F-22 Raptor

[GregP]

I have been in a really interesting argument in the AcePilots Forum. There is a guy in there who is rabbidly anti F-22, and he cites John Boyd and his cronies in the old "fighter mafia." His claim is that the F-22 is only marginally better than the F-15C.

The reason I bring this up in here the astronomically high cost of the Raptor. It is up to over $200M per copy, and that is something that affects all U.S. citizens since we pay for it.

I wonder if this would be a good discussion, or if we should stick completely with WWII?

Perhaps a section for aviation subjects other than WWII?

Anyway, really like the Raptor ... but cannot stand the price. The part that bothers me is the other guy claims that the Raptor is not much better than an F-15 Eagle.

I am calculating the F-15 Eagle at a maximum takeoff weight of 68,000 pounds, with the later 25,000-pound thrust engines, and an air combat weight of 42,000 pounds.

The other guy claims the Raptor has ballooned to 63,000 pounds. I cannot verify that anywhere else so far. It has engines in the 35,000-pound thrust category, and I CAN verify that.

So, my claim is the the Raptor, at max takeoff weight, has the thrust to weight ratio of the Eagle when the Eagle is at Air Combat weight. That is significant. I also assume the Raptor will get down to about 42,000 pounds for Air Combat. If so, it will have a thrust to weight of 1.67, which is WAY better than any competition. If we let the Raptor go down to the same fraction of takeoff weight as the Eagle for Air Combat, the thrust to weight gets up to 1.87 or so ... but I'm not too sure of the Raptor's empty weight. Most of the real Raptor data is classified.

So, my argument is that the Raptor is a significant step above the Eagle, whereas the other guy says it is an overweight, underperforming piece of crap that we simply don't need. I say it is a good performing aircraft that we do need, but cannot really afford. If we buy it, he claims we'll have a force of something like 150 Raptors. That force is insignificant when compared with 2,000 MiGs, and would be fragmented when deployed to various areas of the world. He could be right.

Most of his arguments are based on John Boyd and his cohorts.

Comments? If appropriate in this forum, that is ...

[simon]

I don't really see a problem with this. OK, the website is "A source about World War 2 Aviation", but it's not exactly like we're so swamped with topics and posts here that an extra one will push things over the edge. Post away, if there is enough interest it may be worth discussing the possibility of opening the remit of the forum up a bit with Taglia.

On the subject of the F-22, I'm neither an American nor do I have any real knowledge of modern warplanes so I'm genuinely not in a position to comment.

[PMN1]

The F15 is a 30-year old design that can only be developed so much, the F22 may only currently be marginally better than the F15C (something I would disagree with) but it has more potential for development.

We regularly have 'whats the point of the F22' on the warships1 baord - this is the latest talking about the much hyped (and it appears loaded) tests of the F15 against IAF Su-30's

http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm8.showMessage?topicID =2005.topic

[Wuzak]

One thing that I would say about the F22 is that it is shaped partially for stealth capabilities. The stealth capabilities and aerodynamics do not always see eye to eye. So the F22 might be a bit draggier than the F15.

But the F22 has more advanced avionics, vectoring thrust, etc, etc. It should be better than the F15, and probably is.

I'd be interested to discover what air force would have 2000 MiGs/Sus of quality and be an enemy of the USA. Russia might, but then they aren't really an enemy anymore.

As to the cost, didn't one B2 Spirit bomber cost more than the US Agriculture Dept's annual budget?

[BuzzLightyear]

Much of the performance and capability aspects of the F-22 are classified. Unless one is a pilot or on the design team, I think they are pretty unqualified to speak to its true abilities.

[Ricky]

Interesting - I have seen reports that the F-22 is only a little bit better than the Eurofighter, and the Eurofighter in turn is better than the F-15.

But then, the F-15 was often bested by the EE Lightning in mock combats - the Eagle's only real advantage being its fantastic radar. But which plane would you rather use?;)

Basically, with so much info being classified, I reckon that it is gonna be hard to tell.

btw - why on earth would the USA only buy 150 F-22s? Where does he get that from? And does he seen to think that you will scrap all your other planes and only have 150 F-22s?[V]

[Trexx]

I've been wanting to talk about this stuff forever, but haven't because this is a World War Two forum.


I think the F-22 Raptor is FAR AND AWAY superior to any other combat airplane. It's stealthier and faster than any other. All weapons are stored inside. It can cruise super sonic without afterburner. It has steerable thrust. It has major target tracking ability that at least doubles that of the F-15 and F-14. It's worth every penny. The Raptor is untouchable. My hat is off to any challengers that come up to meet the Raptor in combat. Their bravery will be dually noted posthumously.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/F-22_Raptor.gif
HOW SWEET IS THAT?

[simon]

Pick your topics carefully for the time being. This is kind of testing the water as far as I see it, if there's the interest it might be worth pestering Taglia with another section (Or as he's the one who will have to fund it, it might not ;)). The Air War Korea section proved reasonably popular, so my guess is the interest is there.

What I'd rather not see though is the board crammed with non-WWII topics. Casual visitors must still be able to come here and recognise it as a mainly WWII aviation forum.

[Double T]

Simon:
Most of us are just 'plane' aviation-nuts. I understand your sensitivities on non-WW2 subjects... but would agree to a sub-group discussion-forum covering such topics.
I have to agree with Trexx on the Raptor. In mock dog-fights with F-15 and F-16 aircraft, one Raptor took out 5 of the adversary without being seen, let alone engaged.
The variable-vectored exhaust and fly-by-wire stuff makes for untouchable manuvering. Steath, and athletism combined with lethality. Tough to beat.

[GregP]

I catch your drift, Simon, and will keep the non-WWII stuff to an occasional post.

The Raptor has many issues. On is obviously price. The next, in no particular order would be the computer system. It is built with "old technology" chips and would have to be updated, further increasing costs above their already-astronomical levels.

The Raptor is not particularly fast, Trexx. It is about Mach 1.6 in supercruise and M1.8 in Afterburner (or reheat as the Brtis say). All out speed is not really needed. Most supersonic jets rapidly necome subsonic in a maneuvering fight. The Raptor has an advantage here in that it CAN remain supersonic but, doing so would make the Raptor overshoot the adversary if it were engaged in a gunfight. Instead, it would probably slow down with the intended victim and out-turn it ... assuming it lets the victim get close enough for a gunfight. I think it will since we may THINK in terms of absolute war but, in reality, most conflicts these days are of the "limited" variety, and we musr be sure of our targets before we kill them.

Any battle damage would render the Raptor unsuited to combat since field repairs cannot make accurate enough RAM repairs. Sure, a field depot could make it flyable, but it would have to fly home for proper repairs.

About the Lightning, let's not get too fond of claiming Lightning superiority. The F-15C had a lower wing loading and a better thrust to weight ratio. Considering the time period between the Lightning and the Eagle, I'd give the Lightning VERY high marks except in range, but a well-flown Eagle was a better performer, as it SHOULD have been.

I'm a bit embarrassed that it wasn't MUCH better than the Lightning, but it WAS and IS better as a combat aircraft. That the Lightning was so good is a tribute to the design team at English Electric. They certainly did their homework, and they did it 20 years before McDonnell-Douglas did. I could wish they had found more room for fuel in tghe Lightning, but why quibble? The Lightning was superb, especially for its time. To this day I feel a Lightning, updated and re-engined, would be formidable, if not at all stealthy.

[Trexx]

I've seen promotional films and it's pretty scarily awesome how the missle doors fling open, a rocket holder (with rocket in grasp) pops out into the airstream, the missle fires, the holder retracts back inside, and then the door closes... in about TWO THIRDS OF A SECOND while the plane is in a roll.

The 'super cruise' is a strategy enhancing attribute. The first to arrive into the combat area has a tactical advantage.

[Ricky]

IIRC the Raptor was not designed to be fast - apparently they analysed a load of combat-type data and worked out that Mach 1.4 was the optimum speed for aerial combat, and that was all the plane needed to do.

GregP - not really claiming any 'superiority' for the Lightning (what is it about that name...:D) but just pointing out that an older plane can still appear to be 'better' than a modern one. As I said, I know which plane I would rather have in my airforce (though my personal plane is a different matter!;)).

Oh, and supercruise is not new - step forward again EE Lightning!

Well, it was built as a super-climbing interceptor, basically as much engine as they could get into an airframe that small, so it don't really count...

[Wuzak]

If it's manoueverability you're after, I think you have to look to some of the Russian stuff.

When American air force people saw the capabilities of the MiG 29 they were amazed. For years Western analysts had played down the abilities of Soviet aircraft and here was proof that not only was Russian equipment a match for the West's, but arguably superior in many respects.

The Su27 is a similar aircraft, only larger. About F15 size in fact. F15 vs Su27, I think I'll take the Su27, thank you.

But modern aerial warefare is less about the dog-fight. The ability to approach the enemy undetected is more valuable than the ability to out turn him. You can thank the ever increasing capabilities of weapons systems.

Oh, when discussing the cannon mounted in the MiG29 its designer said he wished he knew before hand how accurate it was - he could have reduced the number of rounds carried and increased the fuel storage!

[DoBravery]

I think a lot of people take for granted the US's ability to attain air superiority whenever it's involved in conflict. A lot of the F-15's success is also attributable to above average pilot skill, AWACS/early warning, and hitting targets as to put enemy aircraft at a disadvantage (radars/airfields). There have probably been more advances in these other aspects than in the F-15. F-15's are vectored in by AWACS to intercept MIGs that are basically in the dark (air control knocked out). When in position they light up the target with radar and fire. It's the modern day equivalent to "the Hun in the Sun." Even if Iraq had Eurofighters, the F-15's would be taken'em out for this reason. Mock combat with a level playing field shows reveals the F15 as being not so extraordinary. We all know that surprise, position, and pilot skill are all key factors. The USAF wants to take this to the next level.

Not only is the Raptor stealthy, another major advantage is that its active radar is very difficult to detect by the target aircraft. A target may not even know it's being illuminated as the F22 prepares to fire. Surprise surprise.

Aircraft burn fuel FAST by using afterburner. The ability to travel beyond the speed of sound without it probably gives the F22 a faster average speed than an F15 with normal loading. I'm not sure how long an F15 could sustain afterburner, but I believe an F4 was little over 10min before Bingo fuel.

The US will get the F22 because China is gets SU27's.

In terms of $. A lot of times it's not just rising cost, but price is based on a certain number of aircraft. When government reduces its order, the price per planes goes up. This was a big factor with the B-2. A professor of mine was a former B-2 lobbyist for the aviation industry (he might be a little biased).

Last but not least, it's a lot less troublesome for the US to violate other nations airspace with stealth.[:p]

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Pick your topics carefully for the time being. This is kind of testing the water as far as I see it, if there's the interest it might be worth pestering Taglia with another section (Or as he's the one who will have to fund it, it might not ;)). The Air War Korea section proved reasonably popular, so my guess is the interest is there.




We had an 'Air War Korea' section????[?][?]

[simon]

Sorry, section was the wrong word [:I], there was an Air War Korea Thread though... http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=464

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx
I think the F-22 Raptor is FAR AND AWAY superior to any other combat airplane.
Oh... that's interesting... hm...

With all my respect...

I've been surprised why most of people try to compare Su-37 and F-22.

Here the plane of F-22 combat usage concept. First flown in 1985.

MiG-31M

crusing speed F-22 - 1.8M, MiG-31M - 2.35M
Max speed F-22 - UNKNOWN, MiG-31M - 2.83M

http://airbase.ru/sb/russia/mikoyan/mig/31/m/img/mig31ms.jpg

http://airbase.ru/sb/russia/mikoyan/mig/31/m/img/mig31m3.jpg

It's about the F-22 radar:
http://www.f-22raptor.com/af_radar.php

Oh, yeah, everywhere just said - it's only the best! That's it, no details, no characteristics, nothing(as far as I know thet type of radar can detect the targets of fighter types at 250km)

Let me remind you that type of radar was used even with MiG-25 plane. MiG-31, and later, 31M version got upgraded radars. The radar of 31M allows to detect a target of a fighter type on 320km distance. There is a weapon MiG-31 can use:
R-37 rocket. Could be fired at 280km.
http://airbase.ru/sb/russia/mikoyan/mig/31/m/img/mig31m37.jpg

Well, whatever radar F-22 has, it can fire just with AIM-120C rockets, tell me if I'm wrong, they can be fired just from 40km (!). Other words, F-22 HAS TO get close to target. Assuming swiching on the radar on the final stage of AIM-120C rockets for radio correction of the track, otherwise the rocket just will miss. That's more then enough to detect F-22 with ANY type of radars. (Su-37 has perfect optical system as well ;))

No one can forget MiG-31M is not only the plane, it's a combat system allows other fighter to extend their combat ability, for example: guiding a blind launched missle started from another fighter due to ristricted radar ability og the last one.. and many others.

The thing is: lot of F-22 advantages are getting to DISADVANTAGES in many other aspects that FAR AWAY reduce it's combat abilities. That's why it CAN NOT be the best.

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

I've seen promotional films and it's pretty scarily awesome how the missle doors fling open, a rocket holder (with rocket in grasp) pops out into the airstream, the missle fires, the holder retracts back inside, and then the door closes... in about TWO THIRDS OF A SECOND while the plane is in a roll.
What's about to put some G on, let's take 6-9 as F-22 TOO fast? ;) ANY roll does NOT put +G, just "-", maximum 0.5 that helps the doors to be opened...

[Trexx]

The Mig-25 has a massive radar signature. It has many 90 degree angles and humongus compressor fans. It was a B-70 destroyer that was re-assigned modified duty when the B-70 was cancelled. It flys fast and straight real good. No rear view, it was to close distances promptly and fire at what was straight ahead... a fast cruising bomber.
The Raptor is an 'air superiority fighter', and it's real good at manuevering quite radically while sporting radar absorbing, stealth attributes. It's miles away from the likes of the Mig-25 and even the vaunted Mig-29. (Both are well respected airplanes here as well.)

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

The Mig-25 has a massive radar signature. It has many 90 degree angles and humongus compressor fans. It was a B-70 destroyer that was re-assigned modified duty when the B-70 was cancelled. It flys fast and straight real good. No rear view, it was to close distances promptly and fire at what was straight ahead... a fast cruising bomber.
Well, actually I mentioned MiG-31M, not MiG-25. I mean Russians have much more expirience in design of radars like that. Zaslon-M, radar installed in MiG-31M has more then double range - about 320km. Having unknown how far Raptor's radar is good how can you just claim that it's the best?

quote:Originally posted by Trexx
The Raptor is an 'air superiority fighter', and it's real good at manuevering quite radically while sporting radar absorbing, stealth attributes. It's miles away from the likes of the Mig-25 and even the vaunted Mig-29. (Both are well respected airplanes here as well.)

OK, that's interesting. Let's get it started.
about manuevering of "magic" Raptor ;):

1. Raptor has engines of low rate bypass optimized for CROUSE supersonic flight. At subsonic flight in which normally MANUEVER dogfight takes place, fuel consuption rising up dramatically.

2. Raptor's engines have variable thrust vectoring just in one leveling. Other words they are quite limited in ability (compare to Su-37 ones)

3. Wing profile adopted just for supersonic flight CAN NOT be good one at subsonic. To compensate that it has slats and flaps, but they are not effective as should be, their shape is optimized to Stealth, not to wing ability.
Adopted supersonic wing is very thin it means the fighter quite limited in G compare to it's competitors.

4. Engine air inlets are optimized for Stealth factor, but not for manuevering at high angles of attack. So from this side it's restrected in manuevering as well.

5. Raptor for it's weapon has ONLY inside compartement, so should be not strong construction as well, compare to normal design.

It's just thoughts, but quite reasonable, are not?

[Wuzak]

Talking about long range interception, mentions hsould be made of the Grumman F14 Tomcat.

Its Hughes radar was capable of tracking aircraft over 160kms away, and when equipped for this purpose teh F14 could shoot down 6 aircraft at this range. It was capable of carrying 6 Pheonix missiles, which gave it this ability. I don't believe that any other US aircarft was equipped to carry this missile.

Unfortunately the Tomcat had reliebility issues with its electronics and its engines, and it was a hugely expensive aircraft for its time.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by CAPILATUS

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

The Mig-25 has a massive radar signature. It has many 90 degree angles and humongus compressor fans. It was a B-70 destroyer that was re-assigned modified duty when the B-70 was cancelled. It flys fast and straight real good. No rear view, it was to close distances promptly and fire at what was straight ahead... a fast cruising bomber.
Well, actually I mentioned MiG-31M, not MiG-25. I mean Russians have much more expirience in design of radars like that. Zaslon-M, radar installed in MiG-31M has more then double range - about 320km. Having unknown how far Raptor's radar is good how can you just claim that it's the best?

quote:Originally posted by Trexx
The Raptor is an 'air superiority fighter', and it's real good at manuevering quite radically while sporting radar absorbing, stealth attributes. It's miles away from the likes of the Mig-25 and even the vaunted Mig-29. (Both are well respected airplanes here as well.)

OK, that's interesting. Let's get it started.
about manuevering of "magic" Raptor ;):

1. Raptor has engines of low rate bypass optimized for CROUSE supersonic flight. At subsonic flight in which normally MANUEVER dogfight takes place, fuel consuption rising up dramatically.

2. Raptor's engines have variable thrust vectoring just in one leveling. Other words they are quite limited in ability (compare to Su-37 ones)

3. Wing profile adopted just for supersonic flight CAN NOT be good one at subsonic. To compensate that it has slats and flaps, but they are not effective as should be, their shape is optimized to Stealth, not to wing ability.
Adopted supersonic wing is very thin it means the fighter quite limited in G compare to it's competitors.

4. Engine air inlets are optimized for Stealth factor, but not for manuevering at high angles of attack. So from this side it's restrected in manuevering as well.

5. Raptor for it's weapon has ONLY inside compartement, so should be not strong construction as well, compare to normal design.

It's just thoughts, but quite reasonable, are not?


I'm going the with the F-22 Raptor. It is part of an entire 'air superiority system' as previously pointed out. The United States doctrine of 'technical superiority' came about from hard learned lessons, and it has served well for accomplishing military goals. USA! We ROCK!

[GregP]

Hi Capilatus!

Good points.

The MiG-31 Foxhound (OK, the Western name) is a very good airplane. It is fast, carries good armament, and is relatively long range.

Stealthy? No.

The F/A-22 is stealthy, at least from the front quarter, and air combat aircraft go forward quickly, so the front quarter is where they get threatened from. Is the F/A-22 as fast as the MiG-31? No, not nearly.

Given the electronics in the trwo aircraft, which one will see the other from the greastest killing distance? The Raptor. Which one turns better? The Raptor.

So ... if the U.S.A. sends 4 Raptors against 100 MiG-31s, hwich wins? I'd say the MiG-31.

If the Raptors go against, say, 20 MiG-31s? It gets dicey here.

I don't know the break point and neither does anyone else. It's classified. From BOTH sides.

In the end, I hope the U.S.A. and Russia are allies, and never fight each other. But, there ARE hot spots where a stealthy, agile fighter is needed. The Raptor has the electronics to DO it.

The MiG-31 might, but the Raptor DOES.

Too bad it is so expensive.

[Wuzak]

Unfortunately for the US the main enemy at the moment has not an airforce to have superiority over. It doesn't even have airfields to bomb, or even a true home base.

And even if Russia is now an ally of the US, there are other countries that use their equipment. China and India are the largest countries to do so, with India also using some western equipment.

India is not likely to engage the US, and China is treading carefully at the moment.

It is also unlikely that the Raptors would be facing up against the MiG31s. They will more likely face Sukhoi Su-27s and their progeny.

The Su-27 family aren't as stealthy as the Raptor, but I do believe that their abilities in the air would at least be a match for the Raptor. I would find it hard to believe that the US could gain air superiority against well a well trained airforce equipped with the latest Su27 incarnation without at least a 1:1 ratio.

The "technical superiority" has not always been what it has been stated by government and analysts. A lot of it has to do with propaganda.

Since WW2 has the USA faced a first class airforce? They have never really engaged the Russians/USSR, except in a small way in Korea, and maybe Vietnam?

[Ricky]

Before we get into an argument over US foreign policy...

Comparing the F-22 to the MiG31 is not comparing like with like.

One is designed as an air sureriority fighter, one as a high-speed, high-altitude bomber interceptor.
Both asre optimised for their mission:

MiG31 has a long range radar designed to see big bombers from a long way off, with big missiles that can fly a long way and hit a relatively unmanouverable target. It can fly very fast in a straight line to meet such threats.

F-22 is optimised to meet agile fighters, with 'dogfight' AAMs, supercruise to extend time in combat, stealthy profile to assist in getting the first shot off, and assisted manouverability (vectored thrust etc).

If the 2 met...

The MiG 31 radar would probably not pick up the F-22 at long range (stealthy profile, plus small target anyway). Even if it did, the R-37 are not agile missiles, and could be evaded with relative ease by an agile fighter aircraft. As the two aircraft close, the F-22 launches a missile, which the MiG31 (designed to fly fast & straight) has a lot of trouble avoiding. If it manages to do so, guess what, it cannot outmanouver the F-22...

You may as well pit a Bf110 against a dH Vampire.;)

[simon]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Before we get into an argument over US foreign policy...
;)


I'd just like to second that (Thankyou Ricky) ;).

Please think carefully before posting comments on any nation's foreign policy. Remember that this is first and foremost a WWII Aviation site.

Note that I may intervene at this stage to remove potential flame/troll bait, please do not be offended if you find thatyour post has been editted.

[DoBravery]

The Mig31 is one of my favorite aircraft. I've always felt the Russians are great at matching a new aircraft to a mission goal. When a nation has such a large territory to defend from intrusion, a fast interceptor with a long sword helps a lot.

For the US such an aircraft is not practical. Over Iraq the US could not squeeze off 250km missles left and right. Most of the aircraft in close proximity being allied (IFF or not). With that range even noncombatants/nuetrals would be at risk. Not to single any nation out, but we saw in Ukraine that even a missle test can hit a unintended aircraft.

Also the USAF often has to operate its aircraft from foreign bases. If the Mig31 is anything like the Mig25 when it comes to runway length needs, then that would pose a problem.

Given a choice, the US would prefer the Su-27/37 Flanker rather than the Foxhound. I think its fair to say that the Flanker is on par with the F-15E. Each has their strengths, but they are pretty close. Its not like they stopped improving on the F-15E after it rolled out. If the F-22 is so much more advanced than the F-15, it should also be superior to the Flanker. I now it sounds like a simple comparison, but the F-22 program wasn't hatched yesterday. It was 15 years ago when the F-22 beat out the F-23 for the contract. The US has a lot of fighter experience with the F14 F15 F16 F/A18. Stealth experience with the F117 and B2. The Raptor may be too expensive, it may not be neccessary, but I seriously doubt it's going to be a duck.

[Double T]

Based on what I've read, the F-22 Raptor will wipe the nose of any adversary in a dogfight.
The Mig 25 sacrificed all for speed and altitude. I remember reading their engines must be replaced after a full-bore interception to altitude.
The Mig 31 is much more a balanced platform with improved radar and multiple interception capability... and true look-down radar.
The F-22 Raptor would have it for lunch. It's too stealthy for the Mig. My .02 cents.

Tim

[Trexx]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/897605/Mig-25_Foxbats.gif
Mig-25s.
Now, that's what I call TAILPIPES! Woo-Hoo!

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by CAPILATUS

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

The Mig-25 has a massive radar signature. It has many 90 degree angles and humongus compressor fans. It was a B-70 destroyer that was re-assigned modified duty when the B-70 was cancelled. It flys fast and straight real good. No rear view, it was to close distances promptly and fire at what was straight ahead... a fast cruising bomber.
Well, actually I mentioned MiG-31M, not MiG-25. I mean Russians have much more expirience in design of radars like that. Zaslon-M, radar installed in MiG-31M has more then double range - about 320km. Having unknown how far Raptor's radar is good how can you just claim that it's the best?

quote:Originally posted by Trexx
The Raptor is an 'air superiority fighter', and it's real good at manuevering quite radically while sporting radar absorbing, stealth attributes. It's miles away from the likes of the Mig-25 and even the vaunted Mig-29. (Both are well respected airplanes here as well.)

OK, that's interesting. Let's get it started.
about manuevering of "magic" Raptor ;): ...

1. Raptor has engines of low rate bypass optimized for CROUSE supersonic flight. At subsonic flight in which normally MANUEVER dogfight takes place, fuel consuption rising up dramatically.

2. Raptor's engines have variable thrust vectoring just in one leveling. Other words they are quite limited in ability (compare to Su-37 ones)

3. Wing profile adopted just for supersonic flight CAN NOT be good one at subsonic. To compensate that it has slats and flaps, but they are not effective as should be, their shape is optimized to Stealth, not to wing ability.
Adopted supersonic wing is very thin it means the fighter quite limited in G compare to it's competitors.

4. Engine air inlets are optimized for Stealth factor, but not for manuevering at high angles of attack. So from this side it's restrected in manuevering as well.

5. Raptor for it's weapon has ONLY inside compartement, so should be not strong construction as well, compare to normal design.

It's just thoughts, but quite reasonable, are not?


Dude, the plane can steer it's exhaust. It can fly straight and tilt 40 degrees off the center. It's pop a shot off in directions not anticipated...

At the Skunk Sorks, they've invented extruded foil technology to produce honeycomb aircraft components. The wings on the Raptor are one integrated structure without pods, pylons, nacelles, or wheel wells to muck up the integrity of it's strength. They started using it long ago (ie; F-104) and by this time it has been adapted in 'magical ways'... HA!


Having weapons inside is beneficial in a lot of ways. 'Guess, if I'm armed'. Maybe, maybe not. It's always streamlined. Looking at it's profile, it does not suggest that, at this stage of the technology, that 'stealth' shape has compromised it's aerodynamic effeciency. That thing is as slick as snot.

Furthermore. Bluffs do work.

[Red Admiral]

Things get invented or made because there is a need. There is no need or justification for the F-22. Why go that extra bit further when there is no point?

Lots of people slam Eurofighter and Rafale because they aren't stealthy. That is simply not true. A stealth/ease(cost) curve looks like a "S". F-22 is the top portion where to get any small increase in stealth you have to compromise on other pieces of the airframe. Eurofighter and Rafale both incorporate stealth, but are firmly at the top of the curve. The designers have done the easy bits to get a stealthier plane without going to enormous cost.

F-22 carries internal weapons. This is bad for two reasons; leaves huge gaping holes in the airframe; limits the size of weapons able to use. Eurofighter goes half-way and uses semi-recessed weapon bays.

The performance of F-22 is not known, but the simple fact is the airframe cannot be as maneuverable as more conventional aircraft. Even with thrust vectoring, which only helps to delay the stall it is still a flying brick.

Give me something similar to X-29 anyday.

[Trexx]

A barn door will fly, with enough power.

[Wuzak]

F117 is proof of that....

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by simon

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Before we get into an argument over US foreign policy...
;)


I'd just like to second that (Thankyou Ricky) ;).

Please think carefully before posting comments on any nation's foreign policy. Remember that this is first and foremost a WWII Aviation site.

Note that I may intervene at this stage to remove potential flame/troll bait, please do not be offended if you find thatyour post has been editted.


My apologies Simon.

[DoBravery]

Going back to the US WW2 aircraft, the US has tended to prefer planes with a strong powerplant (boom & zoom) over manueverbility. (Look I tied this thread to WWII:)).

Even though the F16 is amongst the most nimble fighter jets in the world, they are mostly exported and nearly always delegated to bombing operations when F15's are available. The F15s speed and radar allow it to decide when and when not to fight. Much like F-4U Corsairs and F-6 Hellcats v. the more slower/but nimble Japanese:).

I'm not saying this is the best strategy, just that is seems to be US philosophy. The idea is that putting your planes in furballs and dogfights leaves the outcome more to chance. Pilot survivability is a key component to that philosophy. Going back to the boom & zoom tactics, the US would rather kill some planes and lose no pilots than to kill a whole bunch of planes and lose a bunch of pilots.

The ideal for the US is more like the submarine hunter/killers. Imagine an Akula submarine against 2 older Victor class. That Akula is going to kill them and they won't know what hit'em. It wouldn't matter if there were 3 or 4 Victors. The Akula chooses when and where to attack.

In our 4 F22 versus 100 Mig31 scenerio:
The F22s would know exactly where the Migs are without the Foxhounds seeing them in return. The F22s would choose when and where they'll strike (fringes of the formation) so as to ensure a good chance of getting home to fight another day. Even if the F22s only kill 4 Migs, they would do that rather than kill 12 and lose a Raptor or 2.

In Vietnam this worked great too. The F4 delt with Mig15s and 17s easily. When the Mig21 evened the score, the US when back to the drawing board and WALLA! F15. Raptor is the result of the SU27/Mig29 evening the score with the F15.

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

Looking at it's profile, it does not suggest that, at this stage of the technology, that 'stealth' shape has compromised it's aerodynamic effeciency. That thing is as slick as snot.


I'd say that's because they compromised the stealth shape to retain some aerodynamic efficiency.

It would not be and never will be as stealthy as the F117.

So whilst the F22 has stealth features it will be visible on a radar - even if its signature is reduced somewhat.

The F117 was designed as a subsonic aircraft, and thus the weid and wonderful shape was possible. Still, I believe it would be a sitting duck during the day for any pilot who can see!

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

Looking at it's profile, it does not suggest that, at this stage of the technology, that 'stealth' shape has compromised it's aerodynamic effeciency. That thing is as slick as snot.


I'd say that's because they compromised the stealth shape to retain some aerodynamic efficiency.

It would not be and never will be as stealthy as the F117.

So whilst the F22 has stealth features it will be visible on a radar - even if its signature is reduced somewhat.

The F117 was designed as a subsonic aircraft, and thus the weid and wonderful shape was possible. Still, I believe it would be a sitting duck during the day for any pilot who can see!

Stealth has limited effectiveness ... it ensures no radar (or acoustic!) signal is returned to source. But if you look passively for a source of 2.3GHz radiation in the sky, then that will be it (unless your mobile phone towers are on blimps). Probably a reason B2s are required to display with an escort of non-stealth aircraft to stop anyone evaluating their 'signature'.
This same scenario was becoming a problem late in WW II where advances in radar and IR technology were very quickly moving to a point where day flying would be safer for bombers (Jones 'Reflections on intelligence' I think, might have been 'Most secret war'). An important aspect was that use of active RF sensors on bombers (and later fighters) acts as a beacon to anyone able to listen (WW II - H2S, IFF, Monica among others).

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

In Vietnam this worked great too. The F4 delt with Mig15s and 17s easily. When the Mig21 evened the score, the US when back to the drawing board and WALLA! F15. Raptor is the result of the SU27/Mig29 evening the score with the F15.



The MiG 25 was developed as a high altitude interceptor is response to the NA Valkyrie Mach 3 bomber. When The Valkyrie was abandoned the MiG 25 was continued and was used both as an interceptor and a reconnaissance plane.

To counter the MiG 25 flying over its territory (or its allies') the US developed the McDonnell Douglas F15.

Anyway, here's an article on the Sukhoi project S-37 (not to be confused with the Su-37) http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281276.html

[Trexx]

quote:

I'd say that's because they compromised the stealth shape to retain some aerodynamic efficiency.

It would not be and never will be as stealthy as the F117...


I disagree wholeheartedly. The angular, faceted surfaces on the F-117 are that way because the computers back in the late 1970s and early 80s hadn't the computation power to predict the radar bounce off of curved surfaces. You'll notice the B-2, that was started a bit later than the F-117 Night Hawk, has a lot of curves. Computer advancements had increased the ability and power to the point that curves could be accurately predicted, manifesting as a nicely contoured B-2 Spirit bomber. I would guess that the F-22 has a SMALLER radar signature to the precedent setting F-117.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by DoBravery

Going back to the US WW2 aircraft, the US has tended to prefer planes with a strong powerplant (boom & zoom) over manueverbility. (Look I tied this thread to WWII:)).

Even though the F16 is amongst the most nimble fighter jets in the world, they are mostly exported and nearly always delegated to bombing operations when F15's are available. The F15s speed and radar allow it to decide when and when not to fight. Much like F-4U Corsairs and F-6 Hellcats v. the more slower/but nimble Japanese:).

I'm not saying this is the best strategy, just that is seems to be US philosophy. The idea is that putting your planes in furballs and dogfights leaves the outcome more to chance. Pilot survivability is a key component to that philosophy. Going back to the boom & zoom tactics, the US would rather kill some planes and lose no pilots than to kill a whole bunch of planes and lose a bunch of pilots.

The ideal for the US is more like the submarine hunter/killers. Imagine an Akula submarine against 2 older Victor class. That Akula is going to kill them and they won't know what hit'em. It wouldn't matter if there were 3 or 4 Victors. The Akula chooses when and where to attack.

In our 4 F22 versus 100 Mig31 scenerio:
The F22s would know exactly where the Migs are without the Foxhounds seeing them in return. The F22s would choose when and where they'll strike (fringes of the formation) so as to ensure a good chance of getting home to fight another day. Even if the F22s only kill 4 Migs, they would do that rather than kill 12 and lose a Raptor or 2.

In Vietnam this worked great too. The F4 delt with Mig15s and 17s easily. When the Mig21 evened the score, the US when back to the drawing board and WALLA! F15. Raptor is the result of the SU27/Mig29 evening the score with the F15.



EXCELLENT COMMENTS!:)

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Wuzak

F117 is proof of that....


HA! [:p]

[Trexx]

quote:Stealth has limited effectiveness ... it ensures no radar (or acoustic!) signal is returned to source. But if you look passively for a source of 2.3GHz radiation in the sky...



I know, the heat is there for looking...

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

Dude, the plane can steer it's exhaust. It can fly straight and tilt 40 degrees off the center. It's pop a shot off in directions not anticipated...

So what is the combat use of flying straight with your nose up?
All it seems to do is ensure that you slow down.
Besides, an F-16 can do that (saw it at an airshow in the mid-1990s)
The MiG29 can pull all kinds of airshow tricks that are similarly useluess in combat...;)

[Wuzak]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

Dude, the plane can steer it's exhaust. It can fly straight and tilt 40 degrees off the center. It's pop a shot off in directions not anticipated...

So what is the combat use of flying straight with your nose up?
All it seems to do is ensure that you slow down.
Besides, an F-16 can do that (saw it at an airshow in the mid-1990s)
The MiG29 can pull all kinds of airshow tricks that are similarly useluess in combat...;)


The MiG 29 and Su 27/30/33/37 can pull what is called the Cobra - they can pull up so that the angle of attack is at or near 90° (way beyond anything that Western aircraft could pull when it was first demonstrated). The advantage of this is that the aircraft loses momentum quickly, and will cause a persuing plane to overshoot.

The ability to have high AoA confers advantages in other tight manouevres - they can do very tight turns.

The Russian jets (apart from the Su 37) did this all without thrust vectoring. Thrust vectoring adds to the manoueverability of the aircraft. It also should help with the length of the take off.

[Ricky]

So it is basically just a fancy-pants way of slowing down fast...

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

So it is basically just a fancy-pants way of slowing down fast...


And making your self a sitting duck for any wingman or AAM in the vicinity...........if you listened to some people then VIFFing is the most important air-combat manoeuvre in the world...

:)

[PMN1]

quote:
It was 15 years ago when the F-22 beat out the F-23 for the contract.


Heard an intresting story about that, story goes Northrop weren't really in the bidding for the ATF contract, it was a way of covering up development of Aurora...

:)

[Trexx]

The AV-8 can screech to a halt in mid air. That is pretty cool. The Argentinians had that stunt pulled on them. It was a suprising tactic and it worked like a charm.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

Dude, the plane can steer it's exhaust. It can fly straight and tilt 40 degrees off the center. It's pop a shot off in directions not anticipated...

So what is the combat use of flying straight with your nose up?
All it seems to do is ensure that you slow down.
Besides, an F-16 can do that (saw it at an airshow in the mid-1990s)
The MiG29 can pull all kinds of airshow tricks that are similarly useluess in combat...;)


Well, for one, you can point your gun easier and in more places...

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

The AV-8 can screech to a halt in mid air. That is pretty cool. The Argentinians had that stunt pulled on them. It was a suprising tactic and it worked like a charm.


Except that from what I've read, there is no evidence of the Fleet Air Arm using Viffing in the Falklands.

Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward mentions Viffing but from what I can remember only in terms of messing about with it in training back in the UK.

Stacks of websites and the occasional book mention it but they all seem to quote Nigel Wards book....

[GregP]

I have to jump in here! Ricky, what are you thinking? What is the use of vectored thrust?

The "Pugachev Cobra", names for Victor Pugachev, Sukhoi's chief test pilot, and inventor of the maneuver, is not combat maneuver. It is an airshow maneuver. In a bizarre situation, it CAN be used for combat, but no right-thinking pilot would DO it, since it leaves the Su-27 / 33 / 37 out of energy, and makes it a target for the wingman of the guy he just killed.

The reason for vectored thrust is simple. In air combat, the plane that can put its nose on the other plane is the winner ... unless the other guys has VERY smart missiles. There really aren't any of those yet.

So, the vectored-thrust palne closes with a less-sohpisticated opponent, who happens to be more manueverable. The vectored-thrust guy pulls around, puts his nose on the the other guy, and shoots a missile up the other guy's jetpipe.

Simple as that. Once the missile clears the rails, there is no need to continue to point the nose at the other guy, so the vectored-thrust guy backs off and returns to aerodynamic flight while accelerating and monitoring the kill, or turning into another victim.

It's just a way to get YOUR nose on your victim, so you can kill him (or her).

[Ricky]

Vectored thrust I get (and thanks for the explanation also), but the whole 'high angle of attack' thing...
So many books think that being able to fly along with your nose in the air is the ultimate way to win an aerial combat.

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Originally posted by GregP
The "Pugachev Cobra", names for Victor Pugachev, Sukhoi's chief test pilot, and inventor of the maneuver, is not combat maneuver. It is an airshow maneuver. In a bizarre situation, it CAN be used for combat, but no right-thinking pilot would DO it, since it leaves the Su-27 / 33 / 37 out of energy, and makes it a target for the wingman of the guy he just killed.
Just airshow? For F-15, 22 might be, not for Su. Will try to explain why.

Let's start: Su-27/35 can do 120 angle, Su-37 - 360 (!).
Where it can be used.

1) The way I think AIM-120C works - after radiocorrection the active AMRAAM's radar picks the target. And the missle goes NOT AFTER the craft being intercepted, it goes to the point where the tracks of AMRAAM and the target are crossing! So, if Su's pilot does that maunover and slow down it's speed - the missle simply could not be able to put enough G to turn to the target. Sure it requre certain conditions.

In VVS this maunover is reviewed not as Pugachev's Cobra - as a dinamic slowdown. And observed as a combat maunouver.

2) As far as I know F-15/16/22 are not equipped with optical aim system, all Su - are. This system is connected to Helmet aim system, and gives grat advantage in close combat in the clear sky as it scans the space all the time and can identify target within 40km. So in dog-fight pilot using "Su" enough just turn his head and Bingo! - the target is aimed. No need to make maunover to outturn the enemy.
So here we go - making the dinamic slowdown and rising up the angle (120 for Su-27/35: unlimited for Su-37) you can aim the plane being at you "6" and just fire. Sure you might lose, but at least you chances go to 1:1 ratio.

[CAPILATUS]

The question for every one:

What's "G" limitation for F-22?

[Paolo Tagliaferri]

Just a notice from me:

I really don't see any problem if the topics here are not strictly WW2 related. Everything that is "military aviation" is good to me, even if the main focus of the site is WW2 Aviation. Actually, the new version I'm planning will have a bigger,better,eye-candy forum :D (well ... I'm very keen on PHPBB (http://www.phpbb.com/)which is full of neat features without being "overweighted"). The new forum will include a "General Aviation" board, if anyone will be interested and will post in it. For now, while I'm coding the new version (YES, actually I've began coding [:p]) you can use this one to all "military aviation" related topics.

Just prepare yourself for the New Hera :D :D where the sun always shine and all will be happy and satisfied [8)]

[CAPILATUS]

Great news!!! Thank you!

quote:Originally posted by CAPILATUS

The question for every one:

What's "G" limitation for F-22?


Why I asked. Just few thoughts...
As I said above there are few obvious things n F-22 design like wing's thickness.

As far as I know G limits are:
Su-27 - 9G with speed<M0.85; and 7,5G for speeds >M0.85
F-15 9G speed <M0.85; 7,33G speed > M0.85

I'm very much doubt F-22 can show figure more then 7G at high speeds. As it's known R-33 can maunover at 6G, so can be a problem for F-22 if this missile is launched. The more so R-37, as it was reported it can support higher M and G figures. Don't know still secret, think 7-8G and about 6M.

Another thought. If to review scenario Head to Head migh be one result if to review scenario of all combat systems could be involved in - let's think.

AWACS (damn, don't know how how to spell it right) can be use quite questionable as far range missiles can be used (R-37 about 300km). A-50 - why not? USA has missiles could be fired from 160km and ONLY F-14 can carry them.

I doubt again if F-22 can remain stealthy enough under A-50 radar observation. As I said above MiG-31M can fire in blind launched missile mode using A-50 data as a whole combat system. R-37 missile needs just to be as close to the target as 20km then... uups! ;)

[GregP]

Hi Capilatus!

First, we SHOULD be in a place where the Russian fighters are NOT the primary opposition, so let's hope the A-50 is NOT the enemy.

As far as is posted and public, the F/A-22 is a 9-G aircraft. Whether or not this descreases with speed is anybody's guess ... until it becomes public knowledge.

Let's say that not too many people are inclined to try a high-G maneuver at, say, Mach 1.5 ... unless testing cleared the aircraft for it. I think ANY fighter with vectored thrust SHOULD be able to use vectored thrust throughout the full flight envelope ... but that may not be possible with current structural materials.

When I was going through a few courses in aerodynamics in the late 1960s, there was no material available that would withstand the stress of flying at Mach 1.8, and then suddenly turning 90° and presenting the entire wing structure to the airflow.

that MAY be possible today with composites, I can't say and have not done those calculations for 35 years.

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Hi Capilatus!

First, we SHOULD be in a place where the Russian fighters are NOT the primary opposition, so let's hope the A-50 is NOT the enemy.

Hi, Greg!
Fully agree with!
It's just thoughts... nothing more. I observe these as a machine fight not people one.