F-22 vs MiG-1.42 - Page 5

View Poll Results :Who do You think is better?
F-22 "Raptor" 26 78.79%
MiG 1.42 "Raptorski" 7 21.21%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

July 21st, 2004  
Originally Posted by GADefence
Well, I think I'm leaving this forum now. . . I'm getting more angered every day I am on here. It was fun at first, but now, bye.

As well, here's a tid-bit of correction, the Rafeal is a down scaled and more affordable Eurofigther, not an off shoot of the Mirage models. (you got this information wrong, check the rest of your fighter information too!)
If you wish to leave this forum, do it .. you do not need to make some grand announcement and throw a temper tantrum because someone contridicted what you said and in turn, proved your statement to be incorrect.

You are more than welcome to stay, but stop the whining and take being "wrong" like an adult, not a 3 year old.
July 22nd, 2004  
Mark Conley
Just a few points here...always its about technology and my planes better than your plane...sheesh

Folks, its very simple, even better explained by robert heimlen....Take making a pie.

A good cook can take flour, apples, suger and such and make a wonderful pie. Consqently, a bad cook can take the same ingrediants and come up with an un-wholsome mess.

All the good technology in the world put on and in a plane body doesnt mean nothing if the pilot who flys it aint got the intelligence, the talent, the skill, or the courage to use it.

I hope you are thinking that all nations that build these elegant little monsters are taking the man into the equation when they build them. Maybee..or maybee not.

In this case..a Raptor or the Mig would be meat on the table if their pilots arent to a quality to get the utmost from the aircraft. If i had the skill to use the advantages of my aircraft...I could put a properly armed piper cub up against either of these aircraft...and win.

Probly the best example of this was the european country that flew Brewster Buffalos in WWII. Impossibly slow, under gunned and under rated, yet one of the highest scoring aces in WWII was a young man and his Buffalo.

Think about it....
July 22nd, 2004  
acctually, i refered to that when i wrote:

hmmm, if I fly the F15 Im sure a Spitfire can take it down 2
Now, the training is very important, but the tech is too.
July 23rd, 2004  
Mark Conley
agreed. all technology does is inhance the capability..the promise of what it could do.

But its the pilot that makes it happen. and i bet a spitfire can shoot down a F-15
July 23rd, 2004  
Originally Posted by GADefence
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
Originally Posted by GADefence

Third, (proof) the F-22 is not much more manveouvrable then it's F-15 predecesor. http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000812-f22.htm

You belive POGO? POGO & COUNTERPUNCH are greatest propaganda sites! Everyone calls those sites bull****........ Sheeeeesh!
I read most of the news reports on the F-22 and I consider those propoganda sites, so I guess it depends how you look at it.

Uncle Sam, I'm not saying the F-22 is a HORRIBLE fighter. Yes, it does have a great engine on it. That's a great bonus for it. It's a good figther, better then most, but the thing I am saying is it's currently heavily overhiped. The reason I don't believe the news sites is because, well, I've seen them outright lie about the F-22 capabilities and weaponsets. The F-22 is also not effective for it's cost, and I wouldn't want to be stuck in one as my first choice, but it's not a horrible fighter.
First, you say you have strong anti-raptor stance, than you say it's one of the best, that can outmanouvre almost all fighters!
Secondly, you said "proof" about pogo, than said "yeah, it's propaganda site"!
Third, "Secondly, according to me and many I know, the F-22 is a propoganda plane, half of what is said about it is probably false."
Again, "many" "all" like in the Bush thread... I would like to meet those "many of Your's". do they like pogo & counterpunch, and Moore?
You brought, as proofs, ONLY PROPAGANDA SITES! You can do better than that!
Fourth, IEA? What kind of site is that if it brings Aurora?
I belive in Aurora, first, but nobody has proofs for it! Even if I did I woudn't certainly post 'em! Simply because I don't wanna get AF into trouble!
Fifth, And Yes there is LASER which is so small that can be mounted on Raptor, and JSF, and Yes they ARE planning to do so!
And one thing more: First You say his engine is bad, heavy,
big, the worst.... And than: "it has the best engine in the world" in another post....
Now don't say.... You belive that Aliens have came to save the planet! From great evil called the USA
And that You are collecting proofs for that for 15 years!
Shhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh, Man.......................
July 23rd, 2004  
Mark Conley
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
[..."Fifth, And Yes there is LASER which is so small that can be mounted on Raptor, and JSF, and Yes they ARE planning to do so!:

Guys, Its not an offensive laser. Its a simple laser designator that illuminates a target so that an aircraft equipped with laser guided weapons can drop them and get away with out having to worry about getting shot down orbiting the site with its own laser designator.

the laser is geared and gyro synchronised so that once its put on target, no matter what the plane does, it still remains on target.

Sheesh: even the F-117 has a laser designator....
July 24th, 2004  
2 Sherman: MiG-29 is better than F-16, if it has well trained pilot that knows all of its features.

"In combat provided that the MiG-29's 7.5g above 0.85 mach can be avoided it should beat any F-16 due to its BVR capability , higher thrust/weight ratio and lower wing loading. While in recent exercises between USAF F-16 and German MiG-29A's showed that in ACM the greatest advantage the MiG-29 had was it's helmet mounted sight coupled with the AA-11 Archer which gives it a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving. F-16 pilots found that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 was always under grave threat. The ability to target aircraft well of boresight has proved to be such a success that helmet mounted sights have become requirements on any new fighter program." Full article is here


But it's not a match for the F-22 Raptor. Newer Sukhoi airplanes are.
July 24th, 2004  
Hmmm....Well, thats why you have F15s....And anyways, the advanage of the helmet can be countred with improvments to the F15s and F16s...Lets say, an F16 armed with Python 5 missiles can do all that too.
August 5th, 2004  
Lets see how they match up.

MiG 1.42 Specifications

Primary Function: Multirole Fighter
Crew: One
Two three-dimensional thrust-vectoring Saturn/Lyulka AL-41F turbofans
44,100 lb of thrust in afterburner
Length 65.6 ft
Wingspan 53.81 ft
Height 18.37 ft
Weight Empty 36,376.27 lb
Max. Takeoff 76,059.48 lb
Speed: Mach 2.5 [supercruise: Mach 1.6]
Ceiling:62,000 ft
Range: 2,485 miles
Armament: 13,227 lb on enternal hardpoints
Mixture of 12-14 R-73 Short range and
R-77 Vympal Medium- Range Air-to-Missiles
One 30-mm cannon,
Stealth: [RSC] or [PCS]
Unit cost: $70 million USD

F-22 Specifications

Primary Function: Air superiority fighter
Crew: one
Two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines
35,000 lb of thrust in afterburner
Length 61 feet
Height 16.67 feet
Wingspan 44.5 feet
Wing Area 840 square feet
Horizontal Tailspan 29 feet, 8.84 meters weight 31,000 lbs
Weight empty 31,000 lb
Maximum Takeoff 60,000 lb
Ceiling: 50,000 ft
Range: 2,000 miles
Speed: Mach 1.8-Mach 2 (supercruise: Mach 1.5)
Crew one
Armament: [enternal] Two AIM-9 Sidewinders
six AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
one 20mm Gatling gun
two 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) external stores 20,000 lbs
Stealth [built in]
Unit cost $150 million USD

On the bare stats you'd have to go with the MiG, but i'm a little skeptical about the RSC or PCS systems on the Russian fighter, although they make interesting reading.
Pity we wont see the 1.42 in service,it would have been a good adversary for the F-22, although they've no doubt learnt a lot from it for there next fighter.

As for the F-22 I think it comes down to how well the LO work.
For $150 million per copy and $70 billion for the programe you'd think it'd work like a romulan cloke. Fighters like the Typhoon, Su-30mk, MiG 29m have edged ahead of the F-15 and F-16. If the Russians can find some buyers, the SU-35 would probably be the best fighter around, apart from the F-22.
August 5th, 2004  
Can't say I've ever heard of a Mig-1.42, but from what I've seen, the Raptor could probably beat most anything out there.