America's Future Interceptor

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trent
The other problem is the fact that it's probably hard for military guys to sell political guys the idea of buying F/A 18 Super Hornets since it doesn't have a new and flashy name like the JSF or Typhoon do. ...

I think the ADF is going to have to face reality at some point. Over half of your F/A-18's will be needing center barrel replacements starting around 2006. Something like 42 AC. The repair takes about a year to complete.

Two of the squadrons and the OCU are at RAAF Williamtown, on the NSW coast. The salt air has not been kind. At the same time, the entire 71-ship fleet will be involved in the Hornet Upgrade (HUG) re fit at Williamtown, which means each fighter will be withdrawn from service for between six weeks and three months.

And as it sits, your F-111's are set to retire in 2010, and the JSF's may not be on schedule. The F-111's can be extended, but it won't come cheap.

I think AUS needs to look at an interim fighter, either the F-15E or the F/A-18E/F, either on a buy or lease. About 48 will be needed to cover the F/A-18 A/B's while the upgrades are being done, and to cover for the F-111's after 2010. You guys certainly can't be expected to get by on 30 AC when you are operating 107 right now!

I would skip the major work on the Hornets, and retire the F-111's on schedule. This money could then go into the Super Hornets beginning in 2006. 12 AC per year for 4 years would be just about right. The HUG refits could go on schedule with the 31 Hornets that don't need new center barrels, and by 2010 you would have a complete replacement fleet for your F-111's. By then, your JSF's would be coming online, and you could phase out the remaining F/A-18 A/B's.

This saves you about 1 Billion dollars on extending the existing fleet (money down the toilet) and that money can go to the Super Hornets. You will be left with a JSF and Super Hornet mix, which still leaves you your long range strike capabilities, and even extends it a bit. And you would have a whole new fleet.

Sukhois don't work for you, because you have no infrastructure to support them, and no time to develop one. You're already geared up for F-18's. If you don't want to buy the Super Hornets, just lease them for about 6 years or so until all your JSF's are online. JAT.

On a more pleasant note, I see that the USN and the RAN has just inked a deal for the AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System for the Collins Class subs. This is the same system that will go in the Seawolf upgrades and the new Virginia Class boats for the USN. This new system, along with the MK48 ADCAP's will be a great upgrade to the Collins Class subs.




posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
hello!!, im grunt, but i had to change my username and password, for some reason my original identification-key dont work...im intrigued
.....anyway right now im grunt.........2


i just cant let pass such no-sense comentaries without any punishment
, so here i go.......

about the raptor top speed, yes is M1.8, NO MORE, the problem is mainly aerodynamic, you can compare the f16 with such monster engine, but it can only reach M1.9, now you can compare the mirage3, with that pathetic T/W, but it can reach M2.2....sooooo, well other example the f18 can supercruiser at M1.1-1.2, but the mig21 can go faster, another example now that we are with the fishbeds, the mig21mf have an much lower-powerer engine than the mig21bis, neverthless both fighters have the same top speed
, the raptor was designed for supercruiser until M1.6, that DONT MEAN that the plane have an better top speed, the raptor aerodynamics were optimised to that supercruiser, other problems is the intake efficiency, without variable geometry, that is an BIG problem at high speeds, also the RAM and compositives get problems at supercruiser, etc,etc,etc.....

the f15 is the mighty, but also the MYTHTY american plane, it is an good design, but not all in this history is glory, the first version of the eagles just suck, in the end 70s the plane was improved, with the two last versions, F15C, and F15E, but is dangerously to those planes, fight even against an mirageF1, above 5000mts, because their engines dont accelerate very well.

ENGINER

i think that the most absurd arguments come from you....lets talk

first, the f22 is NOT AN STEALTH DESIGN, its supercruiser, an stealth design is the F23, i want to know why the USAF guys scraped THE stealth concept, maybe it have strong weak points....

as you said...

Aerodynamically Unstable: Dynamically unstable designs are the norm today, because they are much more manouverable than a design that is dynamically stable....

jeje.....mig29 vs f16???.....
, unstable design dont mean that it have better manouverability, the super-agility is more an aerodynamic-lift problem than an inertial, and mig29-su27 verift that, also the falcon have an bad unstable design-airframe relation, not like euro-cannards...f22 is not very agile (i mean against ab Su37), i dont see any good low-speed aerodynamic concept in the design

Mad american, the f18e is not stealth, the problem was tha the original f18 had such big radar signature that the engenieer team must fix that.

an f18 cannot ever replace the f14, thats impossible, maybe th f35, the problem is that the USNAVY always get the worst-sucker planes in the american industrie.

Cool-hand, the f14 is MAINLY an inerceptor, or you think that with 6.5gs limit is an dogfighter????, or the phoenix-radar huges sistem is for low level fights?????



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


That whole logic thing always gets in the way

yeah but come on its not like britains gona declare war on you is it?



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
Cool-hand, the f14 is MAINLY an inerceptor, or you think that with 6.5gs limit is an dogfighter????, or the phoenix-radar huges sistem is for low level fights?????


What is an inerceptor?



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

SS
(Not F/A-22 because the Attack part has been eliminated, and now the F-22 is only an Air Superiority Fighter)

Links? Why did they take the "A" away?


I don't think they have really. It seemed to me like wishful thinking on the part of the poster, however I remain, as always, available to be convinced.

PS an Interceptor does exactly what it says on the tin, incoming threats are 'intercepted' (or 'headed off at the pass') and either turned away or destroyed. The term interceptor is pretty broad but when specifically applied to a fighter generally means "not much cop at anything else" ie Lightning, Tornado F.3 etc


[edit on 3-12-2004 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by American Mad Man


That whole logic thing always gets in the way

yeah but come on its not like britains gona declare war on you is it?


Of course not - that just proves my argument more. You guys are like are military brothers - we can give you classified numbers on our planes for you to make your choice without worrying about that info getting out


The buyers of our top of the line systems are limited mainly to NATO nations and Isreal - not exactly countries in a hurry to give away their own planes limits (though I do not trust the Isrealis).

Now, can Russia really say the same if they are selling to China, India and a host of 3rd world countries? No - they can't.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Of course not - that just proves my argument more. You guys are like are military brothers - we can give you classified numbers on our planes for you to make your choice without worrying about that info getting out


yeah might have something to do wi WW1+2...and every other war you'v been in.
yeah yet good old tony doesnt seem to try and get them? hmm strange.


The buyers of our top of the line systems are limited mainly to NATO nations and Isreal - not exactly countries in a hurry to give away their own planes limits (though I do not trust the Isrealis).

nethier do i, i trust the americans over the isralie's and no offence i dont totaly trust americans on somethings.
but hey mabye we can give your marines an offer to become ROYAL us marines?


Now, can Russia really say the same if they are selling to China, India and a host of 3rd world countries? No - they can't.
[edit on 3-12-2004 by American Mad Man]

well i duno if you betray in asia you lose face if it gets proven. but its all pretty much sneaky stealthly squirrells down that neck of the woods.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2

about the raptor top speed, yes is M1.8, NO MORE, the problem is mainly aerodynamic, you can compare the f16 with such monster engine, but it can only reach M1.9, now you can compare the mirage3, with that pathetic T/W, but it can reach M2.2....sooooo, well other example the f18 can supercruiser at M1.1-1.2, but the mig21 can go faster, another example now that we are with the fishbeds, the mig21mf have an much lower-powerer engine than the mig21bis, neverthless both fighters have the same top speed
, the raptor was designed for supercruiser until M1.6, that DONT MEAN that the plane have an better top speed, the raptor aerodynamics were optimised to that supercruiser, other problems is the intake efficiency, without variable geometry, that is an BIG problem at high speeds, also the RAM and compositives get problems at supercruiser, etc,etc,etc.....

First, the real top speed of the F/A-22 has not been released. It has been speculated by several well informed people that the F/A-22 has a top speed of over mach 2. It has some of the most powerful engines in a fighter. The design is also very aerodynamic. Also, many aircraft designs of the 1950s were made for high speed. Look at the F-104 and Mig-21. They were not the best dogfighters.


first, the f22 is NOT AN STEALTH DESIGN, its supercruiser, an stealth design is the F23, i want to know why the USAF guys scraped THE stealth concept, maybe it have strong weak points....

The F/A-22 is a stealth design. A stealth design was one of the requirements for the fighter in the first place. Yes the YF-23 was slightly more stealthy than the YF-22 but it was not much. The airforce chose the YF-22 design because it had better lower speed manoeuvrability than the YF-23 design.


Aerodynamically Unstable: Dynamically unstable designs are the norm today, because they are much more manouverable than a design that is dynamically stable....

jeje.....mig29 vs f16???.....
, unstable design dont mean that it have better manouverability, the super-agility is more an aerodynamic-lift problem than an inertial, and mig29-su27 verift that, also the falcon have an bad unstable design-airframe relation, not like euro-cannards...f22 is not very agile (i mean against ab Su37), i dont see any good low-speed aerodynamic concept in the design

The F/A-22 is very agile. Have you seen the thrust vectoring engines? It can also perform the cobra move much like the Su37.

Mad american, the f18e is not stealth, the problem was tha the original f18 had such big radar signature that the engenieer team must fix that.

The new F/A-18 E/F airframe design incorporates efforts to make it more stealthy

an f18 cannot ever replace the f14, thats impossible, maybe th f35, the problem is that the USNAVY always get the worst-sucker planes in the american industrie.

The US navy does not get the 'worst-sucker" aircraft. It actually gets some of the best and most hardy aircraft of the forces. They aircraft the US Navy uses have to perform in some of the most destructive enviroments in the world.


Ok gunt2 lets try to actually state some facts next time. I suggest further research on the net and reading more books. Your "Knowledge" could uses alot of work.


[edit on 12/3/04 by jetsetter]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
the F-22 can't do the cobra, no american aircraft can, give me a link or video, i've never heard of an american plane doing one



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
the F-22 can't do the cobra, no american aircraft can, give me a link or video, i've never heard of an american plane doing one


Woop de do. The cobra, while interesting, is a most useless maneuver for a modern fighter. I'd rather be flying a Raptor (f-22) into combat, and shoot down that mig 29 from 20 miles away before he even knows I am there. THAT is a useful maneuver.
BTW, the F-22 can do the Cobra maneuver, they just don't have to do it all the time to sell flights to rich people to earn hard currency.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by CaptAvatar]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Raptor= Optimized for Air Dominance
SU-37= Optimized for Airshows




posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
hello!!, im grunt, but i had to change my username and password, for some reason my original identification-key dont work...im intrigued
.....anyway right now im grunt.........2


i just cant let pass such no-sense comentaries without any punishment
, so here i go.......

about the raptor top speed, yes is M1.8, NO MORE, the problem is mainly aerodynamic, you can compare the f16 with such monster engine, but it can only reach M1.9, now you can compare the mirage3, with that pathetic T/W, but it can reach M2.2....sooooo, well other example the f18 can supercruiser at M1.1-1.2, but the mig21 can go faster, another example now that we are with the fishbeds, the mig21mf have an much lower-powerer engine than the mig21bis, neverthless both fighters have the same top speed
, the raptor was designed for supercruiser until M1.6, that DONT MEAN that the plane have an better top speed, the raptor aerodynamics were optimised to that supercruiser, other problems is the intake efficiency, without variable geometry, that is an BIG problem at high speeds, also the RAM and compositives get problems at supercruiser, etc,etc,etc.....

the f15 is the mighty, but also the MYTHTY american plane, it is an good design, but not all in this history is glory, the first version of the eagles just suck, in the end 70s the plane was improved, with the two last versions, F15C, and F15E, but is dangerously to those planes, fight even against an mirageF1, above 5000mts, because their engines dont accelerate very well.

ENGINER

i think that the most absurd arguments come from you....lets talk

first, the f22 is NOT AN STEALTH DESIGN, its supercruiser, an stealth design is the F23, i want to know why the USAF guys scraped THE stealth concept, maybe it have strong weak points....

as you said...

Aerodynamically Unstable: Dynamically unstable designs are the norm today, because they are much more manouverable than a design that is dynamically stable....

jeje.....mig29 vs f16???.....
, unstable design dont mean that it have better manouverability, the super-agility is more an aerodynamic-lift problem than an inertial, and mig29-su27 verift that, also the falcon have an bad unstable design-airframe relation, not like euro-cannards...f22 is not very agile (i mean against ab Su37), i dont see any good low-speed aerodynamic concept in the design

Mad american, the f18e is not stealth, the problem was tha the original f18 had such big radar signature that the engenieer team must fix that.

an f18 cannot ever replace the f14, thats impossible, maybe th f35, the problem is that the USNAVY always get the worst-sucker planes in the american industrie.

Cool-hand, the f14 is MAINLY an inerceptor, or you think that with 6.5gs limit is an dogfighter????, or the phoenix-radar huges sistem is for low level fights?????



Wow, where to begin . . .

First, the F-18 is NOT capable of super cruise, which is the ability to cruise above Mach I without afterburner.

Second, it doesn't matter what the top speed is for any fighter, what is important is how fast it can cruise with ordinance and not on fuel guzzeling afterburners. You only have a few minutes on full afterburner in any fighter.

Third, the F-15 doesn't accelerate well??? You mean the fighter that beat the 0 to 65,000 feet speed record set by the SATURN 5 BOOSTER??? I have a friend who flys F-15's and he thinks they accelerate just fine.
He especially likes the checklist for when you loose an engine which is "Climb and Investigate". He says it is a lot more complicated in an A-10. lol.

Fourth, the F-22 IS a stealth design, a very good one too. What are you talking about when you say the USAF scrapped the stealth?

Fifth, "Super Agility" as you call it is entirely due to the design of the A/C, its power plant and its control systems. The F-22 is incredibly agile and incorporates thrust vectoring which allows it to do lots of intersting things that most other aircraft can't. The F-16 is a highly cabable fighter A/C. What is a bad/unstable airframe relation? Once again, agility is very important in dogfighting, however it means almost nothing in modern air combat since US aircraft have the ability to see and attack most enemy fighters before they even know they are about to die.

GIve some examples of the "Sucker" aircraft the US Navy has bought in the last 25 years please.


[edit on 3-12-2004 by CaptAvatar]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Of course not - that just proves my argument more. You guys are like are military brothers - we can give you classified numbers on our planes for you to make your choice without worrying about that info getting out


yeah might have something to do wi WW1+2...and every other war you'v been in.


Yeah - as far as modern history, I'd say we are as close as any 2 nations can be.



yeah yet good old tony doesnt seem to try and get them? hmm strange.


I think it has more to do with the price tag then anything else, plus the fact that you have already invested your money in the EF program. Besides, the Typhoon is a bad ass in it's own right, at about half the cost.



nethier do i, i trust the americans over the isralie's and no offence i dont totaly trust americans on somethings.
but hey mabye we can give your marines an offer to become ROYAL us marines?


Sorry - we don't allow Kingship over here in the states. Besides, ever heard of semper fidelis? It aint their motto cause it sounds cool



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
the F-22 can't do the cobra, no american aircraft can, give me a link or video, i've never heard of an american plane doing one


Read it. Learn it. Repeat.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
ENGINER

i think that the most absurd arguments come from you....lets talk

first, the f22 is NOT AN STEALTH DESIGN, its supercruiser, an stealth design is the F23, i want to know why the USAF guys scraped THE stealth concept, maybe it have strong weak points....

as you said...

Aerodynamically Unstable: Dynamically unstable designs are the norm today, because they are much more manouverable than a design that is dynamically stable....

jeje.....mig29 vs f16???.....
, unstable design dont mean that it have better manouverability, the super-agility is more an aerodynamic-lift problem than an inertial, and mig29-su27 verift that, also the falcon have an bad unstable design-airframe relation, not like euro-cannards...f22 is not very agile (i mean against ab Su37), i dont see any good low-speed aerodynamic concept in the design

Grunt2,
Your remarks are incoherent. You will have to explain which "strong weak points" you are referring to. As far as the F-22 being stealthy, or your opinions on it's performance, it matters not one whit. If you care to offer reasons for your opinion, I will consider replying, if your comments merit a response.

As to positive vs. negative dynamic stability, it's clear that you don't even understand the definitions as they apply to flight dynamics, so I won't even bother explaining. I suggest you attend a ground school and take a few flying lessons. The concept will make itself clear to you with a little experience.

As far as canards affecting dynamic stability, that is not a factor. There are stable and unstable canard aircraft just as there are stable and unstable aircrfaft without canards.

I will leave you with a quote from the Eurofighter website.



Eurofighter Typhoon has a foreplane/delta configuration, which is aerodynamically unstable. This gives the aircraft advantages in:

Agility
Reduced drag
Lift and STOL



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
the F-22 can't do the cobra, no american aircraft can, give me a link or video, i've never heard of an american plane doing one



quote: the Sukhoi's can also do a 120 degree AOA (angle of attack) which they also brag about but fail to comment on how long the aircraft can hold the position. The 120 AOA has only been proven to have been done a few times and only for a few seconds. And that is not opinion...thats simply fact.
On the other hand.......the F-22 can perform a constant 60 +/- degree AOA, not seconds, and can do this while rocking the wings at higher speeds than the Sukhoi's. This is a feat that NO other aircraft can do. Also, the AOA for the F-22 is unlimited even though it has not been tested outside the wind tunnel tests beyond 80 degrees + AOA. Here is a picture of a F-22 doing such a 70 degree AOA upside down. To confirm this, look at the engine heat:
www.codeonemagazine.com...


Click on "Marvel of Engineering". Little before Half Way it shows the F/A-22 doing the Cobra Manouver.

www.f22-raptor.com...

MATV F-16 doing cobra maneuver
www.lmtas.com...

Asian Aerospace 2004, F-15E performing a cobra maneuver at the air show. Photos by Ed Turner


The old F-14 can also perform a limited cobra.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I don't know you even bother Jetsetter, these guys are not interested in truth - only in slamming the US anytime they can.
Nice video of the F-22 doing the cobra though...
Thanks!!



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 05:31 AM
link   
the cobra would be effective at 50 less metres. with awacs the f22 would get spotted but with out it.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   
The Cobra Manouver is not really that effective in combat. Fighter aircraft do not get that close in real combat usually.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
The Cobra Manouver is not really that effective in combat. Fighter aircraft do not get that close in real combat usually.

how not? makeing the enemy fly right over your head before he has a chance to react and blowing him outa the sky.
the harriers did it in the falklands well not the cobra but a similar idea. they went into hover and the enemy flew right overhead and they got them with a stinger.
fighter aircraft get that close in a dog fight.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join