All of this is very interesting and you bring up some common misconceptions regarding old statistics being used against new technologies - so this is
a good thing to discuss.
i think u could apply the same thing to the F/A-22 because, its all based around stealth, so it is not meant to be fast, RAM decreases the , i
guess i could say physical characteristics of the aircraft, maneuverability and such(of course, maneuverability isn't that much of a big deal,
because the strucuture was designed to be very maneuverable), but i have extremely high doubts that it can go past Mach2.3
"its all based around stealth, so it is not meant to be fast" is fundementally incorrect as you are taking 1970's stealth
studies in Radar Absorbant Materials and Radar Asorbant Structure and trying to apply them to a 1980-90's technology designed stealth airframe -
Studies in stealth RAM and RAS have progressed exponentially since the F-117 and even the B-2 were conceived.
RAS has been dramatically improved since the days of "Have BLUE" and its gem-like facetted structure. The structural design technology used in
developing both the F-22 and the YF-23 gives these aircraft stealthiness AND the aerodynamic sleekness that enables supersonic speeds and beyond. Even
drawing board near
-hypersonic/stealth LSR concepts incorporate similar airframe airflow management.
Nearly all future manned strike platform concepts by US aerospace industries are supersonic and
incorporate stealth technologies. Supersonic
stealth ability is not a far-off future concept, it is here, it is now, the US, Russia, Great Britain and France all have this knowledge.
The next hurdle for the aerospace industry is mixing stealth with hypersonics... Thoughts about how that would be accomplished would make for an
"i have extremely high doubts that it can go past Mach2.3" indicates that you no longer hold to your original statement of
"...don't say the F/A-22, because it would be very bad, first of all, it can't even reach Mach2..."
I therefore appreciate your pliability and open mindedness concerning the speed capabilities of the F-22.
Also, RAS is no longer a detriment to manueverability - YES, the F-22 is not as stable aerodynamically speaking as say an F-16... but fly-by-wire
really takes care of that quite well.
Additionally, technology advances in RAM have enabled good heat absorption and/or heat disipation with the introduction of advanced oxide embedded
ceramics, alloys and metal oxide embedded carbon fibers.
Sub-Discussion: F-15 Streak Eagle
and u were talking about the Strike Eagle, its an upgraded version of the Eagle, so its irrelevant, it has itn own stats
I contend that the stats on the Streak Eagle are still relevant - here's why...
The "modifications" of the Streak Eagle were:
1.They put it on a diet, took 815 kilograms (1,800 pounds) off of a production F-15A,
2. They flew it with no more fuel than was safely required to perform one specific flight exercise,
3. They stripped it of all paint and insignias so that it was bare aluminum skin.
F-15 Origins & Variants
4. The Streak Eagle retained the 2 Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 25,000 lbs thrust turbofans used in the F-15A.
Basically, the changes to an F-15A were rudimentary - the stats on this a/c are certainly different from an F-15E but anyone can see that the
potential of even the heavier F-15E would have to be significantly more than the published 65,000 feet (19,812 meters) ceiling and the Mach 2 plus top
I used this to demonstrate the difference between published and actual performance data - therefore bringing the Streak Eagle up as an example in
that context certainly is relevant.
That context going back to what I took as your implied assertion that the publicized data on the F-22 represents the maximum capability of the
aircraft - whereby I brought up the fact that the USAF and it's contractors do not publish maximum capabilities of their current inventory combat
aircraft, and I consequently used the F-15/F-15 Streak Eagle as an example.
[edit on 2-12-2004 by intelgurl]