish MiGs beat American F-16s all the time dude.
>>28360762
>Times have changed
You are right, F-16s are even more overweight and sluggish than before. The Fulcrum also now has 3D TVC and fly-by-wire control. F-16 STILL lacks a helmet sight like the Fulcrum. So the F-16 would stand even less a chance than before.
>>28359943
Fulcrum wins because it costs 29 mil USD per unit, where as F-22 costs 100 mil Per unit..
that's a 3 vs 1 engagement
>>28365391
During that time, the F-16 was equipped with AIM-9L, which is inferior to R-73
Thus the reason why the german came out with IRST
>>28365709
IRIS-T, you meant
>>28365546
>>28365581
Stop it. Only one MiG-29OVT was produced and as of now it is used as a technology demonstrator.
>>28360004
>I would have to side with the 22 simply cause thrust vectoring.
That's a terrible metric of dogfighting capability.
>>28365407
>radar won't matter in a dog fight
Tell that to all the Chinese and Russian MiG-15 pilots that went down over MiG Alley in Korea.
Oh wait, you can't, because they got their asses handed to them by F-86s whose only appreciable advantage was a radar gunsight.
>>28365560
>Polish MiGs beat American F-16
And also French Rafale beat F-22, and Egyptian mig-21 beat F-18...
Those are exercises, they use the shittiest pilots to train them
Just last month Belgian F-16 beat Algerian mig-29 quickly
>>28365823
>they got their asses handed to them by F-86s whose only appreciable advantage was a radar gunsight.
According to "F-86 vs. MIG-15: A Digest of the Briefing of the Analysis of the Korean Air War. University of Chicago. Institute for Air Weapons Research." F-86s achieved .30 kills per firing pass when the gunsight was used and .34 when it wasn't.
What mattered more was that the F-86 had hydraulic controls which gave it superior transient performance. The scissors became very popular in Korea because of that. Also: G-suits. And not to mention the differences in pilot training.
>>28365581
F-16s are currently rolling out of depot with the scorpion HMIT mod though. We already have some.
>>28365801
I'm not about to pretend to know anything about either fighter's performance, so thrust vectoring seems like the easiest metric to judge on in a guns only dog fight.
>>28368352
Thrust vectoring is not the advantage you seem to think it is.
In fact, it quite regularly got F-22s killed when they used in in exercises until they learned not to.
>>28365616
>F-22 vs 3 Fulcrums
I'd take the F-22 as long as it isnt some stupid scenario designed to negate the F-22's most important attribute (stealth)
>>28359943
Reminds me of C&C Generals
>I actually prefer chinese because they have the best air defenses and cheap,disposable Migs
>>28368352
in a dogfight you need to either outturn or outrun your opponent.
but thrust vectoring will not improve your turn rate.
it can enable you to quickly point your nose at a fighter that's moving in a different direction, but at the expense of losing speed. so if you do this and miss your shot you become a sitting duck.
differential thrust vectoring can improve roll rate, but f-22 does not have that - the nozzles cannot move independently.
so what's the point of thrust vectoring on f-22, you ask? less fuel consumption while cruising.
plane's centre of lift changes with increased speed, this needs to be compensated for.
using thrust vectoring for this instead of aerodynamic surfaces causes less drag.
>>28359943
Raptor always wins and dog fighting has been dead since ww2
Is this photoshop?
I never thought I gonna see F-22 flying next to russian aircraft
>>28368465
>I'd take the F-22 as long as it isnt some stupid scenario designed to negate the F-22's most important attribute (stealth)
Like dog fighting?
>>28368519
Feast yo eyes on this, then
>>28368519
Do you live in cave?
>>28368510
>dog fighting has been dead since ww2
but that's wrong. plenty of dogfighting was done since then.
most famously korea and vietnam, but there were other minor conflicts later as well.
>>28368529
Depends on your definition of dogfight. Your traditional dogfight is a stupid scenario for an F-22, considering the majority of its weapon load is BVR long range missiles
>>28368543
>Your traditional dogfight is a stupid scenario for an F-22, considering the majority of its weapon load is BVR long range missiles
Of course, but we're talking about OP's scenario
>>28368519
USAF do have Su-27 for top gun programme (among other things)
>>28368548
Many people who dont know much about aircraft refer to any fight between two fighters as a dogfight. People who dont know much about aircraft are typically the people who make these threads
>>28368542
Wasn't being literal, just saying no one dog fights anymore. Get checked for autism
>>28368530
fuck didn't realize how similar f-2 is to f-15.
and people call pak-fa a flanker clone.
>>28368588
People constantly practice both WVR and BVR dogfighting.
If you're talking about active engagements, thats mainly because air combat is extremely fucking rare
>>28368606
*f-22
>>28368588
get checked for literacy.
anyway, dogfights are still important because a) BVR missiles aren't inexhaustible and b) rules of engagement often require visual ID
>>28368588
>just saying no one dog fights anymore
micheal vick joke goes here
