It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


America's Future Interceptor

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:35 AM
base don current knowledge the air force has no ther plans for an interceptor other than an F/A 35 and E/F 18 superhornet an F/A 22 would be a great interceptor considering its by far the most aerodynamic fastest and can supercruise at mach1.7 for a long time. It can engage the enemy longer. I thinka lser on the ground would be a waste of time a vehicle with a powerful laser in the air or one in space would require less energy and be more mobile kilcoo wouldnt a good SAM system thats mobile and have a good rnage be a good air defense for example MEADS i cant copt y the pdf file to go with it the link is on the bottoma anyway

[edit on 1-3-2006 by urmomma158]

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 10:39 PM
I've said this before...

F-22A Raptor was at one time listed at Mach 2.2
One of the test pilots says Mach 2.42

It's not really the aerospikes of an SR-71 that would make it go faster, that's the wrong type engine and inlet. It would be a variable inlet compression ramp. These were used on lots of fast jets. The obvious example is that big ramp on the inlet of an F-4 Phantom.

I've seen an F-15 do a "Cobra" maneuver in slow motion, at only about 30-50 feet off the ground. He finished with a vertical take off, obviously not with a standard flop over cobra, not enough altitude.

That Harrier maneuver is called "Whiffing", hit the vertical thrust briefly, which kills the forward speed, and pops up. It's so quick and unexpected, the other guy shoots right by.

A word about Naval aircraft design. The requirements are extremely different. Basically the landing gear (and the airframe) has to take a sudden drop onto a flight deck at sea. This breaks an ordinary aircraft into two or more pieces.

Naval aircraft operations require special handling of EMI (electro-magnetic interference). Everything on a flight deck is extremely shielded from stray electronic emissions, in or out. A regular aircraft would not cut it. Nor would any of the ground handling equipment meant to be used with it.

The F-22A has gone from dual use, to fighter, and back to ground attack. The second squadron is being vetted from F-16 ground attack pilots, not F-15 pilots. Things change. The rapid advancement of certain systems of the F-22, has changed the name of the game. The proposed capabilities are something new, untried as of yet, and still changing, as new advancements and techniques are discovered. (For fun, count the number of aircraft manufactured so far, and tell me where they are now.)

The tigershark is a short range air defense aircraft. Not meant for fleet defense, nor for landing on a flight deck.

The over-riding factor in replacing or upgrading naval aircraft, is the fact that the wiring harnesses are rotting away in the sea environment. It costs near as much to build a new one, as it does to dismantle and re-wire one. A mistake in using PFE plastics for insulation of electrical wiring back in the latter part of the previous century.

The F-14's job was Bear and cruise missile intercept at long range. That requirement is pretty much gone. Replaced with a requirement of intercepting of sea-skimming ultra-high speed cruise missiles. Those are generally launched a lot closer, and aren't going to be stopped by an aircraft. It's sort of back to the old patrol and defend, from aircraft that would like to launch one.

The AIM-120 that will be upgraded, will lack the range, but if it has improved velocities, that might just be a good trade off.

Never under estimate an enemy aircraft in the hands of a skilled pilot. That includes the Flanker at the top of the list. I would mention other aircraft, but first they have to be sold and deployed.

A weapon with improved or superior capabilities is of little use, if it cannot hit it's target. Think about it. Half of a dog fight is counter-measures. Probably the more important half.

Vertical take-off aircraft don't lack from lifting ordnance capabilities, they lack from fuel to do so. They can lift it, but then they can't go anywhere, having used up all the fuel. This is where "ski-jump" ramps on runways and carrier decks become useful.

When talking about stealth, please remember that even a typical C-130 or B-52 cannot be seen on a commercial civilian radar at a typical airport. They have transponders for that, to identify themselves. The only part of stealth that counts on an attack aircraft, is it's frontal aspect. And it order to find it, you have to know where to look in the first place. Most aircraft are spotted only after a weapons launch. (Note: that 3D verbal and visual cueing and warning of attack in the F-35's "face-up" display, might just be a good item.)

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 06:19 AM

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
When talking about stealth, please remember that even a typical C-130 or B-52 cannot be seen on a commercial civilian radar at a typical airport. They have transponders for that, to identify themselves.

Really? How do you figure that typical aircraft such as C-130's and B-52's cannot be seen?

The transponders they carry have nothing to do with their ability to be seen by Radar. All the Transponder does is identify the aircraft to the Radar site. Without the transponder, the aircraft will still be visible, however it appears as an unknown.


[edit on 14-3-2006 by ghost]

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 08:47 PM

"Russia is also very interested in new BVRAAMs for the MiG-31, including the S-300 missile...IIRC "

What did that mean? What happened to R-33 AA-9 Amos and what does it have to do with outdated s-300 SAM?

I do agree that it's an absolute shame that there will be no dedicated interceptor replacement for F-14, what a beautiful bird. Considering that since 87 Foxhound is a dedicated interceptor and completely outclassed the Tomcat, F-14s replacement is not only two decades late, but sadly will not be at all. Shame.

Damn, American Mad Man is wrong again, but he is showing consistent in it.

engineer is wrong. The very survivability of the carrier depends on the engagement range of its defenders. A single SU-33 armed with Kh-41 presents a one shot kill to the carrier, and with out a next generation dedicated Naval interceptor capable of engaging such targets well outside the range of their weapons is crucial. F-18 SuperHornet does not cut it, plain and simple.

Pyros is wrong.

Intelgirl is wrong as well,

"The only thing that would keep the F-22 from attaining speeds similar to the SR-71 is the configuration of the engines and the absence of the adjustable intake spike that forces air into the jet-engine at a speed higher than the airflow around the aircraft itself. "

Nonsense, engine config and intake control are by FAR not the only things keeping F-22 from breaking Mach 3. For starters SR-71 stretches a couple of inches at such speeds, not to mention heat stresses, and a whole boat load of other problems as soon as one attempts to sustain even Mach 2.

and similarly wrong here;

"The SR-71 which weighs 140,000 lbs (52,250 kg), has 65,000 lbs of thrust and can go in excess of mach 3.2.
Compare that to the F-22 which weighs a mere 60,000 lbs (27,216 kg) and has 70,000 lbs of thrust... The F-22's power to weight ratio is therefore over twice that of the SR-71. "

ttw ratio is not the determining factor in supersonic flight, as dictated by basic laws of aerodynamics. A Monster truck will not reach speeds of a Formula 1, regardless what it's ptw is. See above.

Supecruise is naturally more important then momentary bursts of speed, and it requires desing trade offs and sacrafices. Breaking Mach 2.5 for a short burts of speed and afterburning a whole lot of fuel verses cruising around M 1.5 and sipping fuel will bring F-22 to the fight faster with more fuel to tango. F-22 does not have to break Mach 2, it doesn't need to, that's what interseptors are for.

COOL HAND, exelent posts, repeatedly right on the money. Great to see people making sence.

To withstand Naval servise YF-23 will requere complete airframe rebuild, completely negating its intended advantages, and further rising the cost of production. Raptor will not swim.

LOL! Dima's here with common sense. Great to see it.

ZPE StarPilot, on the money, right on.

new topics

top topics
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in