/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

what happens when defence industry is based on bullshit for profit useless tech and not actually making good military hardware

cant wait to see all the 100000 trillion dollar burger planes get blown up by 100k chines SAMs

Yeah I heard about this. Though to be fair that training jet isn't exactly a slouch either.

The magic word is "dogfight".
The F-22 is a fifth gen jet designed for long range and beyond visual range attacks using missiles.
In a regualr combat scenario, the F-22 can fire missiles at the FA-50, before even getting detected by radar.
Fifth gen jets regularly lose gun dogfights to fourth gen jets because stealth design and general considerations for BVR engagements reduce the ability to turn fight while being subsonic.
And this is totally irrelevant for combat as the last two decades have seen virtually zero dogfights in jet to jet engagements. The future of jet fighting is slinging missiles at each other over more than 100 km range.

>>4615
This is retarded. Dogfights absolutely still happen and is both proven in previous wars -from Vietnam to Lebanon - and in modern simulations of a US air-battle with Chinese and Russian air forces
>the last two decades have seen virtually zero dogfights in jet to jet engagements.
The last 2 decades have barely HAD any jet to jet engagements because most air-force activities have been ground attack against under-armed guerillas and terrorists or civilians. However dogfights do occur.
- In Syria an F/A-18 shot down a Su-22
- In India a MiG-21 modernization shot down a Pakistani F-16 and more than one skirmish of this kind has occurred between them.
- During the late 90s Yugoslav and Serbian wars dogfights happened quite often, with MiG-29s and MiG-21s engaging F-16s, Panavia Tornados and other aircraft in close-range combat.
- Russian fighter jets, primarily the Su-35, have shot down drones with auto-cannon fire over Ukraine

Dogfighting was declared dead in the 1960s and Vietnam disproved that, which is why all fighter-jets today still mount autocannons. Dogfights would continue into every conflict of every war after. The first Gulf War had an F-15 engage two MiG-29s and there were a few more close range engagements in that war.

The idea that BVR will end dogfighting is retarded because counter-measures against such missiles will improve with the missiles and never guarantee a hit. This was proven in Iraq when F-15s with AIM-120s failed to shoot down MiG-25s because they simply avoided, out-maneuvered and out speeded the missiles, with the F-15s likewise avoiding the R-40s fired back at them. DFRM and other countermeasures mean Active RADAR seekers are vulnerable to spoofing, Semi-Active missiles force the firing aircraft to reveal its position by actively using RADAR and IR-guidance is primarily used for close range engagements and is vulnerable to flares and decoys.

Finally the F-22 was built specifically to outperform the F-15 Eagle, including in maneuverability and IS more maneuverable than it, so no the excuse of "stealth design and general considerations for BVR engagements reduce the ability to turn fight while being subsonic." is absolutely untrue.

>>4619
Most of what you listed from the last two decades weren't dogfights and all of them are irrelevant border skirmishes.
Dogfights are just beyond irrelevant in real wars like Ukraine, as ground based air defence utterly denies enemy jets ever meeting within visual range. And yes, the F-22 and F-35 regularly lose mock gun fights against F-16 because it is not the role they were designed for.

>>4620
Yes those were dogfights - close range shoot-outs within visual range, the same applies to Cope Thunder and other previous F-22 involved exercises.
>ground based air defence utterly denies enemy jets ever meeting within visual range
And yet they have, because air-defense is not perfect and counter-measures exist. The primary reason we don't see many air-air battles in Ukraine is because the Ukrainian air-force is operating older units, in much smaller numbers and most of them were destroyed on the ground, along with bases that were close to Russia. In turn the VKS doesn't push deep into Ukrainian territory because there is no need for long range aerial operations against a nearly non existent air-force and the primary target are ground-based, not aerial.
>the F-22 and F-35 regularly lose mock gun fights against F-16 because it is not the role they were designed for.
Excuses. The F-22 is extremely maneuverable as a design and has thrust-vectoring. Both it and the F-35 are supposed to outperform the F-16 and F-15 in aerodynamic capabilities as well as BVR and stealth. The F-22 achieved this, being more maneuverable than any of its 4th Generation predecessors, the F-35 failed and this is part of the reason the F-35 is criticized as a replacement to the F-16 and F-18. The F-22's main problem aside from technical issues is the lack of an IR targeting system and its prohibitive expensive and complicated production per unit, which is why the program never reached 200 planes. And just because the F-22 is supermaneuverable, and superior to its predecessors does not mean other air-craft are incapable of shooting it down in WVR and BVR combat.

TL;DR: Any turning aircraft bleeds off energy. Some more than others. The F-16 is one of the best fighters for holding energy through transonic turns, better at that even than an F-15C but not nearly as good as F-22 with its thrust vectoring.
Dog-fighting may be a reduced quality, but it absolutely still exists and the F-22 was absolutely designed with being superior to the F-16's, F-18's and F-15's capabilities in mind.

The USAF is planning on retiring 32 of the earlier F-22s and only 142 out of the remaining 153 will receive upgrades for the future usage past 2030. Considering how the F-22 has basically never been used in combat, it's turning into one of those weapons that is so high-tech (and so expensive) that the USAF is likely to never use them because the loss of one would be catastrophic (similar to how they stopped using the B-2s). Even the Su-57 has been seeing combat at this point.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/f-22-retirement-2030-unlikely/

>>4615
>And this is totally irrelevant for combat as the last two decades have seen virtually zero dogfights in jet to jet engagements. The future of jet fighting is slinging missiles at each other over more than 100 km range.

fuck you, dogfighting is still real in my mind

>>4619
>>4622
>>4620
>>5206
Also forgot the list the Ethiopia-Eritrea war of the 1990s, when Russian and Ukrainian pilots flew Su-27s vs MiG-29s, usually in visual range air to air combat and the Russian Su-27s won every time.

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/mig-29-vs-su-27-how-the-two-top-soviet-fighters-went-head-to-head-an-east-african-air-war

>>4609
tbh ik its fucked up but I will def have some schadenfreude when the burger military gets shit on in a peer-to-peer conflict and watching the ensuing reaction from american exceptionalism retards. That being said it would prolly just be some sort of stabbed in the back nonsense targetted at whatever the scapegoat of the week is at that time

Wow, a Lockheed Martin jet was exercise killed by a Lockheed Martin jet, really a blow to American supremacy

>>5213
Being intentionally obtuse and ignoring the important details does you no favors, /k/oper.
70% of the TA-50 is funded and designed by South Korea, and it still damages Lockheed's reputation that a training aircraft is capable of taking down its best jet. Not to mention the Filipino version is an export model, it's like a BMP-3 destroying an M1A2 Abrams. This isn't the first time the F-22 has failed like this either, with French Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon also outmaneuvering and landing kills.
>muh BVR
the ACEVAL/AIMVAL tests demonstrated that a force of smaller but more numerous aircraft was capable of dealing with heavier, higher-tech fighters. This still applies, as F-15s still lost to MiG-21s in Air to Air simulations at Cope India and even the F-16C has AoA that exceeds the F-22, with the MiG-29 and Su-27 having similar numbers and the the rest of the Su-27 series and the MiG-35 exceeding that.

>>5214
Russian aircraft you talk about couldn't even come in BVR range of F22s in Ukraine lol, how many Mig 29 and Su 27 got blown up trying to go against the hohol ragtag volkssturm again? Now compare that with the losses of F22 and F15s which actually went deep in AA covered Iraq or Syria, but yeah jerk off about exercises sure. At least don't shame yourself and compare US aircraft to an actual peer adversary such as China instead of using a broke state like Russia that can't even maintain properly its soviet legacy gear.

>>5217
I heard the same thing about the Abrams. A vehicle is a vehicle, and if it exists it can and will be destroyed.

>>5217
>Russian aircraft you talk about couldn't even come in BVR range of F22s in Ukraine
<in Ukraine
LMAO nobody mentioned Ukraine glowie. And yes, they would. F-22 stealth is not an invisibility cloak and the Russians have tracked the F-22 and F-35 in Syria for years. The USSR was among the pioneers of stealth and stealth detection.
>how many Mig 29 and Su 27 got blown up trying to go against the hohol ragtag volkssturm
None because Russia has never deployed MiG-29s to Ukraine nor does it use Su-27s there either, it uses the Su-30 and Su-35 models, and I have yet to see proof of either being shot down, and most certainly none of them in air-to-air combat. Ukraine on the other hand has lost several MiG-29s and Su-27s in the air and on the ground.
>compare that with the losses of F22 and F15s which actually went deep in AA covered Iraq or Syria
LOL, LMAO even at the sheer ignorance of this comparison.
1) The F-22 has never been deployed against any sort of real air-defense, and certainly not in Iraq which is controlled by the USA at the moment. They weren't deployed in either Gulf War either.
2) The F-15 has gotten shot down by SAMs and even enemy fighters plenty of times, even back in the 1980s during its debut over Lebanon, the Israeli's and USAF just dismissed or hid the air-to-air losses and blamed them on accidents while omitting the number of SAM losses.
3) The F-15 was also never deployed against a peer-combatant air-defense, always being backed up by heavy SEAD, AWACS and satellite uplinks against enemies with older technology that had none of those things and who were a smaller fighting force. The Ukrainians in 2022 were the largest and honestly the most heavily armed and well-trained military in Europe, yet now their air-defense and air forces are all but gone, the point that they constantly fail to defend any targets and Russian aircraft freely hit troops with guided weapons. You might as well start praising the F-35 for being able to bomb the Houthi's and not get shot down… wow what an achievement!
>but yeah jerk off about exercises sure
<N-no simulated combat doesn't mean anything!
You sure sound ass-mad /k/opelet, nevermind that ACEVAL/AIMVAL was one of the most important tests in fighter history, and pushed the Airforce and Navy to make the necessary changes to properly back up its capabilities, such as with the AIM-120 and F-16s.
>compare US aircraft to an actual peer adversary such as China instead of using a broke state like Russia that can't even maintain properly its soviet legacy gear.
LMAO You're so buck-broken that you can't even cope properly and still have to give China its dues, nevermind that most of China's airforce either copies or bases itself off of Soviet "legacy gear" and still outperforms the F-35. The funniest thing is that Russia has been raising production of its fighter aircraft and only been improving capabilities over the past decade, so your redditor statements about "le broke Russia" are fucking laughable. If Russia is broke then what does that make the USA with its 35 Trillion dollar national debt? Ultra Broke? Super Broke? Maximum OverBroke? The USA can't even produce new Bradley Fighting Vehicles so all the losses in Ukraine are permanent, the F-22 production line is mothballed and would take years to restore (and that's if the production line tools are still in place and there are enough people left to train the next generation) and the F-35 isn't combat ready according to Lockheed and the Pentagon themselves, despite putting it officially into production, to the point that "legacy" aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F-18 are being upgraded to be used for the next decade because the F-35 isn't ready (and never will be).
Also funny how you ignore that Indian MiG-21s have consistently shot down American-made Pakistani aircraft since the 1970s, from the Starfighter to the Falcon, often in WVR combat.

TL;DR: Cope harder NAFOid.