It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I emailed the F22 Program cordinator, and he specially asked a test pilot for me, the email address is avail at the Raptor Team Website.


Joe,
Here's an answer to your question from our chief test pilot:

Yes we can do the cobra maneuver. It is in fact part of the Advanced
Handling Training the new pilots get. In essence, from level flight,
300 KCAS you abruptly go full aft stick, the aircraft will pitch nose up
to 90 degrees of pitch. You then abruptly push the stick full forward
and the nose pitches back down to level flight. It's an interesting
maneuver to watch but has questionable tactical utility (except in the
movies) as you bleed off a significant amount of energy during the
maneuver and pretty much make yourself a sitting duck.

Bret Luedke
F/A-22 Chief Test Pilot




posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Is it a better dogfighter than the F-15?

Sorry but, much as I love the F-14, I can't see that being right.


It isn't! I agree with you, I'm a huge F-14 fan! The catch is, the F-15 was design mainly to dog fight. The F-14, on the other hand, was mainly design for Fleet Air Defense and Interception. No mattert how long we argue about terminology, at the end of the day, the F-14 is an interceptor. It's mission was to fly ahead of the fleet and intercept incoming Soviet Bombers and Cruise missiles. Reguardless of what you want to call it, the mission as described is that of a long range interceptor.

The F-15, on the other hand was design for Air Superiority, engageing enemy fighters. Agility and acceliration were the keys to it's design. The bottom Line is this: If you want to fight other aircraft in a dog fight, the F-15 is better. However, if you need air defense, you want the F-14 Tomcat.

Tim



posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Dima,

>>
Just curious, with the coming out of the F/A-22 and the JSF, what will replace the F-14 in the interceptor role ...
>>

Good question. In theory, any aircraft which can mount a missile sized to the area it's required to defend can be made into a decent FADF, not least because the terrain is flat to the horizon and SAMless for as far as is likely to be relevant.

This- www.geocities.jp...

Is the design concept which gave birth to the AWG-9 and AIM-54, wherein you had a 1,500lb, two-stage, 300km, AAM-

www.designation-systems.net...

(Phoenix is about 1,008lbs and capable of roughly 150km) being flashlighted by a 60 inch diameter APQ-81 radar array (the AWG-9 is 36").

And so could avoid having to stuff the design metric with all the 'reactionary' supersprint systems inherent to a taking a 200-250nm FORCAP out another 100-150nm so that you could hit the Bear/Badger/Blinder/Backfire threat as archers not AS-2/4/5/6 arrows.

The Missileer also had the tremendous advantage of never having to be integrated with the strike ops (never needing to steal sorties or yield cycle slots) elements of the airwing as the Tomcat would have been (like the F-4 before it, the F-14s most important role was typically that of escort and eventually PGM carrier).

Of course such can also be considered a drawback in that hangar space and deckspots remain competed but in 'quieter theaters', the F6D could have likely assumed some of the same esoteric (flareship and EW) roles as it's smaller Skyknight cousin did in SEA and would have been advantaged over other jets in missions over the trail by virtue of it's good fuel load, heavy weight pylons and decent avionics for navigation as a Trails and Roads killer.

That is probably the way I would go today as well. Though I might very well use a tailored LTA rather than a jet to get both a billboard sized antenna and an airbreathing missile up high where loiter could be completely independent of weather and my target set could include TBMs coming up for midcourse mechanical intercept with something like the Raptor Talon system of a HARM+ASAS hi-endo capability. Rather than or as much as any LDSD airframe killer.

>>
Don't say the F/A-22, because it would be very bad, first of all, it can't even reach Mach2, an interceptor should at least be able to reach Mach 2.75
>>

Of course I see the intercept mission (however you term it) as much more of a boring 'round and round we go boring sky holes until the CAG says so' _utility_ mission. In which your principle reason for being up there is to establish presence and ascertain intent.

BEFORE SHOTS ARE FIRED.

"Hi, this is the U.S. Navy, we're sorry but this area is temporarily an air exclusion zone under construction at the moment so if you don't mind, we're just going to tuck in tight and make sure you don't get 'lost' on your way out of our airspace."

At which point the bogey can say "Hi, I am an Iran Air 747, not an F-4 with Harpoon missiles. I am climbing, not descending, in a mapped commercial airway and you can fly formation all you like but if you make me nervous I _will_ file a complaint with the ICAO and all other relevant organizations, making your commodore drown in paperwork. Excrement tending to roll downhill, I hope you have /a really nice day/."

With similar incidents a routine (daily) occurence in controlled airspace the world over-

1. An F-16 launches out of IAD or DCA five minutes after tha zulu horn goes off in which time, a C172, at 140 knots, could have easily transited 13 of the 15 miles from the edge of the WDC exclusion zone to the White House and required a shot call -with flyout- of less than a minute remaining closure.

2. An Su-24, out to 'maintain international relations' overflies a carrier deck with cats down and insufficient WOD to bring up anything more than a Prowler as push-off. /Even though/ it's a certainty that the Flanker had been tracked by Standard, BPDMS, RAM, 5" and CIWS for minutes.

3. Another 747 plays 'Bond' with the Kamchatan air defenses and loses after multiple 'conversion to weapon parameters' stern chase intercepts on viking climbouts from a QRA (fuel, fuel, fuel).

Under these conditions, the real question is less that of absolute VMAX than a combination of presence, cheapness and basic aerodynamic performance along the lines of a T-38 or F-5. Or even a biz jet.

Since, if you are at altitude, you don't need to waste 2-3 minutes climbing there. If you have 500 knots on the clock, you can /get to/ 700 knots just by dumping 7-10,000ft (assuming the airframe will take it). And the essence of interception is CLOSE work, you can effectively make your airframe your kill mechanism, if it's cheap enough to start with.

With these as preconditions of mission definition; I am thinking what is really required is something more akin to a target drone with scissor wings to switch between fast (body lift) and slow (tight orbit management) modes without an afterburner. All within costs sufficient to have several up and running rather than trying to sprint back and forth on the marginal edges of envelope.

It is interesting that, when you look at -aircraft- like the BQM-34, you see airframe gross weights on the order of 2,750lbs. Fuel loads of merely 700-1,100lbs. Yet flight ranges on the order of 700nm (or an absolute endurance of 115 minutes) at speeds which rival the best cruise velocities of conventional fighters (500-550 knots).

www.wpafb.af.mil...

And thus you find exactly the type of cheap, loitering, air vehicle necessary for coming up alongside Joe Schmo, utterly oblivious to the 'laser light' warning strobes all around him. Taking a picture of his face. And confirming that no, this is not a 'known member of Al Qaeda' but merely a registered private pilot lost on his way to a North Carolina airshow.

Of course if it IS Mustafa Bin Gali Wally, or some vicious and cunning Red from The Lawless East, the photo of a sweating zealot will also likely match 'somebody's database' and you have the option of popping him right there. Or going onto contact #2 as the VLS hatches pop open or the SeaLite directors train onto your ID'd and no-response-to-Guard _bandit_.

In terms of weapon efficiencies, one gives you flash of light kills (probably off a relay mirror under that same LTA I mentioned) out to 100km. The other can pop an SM.6 ERAM out to 400km or more (assuming the LTA can provide midcourse ala Theater Wide).

At speeds of 186,000 miles per second, .8 miles per second respectively, the surface to air weapon wins the sprint battle over any other 'fleet defender' anyway.

Just remember: 'Intercept, It's All About /Intent/...' Determined and Displayed. The killing part is easy.


KPl.


P.S. I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but that photo of yours looks suspiciously like a MiG-25 rather than MiG-29 cockpit/canopy combination. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if a lightly loaded Foxbat didn't have more T/Wr than a Fulcrum anyway but if they can't get their designators right, you have to be suspicious as to the veracity of the data they base their statement on.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   
i dont think that there are any planes currently in the us air force that are cpable of operating as an interceptor, due to short range, not high enough speed.

justin



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Justin is right! The current USAF fighter are more "Stunt" Fighter. They were design to be agile and do amazing manevers. They lack the long range and high top speed of a true interceptor! The air defense mission has fallen by the wayside!

Tim



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Very interesting thread, i've enjoyed it. I do have a comment on something I saw though, a little off the topic but i'd like to clarify this in my own head...


Originally posted by intelgurl
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.
[edit on 30-11-2004 by intelgurl]



Are you sure about this regarding the SR-71? I was under the impression that the purpose of the intake spike was to SLOW the incomming air to subsonic speeds. Even when the J58's were operating as ramjets the airflow through the engines is still subsonic, as opposed to a scramjet which allows supersonic flow througout, thats the main difference between the two engine types, correct?

The spikes would position the shockwave so that it fell just outside the inlet ducts, preventing any of the associated turbulence from being ingested.

Not to nit-pick, its just that i recently explained all this to someone and now i'm questioning whether or not i even know what i'm talking about!



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by waynos
Is it a better dogfighter than the F-15?

Sorry but, much as I love the F-14, I can't see that being right.

The f-15 is definatly much better at dog fighting than an f-14 but thats because thats what it was designed to do.


It isn't! I agree with you, I'm a huge F-14 fan! The catch is, the F-15 was design mainly to dog fight. The F-14, on the other hand, was mainly design for Fleet Air Defense and Interception. No mattert how long we argue about terminology, at the end of the day, the F-14 is an interceptor. It's mission was to fly ahead of the fleet and intercept incoming Soviet Bombers and Cruise missiles. Reguardless of what you want to call it, the mission as described is that of a long range interceptor.

The F-15, on the other hand was design for Air Superiority, engageing enemy fighters. Agility and acceliration were the keys to it's design. The bottom Line is this: If you want to fight other aircraft in a dog fight, the F-15 is better. However, if you need air defense, you want the F-14 Tomcat.

Tim


My understanding of an interceptor was that it sat an the end of a runway waiting and took off only when enemy aircraft were approaching freindly territory. And that the f-15 which is an air superiority aircraft hangs around in the air waiting for enemy planes. Therefore if you want an aircraft hanging round in the air you want the f-15 although im not sure how big the f-15 loiter time is and it might not be very long especially if it was hanging around a loong way from base.

Justin



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo


Maybe they were just checking them out? The US soldiers are responsible for the M-16s and I doubt they would let them out of their sight. Othewise they can be made to replace them.


No, AP states that US military troops were FORCED to use these weapons on the frontline because they didn't have sufficient supplies, I will look for an URL for you to look at...

7.62x39mm rounds are all over Iraq, 5.56x45mm rounds are not, they are fairly scarce sense virtually no Iraqi troops are issued with 556ers...

Here is a bad example what they used their AKs for...

www.news.com.au...^1702%2C00.html

Ask some soldiers who were in combat in Iraq, they will verify my story...


Look, unlike many of your more socialistic countries I live in one that allows me to own and shoot firearms. One I have is the SAR-1 (Romanian AK-47 semi auto only), which is legal where I live. I have compared it to many of my friends ARs (M-16s semi auto only). Aside from being not capable of full auto, (in which the M-16 is superior with it's reduced recoil and consequent controlablity advantage from what I hear), both are about equal as far as this redneck can tell. The AK has more recoil, the AR a little more accurate, but how accurate do you have to be out to a couple hundred yards? Both have advantages and disadvantages. I have not dunked them both in a swamp or bucket of mud and tried to fire them but I can conclude that otherwise they are comparable, and probably the more experienced and better trained soldier will make much more difference than either of these weapons. I mention this only because I am so tired of hearing how one side's equipment is so superior. Training and experience counts for much more than the equipment. How else would have the US army in Sherman tanks faced German Tigers, and ultimately won? (and I don't see that much difference in either side's advantages in any single piece of equipment)

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Sandman11]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
My understanding of an interceptor was that it sat an the end of a runway waiting and took off only when enemy aircraft were approaching freindly territory. And that the f-15 which is an air superiority aircraft hangs around in the air waiting for enemy planes.


Not Quite Justin,

The main difference between an air superiority fighter and an Interceptor is more then that. Air Superiority is considered an offensive mission. Planes like the F-15 are sent into enemy airspace to take out enemy fighers and protect Attacking aircraft.

Interceptors, are defensive in nature. They also do air combat patrol, but they stay in or near friendly territory. The mission of an interceptor is to Protect an area from attack. F-14's rutinely fly CAP's near the carrier. Also, Air Superiorty is usually Fighter vs. Fighter, while Interceptors are usually sent against bombers or ground attacking aircraft. The Intercept Mission is the one that usually involvs the long range stand off weapons.

Tim



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   

How else would have the US army in Sherman tanks faced German Tigers, and ultimately won? (and I don't see that much difference in either side's advantages in any single piece of equipment)


Not really comparable, the tigers were beaten by lack of fuel, mechanical failures and air power.


Firefly shermans (British shermans with 17 pdr gun) accounted for most tiger tank-tank kills.


And quite a few tiger commanders had killed over 100 tanks before being killed.



Still, for all that, the T-34 was probably the best tank of WWII.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Anyway, America's future interceptor will be the ground based laser arrays with targetting balloons.

Far quicker reaction times than any aircaft/missile combination.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
wow, thisis my best behaviour on any post, i hope u guys can work with me to keep it that way, anywyas, american mad man, i believe it was u that said it has a vrey large thrust-to-weight ratio, well, the MiG-29 has a very good one too, so would that mean that the MiG is able to go to Mach 2.8, no, first of alll, the structure of the aircraft, couldn't withsatnd such friction and heat, it wasn't made for it

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

just to reply to u're message, america doesn't need to give out the exact specs, well, i could just as easily say that about any country that designs aircraft, and why wouldn't they, because consumer countries always look at the specs of the aircraft, and if they don't meet the requirements, then they don't accept it

and u were talking about the Strike Eagle, its an upgraded version of the Eagle, so its irrelevant, it has itn own stats


you are sadly mistaken dima the F/A 22 has ram applied sparingly on it it has a very aerodynamic desigh and supercruise and stealth it supercruise spped is mach 1.7 higher than its planned mach 1.5 you are thinking of the F 177 and the B 2 the F/A 22 and F ?a 35 are the exception to the rule

www.f22-raptor.com... on the raptor team website and here s the link where it says very little ram is applied

www.globalsecurity.org...

the F/A 22 produces more thrust than most fihter about 70 ,00 lbs and F/A 18 superhornet produces about 44,000in comparison a single JSF engine can prodeuce well over 40,000 making it the most powerful fighter engine go research the F/A 22 aerodynamics should be on this website www.jsf.mil...



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Anyway, America's future interceptor will be the ground based laser arrays with targetting balloons.

Far quicker reaction times than any aircaft/missile combination.


uhhhhhhh according to my knowwledge the F 35A is designed to replace the F 16 which is an interceptor and the F/A 15E/F superhornet is designed to replace the E/A 6b prowler and F 14 ( f35a is also to replace the a 10 thunderbolt)

targetting ballons and ground based laser arrays are u sure do u have any links at all how can a ballon replace a fighter jet



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl

Originally posted by Dima
just curious, with the coming out of the F/A-22 and the JSF, what will replace the F-14 in the interceptor role, don't say the F/A-22, because it would be very bad, first of all, it can't even reach Mach2, an interceptor should at least be able to reach Mach 2.75


The F-14 will be replaced by both the F-18 and eventually the F-35.
The F-18 would not have been my choice for an F-14 successor but I am not a decision maker.

Also, the F-22 is not a naval aircraft at all - and ...
I must disagree with your statement that the F-22 cannot reach Mach 2.
While it is true that there is no published official data stating that the F-22 can break M2 it is widely known that the US keeps official maximum specs on it's aircraft underated.

Proof of this is seen in official statements on the F-15 having a ceiling of only 50,000+ feet... yet it is known that F-15's are capapble of operating at 70,000+ ft and the Streak Eagle has gone over 100,000 ft (straight up like a rocket, but it did attain that altitude).

Proof is also seen by taking note of most official specs on top speed of current inventory US aircraft, while the layman eventually finds out more specific stats - the usual statement for US fighter aircraft from the gov't is that their cieling is 50,000 ft PLUS and as far as speed they will generally say it's a Mach 1 or Mach 2 class aircraft.

The top speed of the F-22 -
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.

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.

Incidently, the USAF does officially spec the F-22 as a "Mach 2 Class" aircraft.


[edit on 30-11-2004 by intelgurl]


Youre talking about static thrust. Thrust at Mach 3 is something totally different because at those speeds the engine operates differently. Static thrust can tell you fast it will accelerate at take-off but tells you absolutely nothing about how fast the plane can go. It doesnt help that the airflow into the F-22's engines undergoes all kinds of twists and turns to increase forward stealth. With the SR-71 its all about ramming the in and blowing it out as fast as possible.

Another factor is aerodynamic drag. The F-22 isnt exactly the most straightforward or slippery shape on the planet. Its design is more optimized for stealth and low speed maneauvers with it's angled surfaces and enormous wings rather than cutting a hole in the air at mach 3.

Finally there's the obvious limitation of structure. Among other potential problems, there's a good chance the fancy materials used on the F-22 will begin to melt if it goes too fast and ultimately, this might be the single biggest factor in keeping it's top speed down.

The SR-71 was designed for speed, the F-22 was not.



[edit on 27-2-2006 by orca71]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Anyway, America's future interceptor will be the ground based laser arrays with targetting balloons.

Far quicker reaction times than any aircaft/missile combination.


Ground based laser arrays, assuming we can get laser arrays to work properly, would be very difficult to hide and too vulnerable unless they are very mobile, which may somewhat reduce the danger, but if they are mobile they will have a lower power generation rate a very low firing frequency and therefore would have to coordinate extensively requiring both simultaneous and sequential firing on each target. They would also have to move often because each unit would act as a beacon when it fires.

Of course if they can fly and are sufficiently numerous, then it would be much harder for the enemy, but response time might be too slow to have these as the first line of defense and airborne nuclear generators might be frowned upon by the public.

For every problem there's a solution but with every solution there are new problems.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by orca71]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158

uhhhhhhh according to my knowwledge the F 35A is designed to replace the F 16 which is an interceptor and the F/A 15E/F superhornet is designed to replace the E/A 6b prowler and F 14 ( f35a is also to replace the a 10 thunderbolt)

targetting ballons and ground based laser arrays are u sure do u have any links at all how can a ballon replace a fighter jet


There are threads on it on the board somewhere, I cannot find them now though...



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
Ground based laser arrays, assuming we can get laser arrays to work properly, would be very difficult to hide and too vulnerable unless they are very mobile, which may somewhat reduce the danger, but if they are mobile they will have a lower power generation rate a very low firing frequency and therefore would have to coordinate extensively requiring both simultaneous and sequential firing on each target. They would also have to move often because each unit would act as a beacon when it fires.

Of course if they can fly and are sufficiently numerous, then it would be much harder for the enemy, but response time might be too slow to have these as the first line of defense and airborne nuclear generators might be frowned upon by the public.

For every problem there's a solution but with every solution there are new problems.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by orca71]


Vunerable? To what exactly?



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by orca71

Youre talking about static thrust. Thrust at Mach 3 is something totally different because at those speeds the engine operates differently.

The SR-71 was designed for speed, the F-22 was not.


Pretty much right on the money. Compare the JSF and F-22 engines, the JSF is more "powerful", but only due to its bypass ratio - at supersonic mach numbers the bypass flow doesn't produce so much thrust, thus the F-22 can cruise at a higher speed despite having a less powerful engine (OK, its got two - but the reasoning still applies).


Indeed the SR-71 engines turned into a quasi ramjet at high speeds if I recall correctly... The F-22's engines will do no such thing.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
true but the JSF has only one engine and still cant supercruis and u havent responded to my previous thread the one with the S 400



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
i dont think ground based ones would be as feasible becuae a even though a THEL is a megawatt class it only has a 10 mile range a space based laser would be more effective lobger range,etc of course at higher power levels a THEL could disable satellites the reason why the THEL has a 10 mile range is because the lower the altitude the thicker the air and the less rnage it will have at a high altitude a laser would have more range
i havent senn any plans of this laser as an interceptor if u cnat find the thread at least look for it online



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join