F-22 Update

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
The raptor is a big step above all other counties, not a small one. It's stealth is near that of the B-2...You know...The slow bomber that has never being shot down. Its stealth is better then the F-117.

I highly doubt the S-300 can shoot down the F/A-22, that sites that may say that are either spreading rumors...Or Russia is actually saying lies in order to do what they do best...sell, sell, sell.

and someone mentioned that Russia could track the SR-71. Apparently that didn't do them any good seeing that they didn't even shoot one down, I have never heard of this...any links. I know that they could track our U-2's but thats all i've heard.

No other nation has even created 1 stealth aircraft...that says a lot. and the SU-47 wont go into production, what is Russia's current next gen plans?

While yes, I think the Raptor is over priced, a part of that comes from congress, they keep shrinking the amount of Raptors that the USAF get which makes each one's price tag rise a little. There price wouldn't be so high if the USAF had gotton what they originaly wanted...700 of them.

The Raptor will have a long and successfull operational life. Its Stealth, supercruise, thrust vectoring, will all be contributors in making that happen. I do not think russia has any radar capable of detecting stealth.

and I wont even discuss China or India...thats just a joke. When disussing military hardware only Russia can be near the same status as the US, the others are decades behind.

The F/A-22 is far better then the ageing F-15.


[edit on 24-2-2005 by Murcielago]




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
I do not think russia has any radar capable of detecting stealth.
[edit on 24-2-2005 by Murcielago]


Stealth does not mean it CAN NOT be detected. The only qestions are how powerful the radar is and how far away it is. If say a F-117, B-2, or a F-22 were close enough and if the russians were using a strong radar then there is no doubt ALL of there airplanes would be detected.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
F/A-22... such a waste, in my opinion. I always though the JSF was the better project, of the current future craft. It has much more potential. I hear all the time from the F-22 crowd how it's the best, the invincible, and how no one can come close to it because America r0x0rs the international b0x0rs.

I think the F-22 is a lot like Halo. Hyped up to make it a god, but nothing special in the long run. But, a lot of people seem to be making it out to be the ultra-dogfighter. Yeah, okay, I'm sure the plane is capable of holding its own in a fight with an enemy fighter (for the price, it'd better be). But, who would America be going up against that presents a need for an ultra-stealthy, ultra-maneuverable fighter? The nations that can afford such planes that could rival the Raptor are our allies. We get into fights with the desert folk with old MiGs that can be taken down by F-15s. I'd hope no one would be stupid enough to go pick a fight with Russia or China.

Thrust vectoring? Bah, Russia's been ahead of us in that for years. Stealth? Handy, but we'd probably need it more for taking out SAMs and other such things that require jetting into enemy lines and back than for using it against other fighters.

All in all... too much hype (it's not all that revolutionary), and not really worth the costs. I would have loved to see a more cost-effective fighter that wasn't quite so... outlandish. So unless this thing's really sporting a particle cannon somewhere in its internal weapons bay, I'm going to have to side with the group that says 'this should have been a testbed', and would have rather waited for something better.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. First of all, you never know what type of opponents you might see in 20 or so years. The U.S. needs such an aircraft to be able to gain total air dominance in a region.

And yes, the F/A-22 is everything it is hyped to be. It is very, very difficult to detect it, and as said, even if one does manage to detect, it is very difficult to shoot down.

The JSF does NOT have much more potential than the Raptor; to say that makes me wonder what you even know about the aircraft. The JSF does not have near the technological features in it the F/A-22 has, or the stealth capabilities.

The F/A-22 can outmaneuver and outrun virtually anything out there, is incredibly difficult to shoot down, and is capable of electronic warfare (messing with other aircraft's electronic systems), something the JSF nor an Russian aircraft are capable of. The F/A-22 has great room for potential. The JSF does too, but it is meant to stand by the F/A-22, not substitute it.

In any future wars or conflicts, electronic warfare will play a huge role. Look at how much technology the U.S. Navy utilizes. Naval warfare isn't all about ships just shooting at each other or sending planes at each other anymore. You really think aircraft are going to remain the same way? This is the 21st century.

Maneuverability of an aircraft is only one aspect. Stealth, the ability to advance in electronic warfare (something the Raptor is very capable of), and the ability to PENETRATE enemy airspace undetected and very difficult to fire on are other things.

For example, I am not meaning to start this old argument up again, but suppose in the future China tries to take back Taiwan. People can say this won't happen, people say it will, yada yada point is no one fully knows.

In such an incident, if the U.S. goes to China's aid, both countries will try to establish air superiority. U.S. F-15s and Superhornets aganst Chinese Flankers is going to be more of a test of pilot skill; by then, the avionics in the F-15 may not be more advanced than the Flanker's; it al depends, as one can only upgrade the avionics of an aircraft soo much.

With the F/A-22, the U.S. would have the capability to engage any Chinese aircraft without the threat of those aircraft shooting down the Raptors, it would be able to engage them through electronic warfare possibly, and it would be able to penetrate Chinese airspace if necessary without as large a threat of the Chinese shooting it down, as the aircraft is difficult to detect, and difficult to shoot down.

You sound like the fools in the 80s ("The F-15 is such a waste of a plane, and it DOES NOT represent a leap forward in technological capabilities yada yada" talk about wrong).

The F/A-22 is an ENORMOUS leap forward in capabilities. Russia can keep building their flankers and make them maneuver nice and aerobatic like and put in nice avionics, none of that means anything for future warfare if you can detect the aircraft and shoot it down with missiles.

The F/A-22 is capable of handling such aircraft the conventional way and has lots of room for the unconventional way. Stealth and electronic warfare are two big pieces of technology for 21st century warfare that will give the U.S. the advantage over everyone, provided we take advantage of it.

Hell, everyone laughed at the Apache helicopter too. "Such a waste, too expensive, too much technolgy that we won't need..." and that was in the Cold War. Now the standard Apache is too old technology-wise, and you need the Longbow.

Critics laughed at the Abrams tank too. They scoffed at its "Chobham" armor, saying it would never match the Soviet tanks and was a complete waste, using too much technology. Wrong there too.

I already mentioned the F-15 and the F-16 was critisized too. The F-117 Stealth aircraft was also highly criticized. So was the B-2 bomber.

Hell, in 1980, The Wall Street Journal ran an article on AWACS aircraft, saying how the gov't was "wasting the taxpayers money" on such a useless piece of technology. Nowadays, the only "problem" with AWACS is they don't have enough of them.

Point is, the engineers at Lockheed know very much what they were doing. They designed the aircraft to compete with all current and future aircraft, and the F/A-22 can be upgraded with newer avionics packages and engines and such in the future. But the Raptor is essentially a flying supercomputer, literally. The Flanker is not.

The Raptor is truly an incredible aircraft, and if it comes into service and especially if it has to go to war, I think people will see for real and learn to understand and appreciate its true capabilities. It truly represents a quantum leap forward in aircraft. No otehr aircraft out there even comes close.

AND FOR GODSAKES, DON'T COMPARE A MILITARY AIRCRAFT TO A VIDEOGAME!!



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Also, what is this with it "just being a testbed, wait for something better?" The F/A-22 has been undergoing tests for the past 11+ years. It has been thoroughly tested and is still being tested. To make something better requires a LOT more research and a LOT more testing, which is kind of pointless as the F/A-22 IS this "something better" everyone keeps talking about. You think the Pentagon is going to tell everyone what kind of electronic warfare and such the aircraft is really capable of?

I was talking with an F-15 pilot who had flown against the Raptor in an exercise, and he said it is truly incredible what that aircraft can do.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Quite, if you allways wait for something better you never build anything, a policy followed by the UK in the 1950's when the supersonic Hawker Hunter was canned while we waited for the Lightning, among many other examples I won't bore you with.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
The difference between the JSF and the Raptor is from my lmited understandng like the difference between a regular groundpounder and special forces or a sniper. The JSF (groundpounder) Is a front line trooper, cheaper to make (train) and not as effective, but you have a lot of em. The raptor s more like SF or snipers, much more expensive but better suited for special ops, it can get in cause massive destruction or surgical strikes, and get out unseen, the only clue that is was there being the havok it caused. each has a purpose it fills.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Yes, but that is where people are mistaken. The F/A-22 is not meant to be the "special-ops" version of an aircraft; it is meant to replace the F-15, which is the U.S.'s frontline fighter to give total air DOMINANCE.

The JSF is meant to replace the F-16.

People equate the Raptor as being like the F-117 or B-2 or something like that; it is meant to be the standard frontline fighter of the U.S. Air Force, not a specific special aircraft.

People keep complaining about its cost, but the F-15 cost the equivalent for its time when it first came out.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
So then the difference is closer to that of a trooper and a tank?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Hummm I have been thinking about the cost of producing F-22 and I only came to 2 logical conclusions. These being A: it really does cost 160-200 million to produce a raptor or B: It does not really cost 160-200 million per plane, but of that money spent, some of it goes to fund other projects, say maybe 10%-50% of the total. After all B would be a good cover since the Gov't loves telling everyone that this is the most advanced and costliest fighter aircraft ever build. It hard to pick one since both of these make sense, so im staying neutral BUT I really think it has to be A or B...



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Everyone knows that the US pilots were handicapped by a signifigant margin, but in a real scenario the F-15's would dominate.


It was a USAF computer simulation of various situations. NOT a real test like the F/A18 -vs- MiG-29 one. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


Who said the F-22 was a plane like the B-2 / F-117? Surley then it wouldn't have fighter capability? Its made for use alongside the current fighters when they can all the F-15's. When are the canning the Tomcat, anyone? Its awesome and I love it, but, just like our Harriers, it's not getting any younger...

F-22 just *isn't* the absolutley massive tech jump its made out to be. And for the price, think what else you can get on the market for it. I think its not a realistic price for one of the main fighters. Especially with the current monetary situation Bush has got hte US into...


Im not saying its not a good plane, it is. Its great. Its just not the next generation. Give it a few updates, maybe. In its current form, no.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
::groans::

Hmm, it looks like this topic will keep spinning the wheels it appears.

Starters, the F/A 22, CAN be shot down, Russian Anti Aircraft Muntions are move advanced that any thing the UK or US has been able to produce so far, one of the Janes dispatches have listed the new Russian SAM at least bare minium 1 generation over the US Anti Ballistic Missile System.



The F/A-22 is designed to penetrate these. The F/A-22 is not semi -stealth, it is stealth period. It is an aircraft that is very, very difficult to detect. It gives off no heat signature so it would be very hard to target it with missiles, and it can outmaneuver virtually anything out there.

Note: Broadsword, you know those big air sucking, fuel burning tubes, they produce heat. The F/A 22 Produces heat in sub sonic flight, with the Russians continued use and production of missiles with both a dual Radar seeker and Heat Seeker back up, the F/A is far from safe on the tactical ACM battlefield.

Even if by some witchiry, they could produce a heat resist layer that could shield up to 90% of the Thermal output, that didn't weight more that the space shuttle, it would still produce 'Some' heat, aircraft produce heat just by moving through air.



The F/A-22 can outmaneuver and outrun virtually anything out there, is incredibly difficult to shoot down, and is capable of electronic warfare (messing with other aircraft's electronic systems), something the JSF nor an Russian aircraft are capable of. The F/A-22 has great room for potential. The JSF does too, but it is meant to stand by the F/A-22, not substitute it.

That above quote made me laugh, why on earth would a US tactical aircraft thats main purpose is to remain 'unseen', I use that word lightly, to enemy sensor systems, would WANT to broadcast its location using ECM systems.

To my knowledge, US Tactical Aircraft, in more specific areas, Fighters, carry a limited defence jammer to counter hostile SAM's, they aren't prefect, they help deal with them. Normally Navy Prowlers and B-52's act as mobile support jammers. Using ECM is not conductive to stealth options.

Also, I can detect stealth with a $2000 optical machine, provided its clear and the sucker is flying low enough, ::shrugs:: just proves that they aren't invisiable ::grins:: On and it should be noted that the F/A-22's range is nothing special, all any enemy would have to do is gun for the tankers, either in the air or on the ground and hey! the F/A-22s would need external tanks or reduced play load.

Also, the Germans had developed stealth aircraft to counter the british lead in WW2, through the use of the flying wing design.

Folks I hate to break it to you, but while the F/A-22 is advanced, and the engineers have done their best to design the best aircraft, I am sad to break this to you but the russians, germans, french, BRITISH and god knows how many other countries have a vested interest in a "what if" situation, folks, while the US have been working on the best aircraft in the world, nearly every other country in the work has been developing ways to shoot the sodding thing down.

- Philip

Edit Note: I forgot to add some thing in, the F/A-22 has 4 computers with 400mhz processors, I have calculators with more processing power that those systems
Hell thats one of the things you need for a invisiable aircraft, I would have an uber raptor killer with my 3.6 gig processor


[edit on 25-2-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The only thing F-22 and JSF have roughly the same is the RCS. And JSF can carry more bombs internally. Otherwise - F-22 has better radar (1/3 larger dish - 30%better range), can supercruise, much better thrust -to-weight ratio and better average wing loading ratio too (important especially to turn rate). It would be better to cut JSFprocurement for USAF from 1700 to 1200 and buy more Raptors instead (USAF wanted to do it so, but govt refused).



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I definately think that the F22 has the upperhand on Russian planes "doggie"wise and will keep that for some time, but I do think that the Russians would be capable of having radar and missiles that could engage the F-22, you repeat that "nothing comes even close" statement while you got a russian missile on your tail.....

All a matter of priorities, It does put the Russian millitary a bit on the defense, because they need large and advanced radarstructure to detect the F-22, so this is likelly not to be found on the smaller mobile units, but only in homeland defence, while the F-22 can be employed in many theaters without meeting such elaborate radar/sam defense. Iow: the F-22 is the ideal plane to sweep the skies in places like syria, but better do that now, because in ten years F-22 detecting radar will likely be sold proliferate to the second and third rate countries as well.


[edit on 25-2-2005 by Countermeasures]

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk


Russian Anti Aircraft Muntions are move advanced that any thing the UK or US has been able to produce so far, one of the Janes dispatches have listed the new Russian SAM at least bare minium 1 generation over the US Anti Ballistic Missile System.

I think it doesn.t need to be true, simply because USA bought S-300 systems already during 90ties and studied it and were not too impressed. Yes the russians now have S-400, but is it generation ahead of the new Patriots?



Note: Broadsword, you know those big air sucking, fuel burning tubes, they produce heat. The F/A 22 Produces heat in sub sonic flight, with the Russians continued use and production of missiles with both a dual Radar seeker and Heat Seeker back up, the F/A is far from safe on the tactical ACM battlefield.
Even if by some witchiry, they could produce a heat resist layer that could shield up to 90% of the Thermal output, that didn't weight more that the space shuttle, it would still produce 'Some' heat, aircraft produce heat just by moving through air.

As you said IR signature is probably heavily reduced. And the IR sensors are unreliable when there are clouds, that's the main reason why radar guidance is still the primary.



That above quote made me laugh, why on earth would a US tactical aircraft thats main purpose is to remain 'unseen', I use that word lightly, to enemy sensor systems, would WANT to broadcast its location using ECM systems.

Jamming could be last option. Ever heard about THOR? It looks like it will be ready in 2008 and if it is not another hoax, it will be able to use radar antena to create targeted EMP shockwave. So if Raptor pilot picks up enemy radar signal he can find out the emmiters location and damage or even destroy the enemy electronics, and maybe even the fly-by-wire systems. (Just imagine Su-35 for example scaning the sky, still seeing nothing and now boom - all your electronics is fried and you are blind - and dead
)



Also, I can detect stealth with a $2000 optical machine, provided its clear and the sucker is flying low enough, ::shrugs:: just proves that they aren't invisiable ::grins:: On and it should be noted that the F/A-22's range is nothing special, all any enemy would have to do is gun for the tankers, either in the air or on the ground and hey! the F/A-22s would need external tanks or reduced play load.

IF the F-22 is flying low enough or overhead it could be detected simply by normal radar too. But it has much better chance to penentrate the AA defenses than lets say Eurofighter. And F-22 UR range is better than every other fighter. That external tanks increase the RCS? That's why they are DROPPABLE - when you go into the dangerous area you'll simply get rid of them...



, I am sad to break this to you but the russians, germans, french, BRITISH and god knows how many other countries have a vested interest in a "what if" situation, folks, while the US have been working on the best aircraft in the world, nearly every other country in the work has been developing ways to shoot the sodding thing down.

This may be true, but also false. Why? Because lack of money, maybe they are not able to develop effective countermeasures.




[edit on 25-2-2005 by longbow]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Is the F-22 radar shielded against Electromagnetic pulses ? One could devise an arial denial strategy where huge blimps just generate continous pre-emptive Electromagnetic pulses, these blimps wouldn't "see" the planes coming and most of the time shooting in thin air, but still , once you breach their airspace, you subject yourselve to the EM pulse.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
Is the F-22 radar shielded against Electromagnetic pulses ?


Who knows? But I highly doubt it, very likely there is no completely EMP shielded aircraft today (maybe except some strategical bombers). It adds too much weight. But it is still stealth so it has an edge. You must detect it first to fire at it (misille or some kind of energy weapon).


[edit on 25-2-2005 by longbow]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I cant back this up, its 100% speculation, but I have a feeling the F22 has some things we arent privy to yet. Either one known stat is MASSIVELY understated or it has features that are yet to become known to the puplic. Or possibly a combination. I just get that tickle about it, you know?

[edit on 25-2-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Perhaps some of my dislike and bias (yes, I'll admit that I'm biased) is probably due to all the hype. I know the F/A-22 is a quality aircraft, as it should be. I know that it's one of the best future fighters out there. I'm well aware the F-15 is old, and yes, I'd hope pilots would be saying how good it is in comparison with the Air Force's future fighters. But hype just drives me mad.

Like I said earlier, thrust vectoring? Russia's got us beat. Stealth? An improvement, yes, but nothing that gets my jaw dropping. The F/A-22, while maneuverable, isn't the best when it comes to it. It's good, yes, but the Eurofighter and some of the newer Russian planes are better in that area. Supercruise is also used by the Eurofighter, so that isn't anything special anymore, either. The only thing the fighter really has going for it above and beyond other new fighters is stealth and being electronic warfare ready.

Not saying that I'm going to hate the thing forever. If it DOES prove itself as capable as its supposed to be, and proves itself to be the end-all fighter hype is making it out to be, then I'll stand behind it. But for right now, from what I've been able to read on it, my mind will remain skeptical and cynical. But I have a tendency to wanna stomp on hype and propaganda and all that arrogant fun stuff.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
quote:
"The Russians never got out of the fighter-building business. They are delivering aircraft to nations around the world that outperform anything else we have -- except the Raptor,”

I hope the rest of you will accept that statement too.


"The Raptor will have a long and successfull operational life. Its Stealth, supercruise, thrust vectoring, will all be contributors in making that happen. I do not think russia has any radar capable of detecting stealth."

The F117s that were shut down over Yugoslavia were detected by a old Soviet-era Russian radars. Can you imagine what the new radars will do?

Basically, if the Raptor is crusing over Russia it has very little chance of surviving because everybody knows (for some its harder to accept than others) that Russian missiles are still a little more advanced than American.

"Flanker is on par with the F15's avionics."
Yeah, but everything else is better





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join