Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

F-22 Update

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The F-117s that were shot down were detected because they knew the flight path of the aircraft and were waiting for it. The pilots should not have flown that same path a second time.

Folks, the F/A-22 is a much more difficult aircraft to detect, very difficult. Of course no aircraft is completely stealth, but an F/A-22 is far more able to penetrate enemy air defense systems than any other aircraft, which could prove crucial in a future war or conflict.

And stealth is a huge advancement, as well as are electronic warfare capabilties.

The F/A-22 produces virtually no heat signature to those who can't seem to understand that. That makes it incredibly difficult for a missle to detect. Missiles cannot fly up magically and track an aircraft if they have a hard time tracking its heat signature, of which the F/A-22 produces very little of. Yes, the engines suck in air and produce heat, but that heat is cooled before it fully exits the aircraft.

You also seem to forget there are these things called chaffs and flares that an aircraft releases. Aircraft that flew into Iraq originally were shot at a good deal, and thus had to release these to avoid being hit (along with some slick maeuvering from the pilots).

An F/A-22 being shot at has a real advantage, as the missile has to distinguish between the aircraft (which itself produces virtually no heat signature) and the chaffs and flares, which would most likely trick it. And believe me, it is incredibly difficult for a missile to distinguish between the real target and a fake. That is why you cannot simply send up missiles to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles. It is very, very, very difficult.

Also, the F/A-22 can maneuver a lot better than current U.S. aircraft, so it would most definitely be able to outmaneuver a missile trying to find it when the missile can't track it properly and must distinguish between it and other targets.

I don't get why anyone would laugh at electronic warfare capabilities. Utilizing such a feature does not mean you'd expose the aircraft in doing so. An F/A-22 can spy on and read the types of weapons other aircraft are carrying from a distance without those aircraft knowing they are being watched.

The Raptor is capable of producing huge amounts of data and giving it to the pilot.

Goose, anyone knows an aircraft can be shot down, but the idea of the Raptor is that it is far more difficult to shoot down than anything else out there.

And I wouldn't really believe the stated range for the F/A-22; you really don't think they're going to publish something like that I hope.

As for Russian missiles being better than American ones, I think you're living in a dream world there. That is why that is so hard an idea for people to accept; because Russian missiles have never proven themselves to be better than American ones.

As for the hype about the F/A-22, of course there's hype. There are these people in this world who love aviation and thus love aircraft, so of course the features of the F/A-22 get everyone's mouth watering.

And as for a Flanker compared to an F/A-22, well of course it is better, it was only designed about 10 years later. The F-15 was designed as a counter to the Russian Mig; the flanker was designed as a counter to the F-15.

And the Raptor is designed as a counter to the Flanker, and in the case of the Raptor, it is an aircraft that the Russians will not be able to match. russia can make all its aircraft capable of nice aerobatics and stunts and all that, but with regards to electronics capabilities and stealth, Russia is in the stone-age.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
The statement that the "Flanker's avionics are on par with the F-15," is, PURE speculation. That is impossible, yes, impossible for you to know


Let alone, undisclosed air-to-air missile projects ongoing in place on F-15s. I am positive that the public has only a mere fraction of the operational info(capabilities, avionics, weapons systems) of the F-22, and while larger, not even really near the whole picture on features employed by the F-15. It's amazing the amount of discrepancies stated by members here that are clearly not 'in the know.' We are simply in business to stay several steps ahead, it's as simple as that.

An air-to-air force of combined 22s and 15s in action over a major theater, IMHO, would be devastating to any nation's Air Forces...This conclusion arrived at with an eye on facts, both studied(officially, not hobby) and personally experienced.
Just saying this to avoid the onslaught of "ooh fanboy" remarks. LOL, believe it or not, I'm definitely not a FAN of the F-15
. I just happen to know all-too-familiarly it's capabilities and characteristics, which, love or hate, must be reckoned with.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068

And as for a Flanker compared to an F/A-22, well of course it is better, it was only designed about 10 years later. The F-15 was designed as a counter to the Russian Mig; the flanker was designed as a counter to the F-15.


[edit on 25-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]


Whoops, I meant that to start as, "And as for a Flanker compared to an F-15...."



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kyle325is
I am positive that the public has only a mere fraction of the operational info(capabilities, avionics, weapons systems) of the F-22...

An air-to-air force of combined 22s and 15s in action over a major theater, IMHO, would be devastating to any nation's Air Forces...This conclusion arrived at with an eye on facts...


I am no great fan of the Raptor, but I am aware of some of it's electronic assets, etc.
Consequently I am truly amazed at all the armchair quarterbacks who pass judgement so quickly on the F-22 when the sum of their knowledge is based entirely on articles in magazines, military interest blogs, forums and friends or relatives who supposedly have inside information of some kind.

Kyle, who by the way is speaking from real world experience is absolutely right as is skippytjc; there are capabilities the Raptor has that the general public has not been informed of, to think otherwise is just being naive.

And speaking of naive, to think that a Tamara, Romona, Kopac, VERA-E, BORAP, Kolchuga-M or even the well touted S-400 air defense system will easily detect and/or direct SAMs to take out an oncoming Raptor is certainly optimistic. I don't doubt that the S-400 can take out the low observable F-18 E/F Super Hornet but the Raptor's state of the art EW suite (specifically made to defeat such air defenses) coupled with it's VLO airframe make it a very hard bird to hunt.

For those proponents of Russian aircraft who consider the Raptor a less than formidable opponent to Su's and MiG's... please continue thinking that, relax, you have nothing to worry about.

Let the flaming begin.

Poka Vsem...





[edit on 26-2-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Selena
Like I said earlier, thrust vectoring? Russia's got us beat.

what makes you think that? The USAF is the only AF in the world with a operational thrust vectoring capable jet. Let me guess...You saw a vid of the SU-47, and thought that they must be the best at it.?
The X-31 was the first true thrust vectoring craft, it used 3 paddles for its 3D thrust, while yes, the Raptor has limited thrust vectoring, thats all you really need, the USAF has also tested 3D thrust vectoring on jets like the F-18 and F-15.


Selena
Stealth? An improvement, yes, but nothing that gets my jaw dropping.

Its the first ever stealth fighter! NO stealth aircraft has ever being shot because it was detected by radar. The Raptors RCS is nearly as small as the B-2's.


Selena
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.

First of all, the day of dogfighting is long gone, the raptor would shoot those planes down BVR. No Russian or European fighter has thrust vectoring, while canards help, they are not nearly as good as the F-22's turning radius.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I am no great fan of the Raptor


Intelgurl,

I have to admit I am curious as to why? Is the cost, or that like say the Crusader or Commanche its a cold war relic?



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by intelgurl
I am no great fan of the Raptor


Intelgurl,

I have to admit I am curious as to why? Is the cost, or that like say the Crusader or Commanche its a cold war relic?

I recognize it for being a state of the art war machine and I am glad it is being delivered... but yes, the cost aspect is bothersome and it is the fault of Washington bureaucrats who kept adding requirements to the aircraft, causing delays and then trimming the program because it is running over budget, etc.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   
A big worry isn't without reason. I hane got a recent news that report the US govenment will decrease the amount of F-22 to 179. Although F-22 got a higher capability, but we have known its capability of fight radius isn't so good that like most of people's image, so the F-22 how to penitrate a enemy airspace, when F-22 be faced with the enemy got absolute dominace of amount? Esp. when F-22 must face with the enemy like Su-35 which disparity isn't very large between the F-22, does F-22 depend on hard to be detected only which shall win the mastery of the sky consequentially? Be careful! it is hard to be detected do not equal to be undetectable.
www.armysky.com...
bemil.chosun.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   
::shakes his head::

You know what, we should really set up two aircraft forums on this place, one for the "Raptor will kick ass" types and then the realists.

Do I believe the F/A-22 to be a good aircraft: 100% I agree that this aircraft has some interesting features and it will be one hell of an opponent to any nations airforce.

BUT It is not the end all in fighter production, nor does the capabilities give it an armoured shield that will protect it from French, German, British, Russian, Swedish, Chinese SAMs. Oh as for funding, I wouldn't be so sure that there hasn't been enough funds for investment, France wants the arms embargo lifted for china, and france have some interesting Anti Air missiles, so do the british for that matter. Oh and AAA shouldn't be forgotten, thats hard to avoid , no matter how invisiable you are to radar


Broadsword, I would love a link to this source where you state the the F/A-22 has next to no thermal sig, because at the moment I think you are bull-s%*ting, as there are only 3 ways to my knowledge to cool the engine and the engine section down marginally and those would turn the F/A 22 into a bus rather than a sports car, so until you provide a source, I think we should take that off the table.

Physical Countermeasures haven't changed much in over 25 years. They are pretty much similar from what they started out as, and chaff and flares are the last line of defence for a fighter pilot, they only have so many to use. Say the modern fighter has, say... 15, if any pilots out there know there are more please speak up, but there are 100+ plus SAM's. Oh I know that merely point missiles into the air and launching them in the general direction of a sound won't get an aircraft, but having met and spoken to my mates in the RN and then the Rapier boys that I know and love, there are means to shoot down hostile aircraft that are of a low visablitiy to radar. Not every thing you see on CNN or NBC you should believe nor from the Af.mil.

Russian missiles may not get a 1:1 kill ratio, but missiles cost less to produce and to fund for research comparied to a high performance aircraft. all they need to a 1:20, 1:30 etc etc

In my opinion, the only thing that the F/A-22 has going for it is the BVR, yeap I have to admit its pretty cool, but, the new british fighter has this feature, and the old russians are working on it, never mind working on longer range sams. The lead that the F/A-22 isn't as advanced as you all think.

Oh and liking aircraft doesn't mean you can sight it as an excuse when you can't see the faults within a design, as hard as that is for the americans in this forum, sooner or later it will become apparent, weither its a S400 or a russian AA11 ::shrugs::

If you want I can ask the mods to create a section just for all the F/A-22 types that believe that it is the end all in fighter production and you can all brush each others egos.

- Philip



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kyle325is
The statement that the "Flanker's avionics are on par with the F-15," is, PURE speculation. That is impossible, yes, impossible for you to know



Just like 99% of the stuff that gets posted on this forum on any topic, regardless of who posted it. I find it amusing the amount of times something is posted and taken as gospel, when there is no way in hell anyone can know for sure, one way or another, Russian, Chinese, US or whoever.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I think the F22 is in general the most capable aircraft when it enters service. However the only real advantage is its stealth. Supercruise is something most other planes have now. Same for thrust vectoring. The F22 seems rather overexpensive for its abilities so either there is more than we know or its just overexpensive.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   
"You have voted intelgurl for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."


As she has said...."let the flaming begin"





posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
I think the F22 is in general the most capable aircraft when it enters service. However the only real advantage is its stealth. Supercruise is something most other planes have now. Same for thrust vectoring.


What "most other planes"? Only one - Eurofighter. And only indian Su-30 MKI are other operational planes with thrust vectoring (and I don't know if everyone has it). F-22 is maybe expensive, but you must looks at it also form other side - most of the R&Dfunds from F-22 programm has also gone to the JSF program (because they have very similar stealth and aerodynamic features). Also if the Airforce would procure 1700 F-22 (like it is doing with F-35A) the price would be surely much much lower.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
First of all, the day of dogfighting is long gone, the raptor would shoot those planes down BVR. No Russian or European fighter has thrust vectoring, while canards help, they are not nearly as good as the F-22's turning radius.



Yeah, I'm (sadly) well aware of that. But I was just addressing the 'Raptor can outurn and outmaneuver everything out there' argument earlier, which, while good, it's not the best. Whether or not the thrust vectoring tech is on a testbed aircraft like the Su-47 or not is another thing. They've got the technology, and if the rumors are correct, won't they be incorporating it into the new MiG sometime in the near future? Russia's always been more about up close fighting and agility, while the States concentrate on all that BVR crud. Although, I suppose which country has 'the best' thrust vectoring is still debated. The '22 has the advantage for now, but it won't be long before the other major airforces catch up.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Gooseuk, I said the raptor gives off virtually no heat signature, I never said it does not give off any heat signature at all.

And I read that out of some magazine articles in aviation magazines. However, just google it, and you should be able to find a link easily.

As for the Raptor, no one said it is the end-all, be-all of aircraft. They are most likely working on newer technologies and aircraft to replace it eventually.

But there isn't much else you can add to an aircraft to improve upon the Raptor at this moment. You can make the aircraft more maneuverable maybe, or give supercruise (both of which the F/A-22 has), or give it stealth (which none of the other aircraft have), or give it far more improved avionics (which most of the other aircraft do not have either).

I personally do not think the Raptor was designed to fight some old "Cold War threat" and thus now a cheaper aircraft is needed. Technology is technology. Whether it was the Soviet Union or Iran or China or whomever, as long as the Soviets keep developing various anti-aircraft systems to sell out, plenty of places will have these technologies.

And now France and Germany are planning to lift the arms embargo on China, and France makes some of the best electronics and avionics equipment out there.

I would say the Raptor is definitely needed. And its stealth is definitely a huge improvement. So is its supercruise, and its avionics. NO other fighter out there has stealth, and virtually none have supercruise or thrust-vectoring, minus a few. And probably none at all out there have avionics that can match the F/A-22. That plane is a HUGE improvement.

Plus, unlike with older aircraft, the Raptor is the first fighter out there in which most countries will probably never be able to make an equivalent for a loooooooooong time. Russia can still keep making their Flankers and such, but they have never produced a stealth aircraft and they will probably never be able to produce a stealth fighterm let alone one they can mass-produce. This gives the Raptor a huge lifetime.

Also, avionics-wise, the Russians again cannot produce aircraft with avionics to match the F/A-22; they get them from somewhere else or their customers make them (like India makes its own avionics to some extent for its Flankers).

This also gives the Raptor a huge advantage.

As I've said before, the F-15 didn't look to be that nice an improvement to other aircraft either. Nowadays, people say the plane is still good enough to match the current planes out there. Which, with avionics and a skilled pilot, it is, but YOU CANNOT UPGRADE THE AVIONICS TO AN AIRCRAFT FOREVER.

And finally, how do we know if in 30 years or so, we might not be in some big conflict or war even with say China or something. If France and Germany lift that arms embargo, even though France and Germany will probably selll out second-rate stuff, to China it will still be first-rate and a huge improvement over the things they have.

If the United States has to go up against China to help Taiwan or something, we need the ability to go in and crush them. We don't want the equivalent of M60 battle tanks against Soviet tanks. We want the equivalent of Abrams tanks against the Soviet tanks, like in Iraq. Same goes for aircraft. We want aircraft that can go in and crush the opposition.

Also, remember, 21st century warfare is becoming largely digital. The amount of information transmitted and bandwidth used by the U.S. military in Iraq recently was a great deal larger than that used in the first Gulf War.

And that information amount will likely increase as time goes on. The F/A-22 is meant to be able to handle all of this information and display it to the pilot, smething the F-15 cannot do as fluidly at the moment. Also, the Raptor will be able to watch the enemy as a small fighter that can run quickly if discovered, rather than a large, slower stealth aircraft that, if discovered, could be a goner.

To me, the very fact that the F/A-22 is stealth and has such great electronics capabilities ALONE I think make it an enormous improvement over anything out there.

But you never know who you will have to fight in the future. It is the mistake of all mistakes to ever think you will just need equipment sufficient to "handle" the enemy. You make equipment to crush the enemy, so that handling them is thus easy.

Also, in any future conflicts with larger countries like China, the American people want their soldiers and pilots to come back safe. You don't want to give them second-class equipment. If America needs decent public opinion to go fight a large conflict, such support will only come from the American people being sure that they can go in an crush the opposition; otherwise, such support will only come in they view the opposition as a true threat, and Taiwan being invaded, while probably a threat indirectly, will probably not seem like a threat to the average Joe.

What the Chinese will do after the 2008 Olympics, no one knows. They may wait another 20 years and build up their military further, or whatever, to provide a great challenge to the U.S., or whatever, but no one can fully know. And the Chinese are just one example (though the main large one right now).

But the Raptor is an aircraft that is meant for the 21st century; the mere fact that the F-15 is even considered as still worthy enough to match modern planes like the Eurofighter and new Flankers should show you that when American companies design new aircraft, they make them pretty revolutionary to the current standard.

I am not trying to make the F/A-22 sound like the end of all aircraft, where nothing better can ever be made. But it is IS a huge leap forward above other aircraft, is meant for the new century, and is going to be incredibly difficult for other nations to match.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Selena

Originally posted by Murcielago
First of all, the day of dogfighting is long gone, the raptor would shoot those planes down BVR. No Russian or European fighter has thrust vectoring, while canards help, they are not nearly as good as the F-22's turning radius.



Yeah, I'm (sadly) well aware of that. But I was just addressing the 'Raptor can outurn and outmaneuver everything out there' argument earlier, which, while good, it's not the best. Whether or not the thrust vectoring tech is on a testbed aircraft like the Su-47 or not is another thing. They've got the technology, and if the rumors are correct, won't they be incorporating it into the new MiG sometime in the near future? Russia's always been more about up close fighting and agility, while the States concentrate on all that BVR crud. Although, I suppose which country has 'the best' thrust vectoring is still debated. The '22 has the advantage for now, but it won't be long before the other major airforces catch up.


That is the point, most other major airforces will never be able to catch up to something like the Raptor. They just now have caught up and improved upon the F-15. The Raptor is the next step. And all these nations have yet to produce a stealth aircraft, which means none of them have near the knowledge on this the U.S. has. The U.S. has multiple knowledge of stealth aircraft, and a lot more experience in building and using them.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Just becasue a russian radar can detect a birdy going mach speeds at 50,000 feet does not mean it also has the ability to track and launch SAMs at it.

The SR-71 was differant because it operated at high altitude AND high speeds. And there have been accounts of pilots encountering SAM fire, thru evasive techniques any SAMs that were able to reach the Black bird detonated harmlessly behind them.

As far as I know the U-2 Does most of it's operations now in non-hostile airspace, using sensors to detect enemy based radar from long ranges (two underwing pods)

With the operation of the F-22, the first time a hostile enemy knows it has been targeted by raptors is the air-to-air missile launched at them.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by intelgurl
I am no great fan of the Raptor


Intelgurl,

I have to admit I am curious as to why? Is the cost, or that like say the Crusader or Commanche its a cold war relic?

I recognize it for being a state of the art war machine and I am glad it is being delivered... but yes, the cost aspect is bothersome and it is the fault of Washington bureaucrats who kept adding requirements to the aircraft, causing delays and then trimming the program because it is running over budget, etc.


Intelgurl I think you need to talk to my Senator John Warner. since he is both the Chairman of the Armed Services Comitee and the Senator of the Virginia area including langley AFB he would greattly apreciate this knowledge.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Originally, I think, the F-22 program had been going ine, but then it was suddenly attacked from within the gov't by people who say we don't need it. Half the gov't and the Air Force thought everything was all running smooth, then it gets attacked.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
If I recal correctly it was 6 SU-30's shot down to every eurofighter lost and 10 flankers to every F-22

There was 2 F-15's shot down to every flanker lost however





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join