F-22 Update

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
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.

John Warner has been a member of the Armed Services Committee in one capacity or another since 1978 - there is nothing I could tell him about delays and cost overuns that he doesn't already know.




posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
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



The was just a goofy computer simulation in attempt to promote Eurofighter sales!

F-15's tasked up against Flankers would absolutely demolish the Flankers.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The USAF has the only thrust vectoring jet in service? Su-30 can be bought with thrust vectoring and I beleive it has by some countries. Russia DOES Export these things, case in question: MKI.

So dogfighting is gone? Well, I do agree, the planes aren't likey to end up gunnig at each other because they both evaded missiles, they will probably not run away from the other plane and try to fire a BVR again, you'll try to angle the front of your plane at them and get a short range missile off. Sort of a dog fight, if not the old style ones.

So the F-22 has the crown of "Best Fighter" off the Flanker series for now. Then the Russians will know out another next gen plane. And America again. Then the Russians again.


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.


But the Russian aircraft to coutner it is WIP now. Its not going to take long for it to be out, is it? The MiG-29 was just as good in combat as an F-15 anyway.

Anyway, we won't ever know if hte F-22 is equivalent to enemy fighters as the US doesn't pick on countries that could put up a proper fight anymore, it goes for third world ones and mucks up anyway. Like they would seriously attack China or Russia, they'd get a good kicking and be forced to go home wondering how they lost.


F-15's tasked up against Flankers would absolutely demolish the Flankers.


No, the F15's got shot at before they knew there was a flanker, then if that didn't hit, they got shot again.

Simple fact is the Flanker will be the best until the F-22 enters full active service. Stop being a closed minded "America be da best" type person. Flanker is an awesome plane. F-22 just happens to be a bit better.

Russia will counter, America will coutner the Russian counter, and so may it go on forever, and has done since the ned of the WW2.

Thats how tech develops. Wonder if China will ever start to design its own stuff? Other than the groovy stealth-type-boat-thingy.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Oh boy - here is a new conversation



A question to all of the people so quick to say the Raptor "is not THAT much better then what is out there, or Russia/China/India/France/whoever can make an equal aircraft:

Where is it? You all seem very convinced that the Raptor is NOT a next generation aircraft. Why? Which other one is better? Have you flown a Raptor? Have you flown against one? Are you in the military?

The US has a looooooong history of making absolutely AMAZING aircraft. I fail to see how you can so quickly say that this aircraft "isn't that great" when it is the only aircraft in the world to combine its extent of stealth features, along with TVC, supercruise ability, and unbelievable computing power.

Please, I am all ears - show me another aircraft that will best the Raptor.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I said it is the best, its just not next gen. The reason no-one else has produced anything is the cost of it. Lets face it, for that money Sukhoi or MiG could probably produce something comparable. Its just they mainly export aircraft so go for low cost sollutions that other countries can buy.

And for the money you can buy many more of the Su-30. Even the mighty raptor couldn't win when it is outnumbered.

Its hardly next gen, its just a future-proof plane. Its abilities are good, they are the best availible, but its hardly a shocking tech jump, is it? Sure, the US has a histroy of producing outstanding planes, but so does the UK. And Russia. And Sweeden, lets not forget.

Next gen is a shocking tech leap blastic the last thing into submission.
See: MiG-15 -vs- propeller planes at the start of the Korean war. Introduction of Sabre to equal out US forces. New nice new next-gen planes.
MiG-21 -vs- F4 in 'Nam, both next gen planes also. Guns -vs- Missiles. What chance did hte older planes have?

MiG-29 was an big jump. F/A-18 was too. Flanker family was. F-22 doesn't seem to do much except stealth, TBH. Oh, and electronic tricks.

Just on an off-topic side note, would a heat seeking missile lock onto a propeller jets engine? Because if so, would a modern fighter be vunerable to it?
"WW2 planes kill USAF in whatever third world country its invaded now".



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I'd have to disagree. The neat thing about the Raptor is that most likely Russia will NOT be able to make a plane capable of outdoing it. Russia has never created a stealth aircraft period, yet alone a stealth fighter.

And electronic "tricks" can mean a lot in modern warfare. And I disagree, it is not solely "the best aircraft," it truly is next-generation. Stealth alone makes it a next-generation fighter. So does the supercruise, thrust-vectoring, and the incredible avionics.

The Raptor is one of the first fighter aircraft that the Russians are NOT going to be able to counter for a looong time, because they cannot counter with equal avionics and they cannot counter with the stealth capabilities. Yes, they can counter with more maneuverability and thrust vectoring, but those are only one part of the package.

The Raptor takes warfare to the next level. It is a next-generation aircraft, not a super-improved version of a current fighter.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teh_Gerbil
I said it is the best, its just not next gen. The reason no-one else has produced anything is the cost of it. Lets face it, for that money Sukhoi or MiG could probably produce something comparable. Its just they mainly export aircraft so go for low cost sollutions that other countries can buy.

And for the money you can buy many more of the Su-30. Even the mighty raptor couldn't win when it is outnumbered.


Are you so sure? The Raptor has proven in simulation to take on 5+ Eagles alone.

The thing is, other aircraft will NOT be able to "see" (AKA detect) Raptors before the Raptor has already had the opertunity to fire. If you send 2 Raptors, each of which carry 8 or so A2A missles, and they are up against 10 Migs/Sukhois, they are going to get most - if not all - of the enemy on that initial shot, well before their adversary even knows the Raptors are there. At that point, the Raptors can bug out if they don't get everyone.




Its hardly next gen, its just a future-proof plane. Its abilities are good, they are the best availible, but its hardly a shocking tech jump, is it? Sure, the US has a histroy of producing outstanding planes, but so does the UK. And Russia. And Sweeden, lets not forget.

Next gen is a shocking tech leap blastic the last thing into submission.
See: MiG-15 -vs- propeller planes at the start of the Korean war. Introduction of Sabre to equal out US forces. New nice new next-gen planes.
MiG-21 -vs- F4 in 'Nam, both next gen planes also. Guns -vs- Missiles. What chance did hte older planes have?

MiG-29 was an big jump. F/A-18 was too. Flanker family was. F-22 doesn't seem to do much except stealth, TBH. Oh, and electronic tricks.


I believe when you say that you want a "revolutionary" leap, you are not talking about generations. You want the difference between a musket and a repeating rifle. That is not a generation, that is a new class of weapon system.

Fighters have gone from jet powered dog fighters, to primitive radar carrying missle platforms, to modern avionics missle platforms. I would say the 'next' generation would naturally be to make these missle platforms as stealthy as they can be to give them an advantage over the other missle platforms.

I also believe you are undervalueing the advanteges of having a pure stealth platform like the Raptor. The Raptor, going one on one with any fighter in the world, will have an almost insurmountable advantage based on this stealth alone.

The Raptor will have first detection of the enemy against any other fighter today. That is a huge advantage in ANY type of warfare, but especially in air combat because of the ranges of weapons used today along with their accuracy.

If you dissagree with the meaning of the word "generation" that is fine, but most of the world would not agree with you. Russia, China, France, the UK as well as every other modern military power classifies the Raptor as the only 5th generation aircraft in the world today - they agree with the US on this.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

The was just a goofy computer simulation in attempt to promote Eurofighter sales!

F-15's tasked up against Flankers would absolutely demolish the Flankers.


BAE is one of... if not the the most respected civilian and millitary electronic and weapoins systems manufacturers in the world.

It's simply not in their interest to "fake" a result and if I recall correctly the test was supervised by both US and UK engineers based upon shared knowledge.

Remember BAE has FULL access to all details regarding US millitary programs thanks to a cpecial relationship with the US defence agencies which allows it to function as if it were an American company.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
Remember BAE has FULL access to all details regarding US millitary programs thanks to a cpecial relationship with the US defence agencies which allows it to function as if it were an American company.

That is a misleading statement - I am reasonably sure you did not mean to imply that military industry service providers have an open book to every aspect of all advanced technology programs - but I thought I would help clarify for other readers...

Advance technology programs are rather compartmentalized and industry representatives are only given details on what they need to know in order to best accomodate the DoD, other gov't entity or the project's prime contractor. They are generally not given ALL details of a particular program... unless they are the only service provider for that program or they are the prime contractor, and by no means are service providers given an open book to all technology programs.

For instance in a large program such as the F-22, Lockheed may have the full picture since they are the prime contractor, but BAE would only have access to what they have been contracted to work on and any peripheral areas that could be directly affected by what they are working on.




(Edited to further clarify)


[edit on 28-2-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The Raptor does have a lot of good qualities, but its price and its combat radius have much to be desired, especially in supercruise. I've posted a link from a USAF site here before on the increase in capability the FB variant has over the fighter in terms of range and its just inexcusable that the US is going to keep this aircraft as shackled to in air refuelling as any current model, it won't be truely able to roam around vast areas like the Sukhoi's can. Takes off, refuells outside the FEBA by a highly vulnerable flying gas tank, takes a run into the combat area at subsonic speed, goes into supercruise for the high threat portions and then back out, needing to refuel again before the ferry phase back to base. 595nm purely subsonic combat radius isn't bad until you realize they wanted 750-800 with some supercruise portion of the mission in the original specifications.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
This is just pure speculation on my part, but I doubt they'd release the true range or combat radius of the F/A-22. Its maximum altitude is not known, so I don't know why they'd state the range either.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Is it true that F/B-22 is under R&D? Is it going for production? I thought USN chose F-35 as its next generation figher (but JSF is more of a multirole).



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   
what makes you think it would be the Navy that would get the F/B-22 & not the USAF?



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Of course they're researching it, but production? We've got to worry about getting the F/A-22 into big numbers first, let alone the F/B-22.

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
what makes you think it would be the Navy that would get the F/B-22 & not the USAF?


I agree the USAF will get it I doubt the navy will ever. The navy had an agreement with the AF that basically stated that the Navy would buy a navalized version of the F-22 with variable geometry wings (Think F-22 mated to an F-14) and the USAF would purchase the A-12 Avenger II stealth bomber from the the Navy to fill out some of its squadrons. However, once it was canceled that deal died. The navy had spent a fortune developing the A-12 and did not have much money left. So they then went with the redesigned F-18 SuperHornet. Great plane but hardly as potent as a swing wing F-22 would have been.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Yeah, wow, now THAT would've been a Navy plane!! Gruman also had offered a "Super Tomcat," that had supercruise, more powerful engines, longer range, new avionics, etc....like how the Superhornet is a new plane structurally that LOOKS very much the same as the F/A-18 C and D Hornets, this Tomcat was the same in relation to the current Tomcats. But it too cost too much so the Navy said no.

There's too many friggin' military projects right now. The Navy wants their Superhornets and F-35 JSFs, the Marine Corps wants its AH-1Z Super Cobras, upgraded Hueys, CH-53X helicopters, V-22 Osprey, and JSFs, the Air Force also wants JSFs and of course its F/A-22, the Army has its soldier of the future types of programs, the Navy also is working on new carrier designs, the Army wants a new engine for the Abrams tank, and they want to upgrade their Longbow Apaches moreso, etc.......there are too many projects and too little cash for everyone.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
There's too many friggin' military projects right now. The Navy wants their Superhornets and F-35 JSFs, the Marine Corps wants its AH-1Z Super Cobras, upgraded Hueys, CH-53X helicopters, V-22 Osprey, and JSFs, the Air Force also wants JSFs and of course its F/A-22, the Army has its soldier of the future types of programs, the Navy also is working on new carrier designs, the Army wants a new engine for the Abrams tank, and they want to upgrade their Longbow Apaches moreso, etc.......there are too many projects and too little cash for everyone.

I 100% agree. However the ones you mentioned I think should get funding, its all the duplicate programs that I dont like. Like the X-45C and X-47B, they are enough alike that one or the other could be modified a bit for the other role, and save millions. Also small UAV's, there TONS of em. The JSF is revolutionary, One aircraft fitting 3 seperate roles by being a little modified. The F-35 will not get its funding cut at all, because this is one program that congress likes...Cooperation. Also they know that if they cancel its funding each brach will start all over again on making a new aircraft which in the end would end up cost millions if not billions more.

The Army needs a major overhaul to get them and all there equiptment into the 21st Century, Although there FCS is hella expensive, I think its needed, and all the vehicles included in it look cool.






posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

If you dissagree with the meaning of the word "generation" that is fine, but most of the world would not agree with you. Russia, China, France, the UK as well as every other modern military power classifies the Raptor as the only 5th generation aircraft in the world today - they agree with the US on this.



Eh? I've heard people describe the Eurofighter and a whole lot of Russian fighters (the MiG MFI, the Su-37 and 47, etc.) described as Fifth Generation aircraft before, from American sources. The Raptor was certainly one of the first Fifth Gen's, if not ~the~ first, but I wouldn't say it's the only one. Now, if you meant operational fifth generation, then we can knock the Russians off the list for now, leaving the Raptor and Eurofighter. While the Eurofighter isn't nearly as stealthy, it does sport supercruise, good avionics and excellent maneuverability.

Although I'm not certain if the Su-37 is still in the testing phase. Is that one still under development, or are the Russians getting close to being ready to put it into production?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   
For all intents and purposes, i think the F22 will outperform the Eurofighter.

The real melon in development is the JSF that will be sold to Australia!! (Booo!!)



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Selena

If you dissagree with the meaning of the word "generation" that is fine, but most of the world would not agree with you. Russia, China, France, the UK as well as every other modern military power classifies the Raptor as the only 5th generation aircraft in the world today - they agree with the US on this.



Eh? I've heard people describe the Eurofighter and a whole lot of Russian fighters (the MiG MFI, the Su-37 and 47, etc.) described as Fifth Generation aircraft before, from American sources. The Raptor was certainly one of the first Fifth Gen's, if not ~the~ first, but I wouldn't say it's the only one. Now, if you meant operational fifth generation, then we can knock the Russians off the list for now, leaving the Raptor and Eurofighter. While the Eurofighter isn't nearly as stealthy, it does sport supercruise, good avionics and excellent maneuverability.

Although I'm not certain if the Su-37 is still in the testing phase. Is that one still under development, or are the Russians getting close to being ready to put it into production?


To start off, yes - I did mean operational/production fighter. The Typhoon isn't a 5th gen fighter. It is a gen 4++ so to speak. It really doesn't have anything that revolutionary other then supercruise. Heck, It doesn't even have thrust vectoring yet. Put it this way, it is more comparable to the superhornet in my mind then it is the Raptor. The superhornet and Typhoon both have reduced RCS and modern avionics. The Raptor is a STEALTH aircraft - it has lowered heat signitures and a MUCH smaller RCS while having next generation avionics. In short, it's not like the Typhoon is bad - far from it. It is just not very comparable to the Raptor because it lacks the stealth and computing power.



As for the Russian birds, there is the S-37 (aka Su-47) and the Mig MFI/1.44.

The Sukhoi is not, IMO, a 5th generation fighter. It is, like the Typhoon, more of the same. Effort to reduce RCS, TVC, supercruise (?), modern avionics et al. However, this was a technology demonstrator - NOT a production aircraft. Last I have heard they were offering to sell it to other countries, but Russia herself was not interested because of another fighter....

Which brings us to the Mig MFI. Now, if this aircraft is everything they claim it to be, then yes, it is a 5th generation fighter. It would be a supercruising, 3D thrust vectoring, modern avionics bearing, twin engine, stealth aircraft. However, Mig boasts it to be more stealthy then the raptor, and that is when the red lights go off.

First of all, how can they make this claim? They have never flown one, have never flown against one, have never even been close to one.

To be more technical, all one must do is simply look at the aircraft and you can say it is not close to as stealthy.

First, compare the tails of the aircraft:

MFI






Raptor (sorry for the bad pick of the tail, but it was the best I could find, which may not be an accident
)




Notice how on the MFI, you have both engine nozles close together while on the raptors they are farther apart? That, along with materials used and a cooling system, results in a smaller heat signature for the Raptor. The MFI uses a standard configuration, so it is already losing the heat war.

Then, if you notice, the raptor has no (zero) 90 degree surfaces. Those 90 degree angles are a large part of radar returns. The MFI has tons of them, for instance, both it's delta wings and forward canards have 90 degree edges.

Then there are small things such as how the plane is put together.




In this picture, you can clearly see bolts holding metal together. Not so on the Raptor.




Notice how "clean" everything is on the Raptor? There are no spaces between material, nor are there bolts holding it together. In fact, most of the "lines" are where the missle bay doors are. Other then that, is is smooth. This is another thing that seperates the two - the MFI is not made out of RAM like the Raptor.

Which leads me to another thing, and that is cost. The reason the Raptor is so expensive is because it has such a high degree of stealth. The materials, design, and manufacturing are all more expensive - there is simply no way of getting around this. RAM is more expensive then metal and RAP is more expensive then regular paint. So I fail to see how the MFI could not only equal, but surpass, the Raptors degree of all aspect stealth, all while suposedly being less expensive.

Last point before I cut my long winded response short, which is the actual radar of the two aircraft. The Raptor uses a LO radar which changes frequencies very quickly. This is so it's own radar does not betray it. From what I have read of the MFI, it does not use anything like this, and sticks to a traditional phased aray radar.

Basically, unless the MFI is deploying some revolutionary "plasma" stealth that they like to talk about (but have yet to produce), the MFI is not going to be as stealthy as the Raptor. Even if they did add plasma stealth, it would light up like a Xmas tree at night, as well as make it very hot - not good things when trying to build a stealth aircraft.

So basically, IMHO, the Raptor IS a 5th gen fighter, and is the only one in service/production today. What gives it its 5th generation status is the combination of supercruise, 2 supercomputers, avionics, TVC, and stealth (which includes shape based stealth in combination with material based stealth, thermal stealth, and it's own LO radar).


[edit on 1-3-2005 by American Mad Man]





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join