Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

F-22 Update

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Excellent post Madman!

"You have voted American Mad Man for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."




posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I think the only thing that madman forgot to say was....

"So stick that in yer pipe and smoke it!"





posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I agree, that was an excellent post AMM, and I have argued with you quite a bit in the past


If I must be slightly picky (and yes, I must
) The one flaw in your analysis of the differences between the Raptor and Typhoon (I hate that phoney word eurofighter) is in the area of avionics, they are indeed on the same sort of level as the Raptors with one or two features that were even added to the Raptor after Typhoon pioneered them, of course overall the Raptor may well win the 'number crunching' analysis but not by a great deal. However I agree absolutely with the rest of it so yes, I was being picky, but you always stick up for the one you love



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Yeah excellent post, though I kind of would throw red lights on with regards to saying the Typhoon has avionics equal to the Raptor. I seriously doubt they have ever taken a look at the Raptor either.

Not saying the avionics aren't or couldn't be on par (because the French design some good avionics) but I mean just saying don't automatically say they are, either.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Broadsword,

I am beginning to think that your support for the much vaunted, but in my opinion over-hyped, Raptor is bordering on the obsessive.

Lets take a point by point look at the items you feel make the Raptor "a quantum leap forward"

Supercruise - You get where you need to go faster or you get to bug out quicker. Nice to have but hardly a "quantum leap". Concorde had supercruise in the 60's.

Thrust Vectoring - Technology has been around for 15-20 years and in that time many new aircraft have been created and only one using it. Makes me think that it is not all it is cracked up to be. Look at UAV and UCAV development. Less than half of them plan to include it.

Stealth - Great at BVR useless at visual range engagements. The US has always had a political problem with authorising large scale BVR engagements and quite rightly so given the errors it has made and the friendly fire incidents it has had.

Another point to consider is that the weapons deployed on the Raptor are those currently available to the existing USAF fleet so no "quantum leap" in capabilities there.

I see the raptor is more like a evolution of the F-15 and F-16 than a quantum leap forward.

As to its future I think that it will be rapidly eclipsed by UCAVs.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 2-3-2005 by BillHicksRules]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Broadsword, Of course the Raptor has many secrets, I accept that, and isn't it equally possible that some of the Typhoons actual capabilities and equipment is also classified? I would say that muchis a certainty. But speaking in terms of what we know about the avionics of the Raptor and the Typhoon, and we can only discuss what we know can't we, the Typhoon IS very very advanced in many areas, certainly much closer to the Raptor than many seem to realise. I have read on these forums many posts regarding some of the fantastic capabilities of the Raptors avionics suite, trumpeted as a unique feature by the postees, when I know from what I have read that the Typhoon has that self same capability, whether to a lesser or greater degree is only something I can guess at but the fact that it is there is undeniable. I'm not much of a techno junkie so I wont go into details which I find a bit boring but it is as well to remember that even though its airframe may superficially appear pedestrian alongside the 'star wars' shape of the Raptor, in terms of avionics and structure its as advanced as anything in the sky, but as they say, don't judge a book by its cover. Of course these are two fighters designed for completely different requirements and I can feel an unnecessary debate about the relative merits of the two types galloping over the horizon so just to re-iterate the ONE area I am on about it is the publically know avionics tech of the two, nothing else

Incidentally, when discussing the Typhoon and its avionics, why bring the French into it? Its nothing to do with the frog eating surrender monkeys



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Lets take a point by point look at the items you feel make the Raptor "a quantum leap forward"

Supercruise - You get where you need to go faster or you get to bug out quicker. Nice to have but hardly a "quantum leap". Concorde had supercruise in the 60's.

Thrust Vectoring - Technology has been around for 15-20 years and in that time many new aircraft have been created and only one using it. Makes me think that it is not all it is cracked up to be. Look at UAV and UCAV development. Less than half of them plan to include it.

Stealth - Great at BVR useless at visual range engagements.
Another point to consider is that the weapons deployed on the Raptor are those currently available to the existing USAF fleet so no "quantum leap" in capabilities there.

I see the raptor is more like a evolution of the F-15 and F-16 than a quantum leap forward.

As to its future I think that it will be rapidly eclipsed by UCAVs.


While I tend to roll my eyes in exasperation at statements that overly bloviate the F-22's attributes, it is without a doubt an impressive machine, and to disregard it as just the next step in fighter aircraft development is a rather large understatement that I cannot help but respond to.

Regarding Thrust Vectoring you apparently take the attitude that since the technology has been around for 15-20 years, and since in that time it has only been used on one or two other production aircraft it is somehow "not all that it's cracked up to be".
Logic like that is akin to saying that hypersonic aircraft have been around since the X-15,so if hypersonics is all that it's cracked up to be why hasn't anyone developed other hypersonic vehicles?
In actuality the F-22's thrust vectoring is all it's cracked up to be, but building a reliable system with a low IR signature and integrating it into a supersonic combat airframe requires years of expensive development.

You also mentioned stealth and that it's useless at visual range engagements.
And you would know this how?
Somebody who would know however is Paul Metz, who was the first test pilot to fly the F-22. He described an exercise in which the pilot of a fully updated F-15 with the latest avionics on board was told that Metz was approaching head on in an F-22. The F-15's updated radar failed to find the Raptor.
"The first time he got a read on me was visually, when I flew right over the top of him..."
Paul Metz, USAF Ret., former Lockheed-Martin Chief Test Pilot

Sensor suites utilizing the RF & IR range are still very important in visual range engagements, and if your sensors can't find your adversary when they go behind you - you've definitely got something to worry about.

The statement about UCAV's eclipsing the F-22 seems to imply that you believe sometime in the near future UCAV's will be taking on the role that the F-22 was designed for.
Sure there are UCAV's currently being developed for various forms of strike and bombing mission but Air Superiority UCAV's are way down the road, considerably more than 10 or even 15 years off.

You have also overlooked the Raptor's suite of avionics, which in itself represents a "quantum leap" in information and situational awareness to the pilot. The F-22 is the first aircraft to use integrated avionics, with critical systems such as the radar, the weapons management system, and electronic warfare sensors working together as one unit. This is a very sophisticated setup and one not likely to have any parity from potential opposition anytime soon.

As for the Raptor being an evolution from the F-15... of course it is, but it is a huge evolutionary step - a dramatic advance in capabilities, which by definition is a "quantum leap".
Perhaps you don't appreciate the intricasies involved in combining all of these elements together in one air vehicle and applying them in a unified system, but it has never been done before and it won't be done by others for some time to come.


Part of the point you seem to have passed right by without noticing is that although each of these individual elements represent the state of the art in a production aircraft, it is not any of these individual elements (supercruise, stealth, thrust vectoring, etc) that make the F-22 a "quantum leap"... it is the synergy of all of these elements creating a combined effect that is greater than the sum of the element's individual effects - and all of this on one platform, the F-22 Raptor...










[edit on 2-3-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Well Intelgurl took the words right out of my mouth, but with much better detail then I could hope to write, but yeah one of the main points on the Raptor is not that its technologies are necessarily newly invented, but the way it integrates them and and combines them is totally new, and also the fact that no other production aircraft has ever been created like this before.

And yeah, I am obsessive about proving that the Raptor is as cracked-up as it is supposed to be, because I believe it really is as good as claimed (not invincible, but superior to everything else out there at the moment and upgradeable), and I also honestly do believe the U.S. will need this aircraft in the future.

History has shown that a LOT of the major weapons systems of the United States were highly critisized and now they are very valuable. I've mentioned these before, but there's the F-15 (HIGHLY critisized), the F-16, the AH-64 Apache, the M1 Abrams tank (people called it a joke, then claimed it wouldn't operate right in the deserts of Iraq during Gulf War 1), the F-117, AWACS aircraft were called a total waste of money.

One of the main things with the Raptor is the majority of folks who critisize it highly usually don't have a clue as to what they're really saying. Same thing with the Superhornet even, and the V-22 Osprey. People who critisize them have no clue what they're saying usually.

If you want to see truly "obsessive," go take a look at some of the posts by folks who favor Soviet aircraft (fanatics I mean) who claim that the F/A-22 is not near what it is claimed to be, without giving any real information to back their argument up.

There was one poster in one forum who claimed that one only needs to make a "few modifications" to a Su-27 to make it just as stealthy as a Raptor (thank goodness an aerospace engineer stepped in and shut that one up).

As for the F/A-22 being more like a super-F-15, I'd say a Russian Su-37 or Su-27 (have my planes mixed up) with the avionics capabilities of an F-15 and thrust-vectoring is more along the lines of a super F-15. The Raptor sets a new standard.

WAYNOS, I should've been more clear with the French. The reason I mentioned the French is because the Typhoon was a joint venture between various countries of Europe, and I'm pretty sure France was one of them. Anyhow, the French make very good avionics. We utilize their avionics in some of our own military aircraft I believe, because the avionics they offered were better then the American counterparts.

And American military aircraft have the most advanced avionics, so I mean if the French manufacture (or designed; they may be manufactured in the U.S. via a license) those avionics for some U.S. aircraft, I am sure they could do so pretty well for a jet fighter (I think their avionics are used in the Apache and Cobra). I do not know who makes the avionics for the Typhoon, but I just meant the Europeans, even if it is only the French, DO have a source in which to get great avionics from.

So I just meant that, although I don't know the avionics capabilities to the Typhoon, I am very sure that the Typhoon has state-of-the-art avionics capabilities.



[edit on 2-3-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I think the Typhoon is only between Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain. If memory serves me correctly, the French were on board for a little while early on, but then pulled out of the project to work on the Rafale design. The Rafale, of course, being quite similiar to the Typhoon in most respects, just modified to suit French goals and needs (canards on the Typhoon are up a little further, and the jet intakes are different, but still pretty close).

Rafale:


Typhoon:


But, no raggin' on the French. They've got some pretty cool birds out there. I still like the Jaguar, despite it's age.



And, yes, the Su-37 is the new model that incorporates thrust vectoring. Not all that stealthy, but I'll agree that your idea of that being like a 'super F-15' is correct. No stealth, but excellent maneuverability and newer avionics (no match for US or Britain avionics, but better than the older Russian models). Although it's no stealth fighter, it'll be a solid workhorse for most countries if they choose to import it.


As for the Raptor, I can see it being like the Nighthawk for the first year or so. Small in number, and only used only for the dangerous missions that require flying over AA littered airspace. The cost issue, even if it is equivalent to what the Eagle was when it first came out, will come into play with that. We've got enough debt to deal with as it is, on top of trying to pull a brand spankin' new super fighter into the mix to replace our F-15's. We'll have to wrap things up in Iraq before we get too many of them, or risk diverting even more funds to the military, which I wouldn't be too happy about.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Very smart (B),
Never knows that Su 30MKI is first ArC that use the "thrust vecoring" in seria ...?
Maby after few year you star saying That Russia ArcT is best ...
About electronics of cours you know mu more than I so i Closed.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   

BillHicksRule
Supercruise - You get where you need to go faster or you get to bug out quicker. Nice to have but hardly a "quantum leap". Concorde had supercruise in the 60's.

All I should have to say to that is read my signature.

In other words: Supercruise is not the ability to be able to fly, and sustain supersonic speeds. Its the ability to be able to go supersonic without the use of afterburners.
The Concorde used afterburners.

[edit on 2-3-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   
[edit on 2-3-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
The Eurofighter `Typhoon` is based upon the Bae EAP from the late eighties/early nineties , which itself is a flying version of the warton mockup , shown in 1982.

The UK really should have done it alone and had in service squadrons by the middle nineties - 10 years of delays by going with the italians/spanish and germans.


France had nothing to do with the electronics package and little to do with the design - one of the reasons (as well as they wanted to be the prime contractor and build all of them in france which the other partners did not want to do) why they went solo and built Rafale



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Mixed below 3 item, I doubt that F-22 may got some trouble. 1) US will decrease amount of F-22 to less than 179. 2) Russia got some progress of plasma tech 3) F-22's radius of supercruise wasn't so long range that many people imaged.



According to a picture above. we've known F-22's radius is too short to hard to do mission. Compare with MiG-31 do M2.35 with 700 kilos, F-22's "supercruise" almost is nothing.
Supercruise be defined as a capability of supersonic speed with Max. Range in our textbook. So we may can't call the F-22 is a supercruise fighter, this is first.
The 2nd is a progress which came from Russia has stadying the technology of plasma to be detectable. This advanced tech will cause F-22's tech which low detect depands on outline and paint revealed behind the times.
So US gov. has to cut the amount of F-22.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Emile,
What progress in plasma stealth are you referring to?
Has there been anything recent that you have heard about?

Have you read this thread?
Aircraft Projects » Plasma Stealth: Past & Present



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
intelgurl did you read the secret dockument, or what ?

[edit on 3-3-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Intelgurl,

1) The link you posted does not use the word quantum at all. So I do not know what you hoped to prove.
2) Did you actually read the document? It is 10 years old, and shows the illegal techniques used by the USAF and Lockheed to bring this aircraft into service. Furthermore, it does not talking in glowing terms about the Raptor.
3) “Sure there are UCAV's currently being developed for various forms of strike and bombing mission but Air Superiority UCAV's are way down the road, considerably more than 10 or even 15 years off.” And you know this how? The use of UAVs and UCAVs is a true quantum leap in capabilities.
4) “Perhaps you don't appreciate the intricasies involved in combining all of these elements together in one air vehicle and applying them in a unified system, but it has never been done before and it won't be done by others for some time to come.” I think you fail to realise that I do appreciate what is involved, I am just not impressed by the resultant product.

The US DOD has cancelled many large scale projects in the last few years and while I do not think that they will cancel the Raptor I do think you will see a major drawdown in the actual numbers ordered.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I think I posted a fairly complete history of the Typhoon in another thread and I don't want to hijack this F-22 thread but there is a myth among some aviation enthusiasts which needs to be exploded.

This is that France was involved in Typhoon but later quit and the Rafale is somehow modified from it to meet French needs.

Wrong, France was NEVER a member of Eurofighter and had NOTHING to do with its design at all.

France were, however, part of the ECA study for a European Combat Aircraft with Britain and Germany between 1980 and 82, each nation brought its own design to the table, France had the ACX (Avion de Combat experimental), Germany had the TKF90 (Takstiche Kombat Flugfzeug 1990) and Britain had the ACA (Agile Combat Aircraft). French demands for programme control, final assembly and all flight testing to be in France led to the whole project collapsing, as opposed to France quitting, and each nation then, initially, went its own way.

France continued with its own ACX which became Rafale and Britain continued with ACA which ultimately became the Typhoon, via the cut price Tornado based EAP demonstrator, after Germany abandoned the TKF90 and joined with the British who then also teamed up with Italy and Spain. For a short time Spain was going to join the French project until they realised it didn't meet their requirement.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
1) The link you posted does not use the word quantum at all. So I do not know what you hoped to prove.
Wrong link... sorry.


3) “Sure there are UCAV's currently being developed for various forms of strike and bombing mission but Air Superiority UCAV's are way down the road, considerably more than 10 or even 15 years off.” And you know this how? The use of UAVs and UCAVs is a true quantum leap in capabilities.

I know this because I work with UAV's on a daily basis. U2U me if you want more info on that. I would actually consider air superiority UCAV's more of a paradigm shift than a quantum leap because it would/will change the whole way we look at controlling a particular battlespace in a very big way - but now we are dealing with semantics.


4) “Perhaps you don't appreciate the intricasies involved in combining all of these elements together in one air vehicle and applying them in a unified system, but it has never been done before and it won't be done by others for some time to come.” I think you fail to realise that I do appreciate what is involved, I am just not impressed by the resultant product.


The resultant product is certainly not what it was touted to be when the program first began, and by those standards I understand that you are not impressed - but it still represents a great leap forward in individual elements of fighter technology and an incredible leap forward in blending so many technologies into one cohesive platform as was explained in both my post and Broadsword's subsequent post.


The US DOD has cancelled many large scale projects in the last few years and while I do not think that they will cancel the Raptor I do think you will see a major drawdown in the actual numbers ordered.
With some 45-50 Raptors already paid for with 24 remaining to be delivered by October 2005 we will at least have that many.
As I stated before earlier in this thread, I believe that bureaucrats in Washington have diluted the F-22's capabilities by pulling it and pushing it in so many directions. Now it is over budget and under scrutiny from the same ones who caused it to be that way.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
BillHicksRules, if you are not impressed by an aircraft that outperforms anything out there today, and is one of the first aircraft that probably will not be emulated for a long time (as the U.S. is the only country to make stealth aircraft), then I don't think you'd really be impressed by any aircraft.

The Raptor pretty much outmaneuvers and outruns most anything out there, with the exception of a few demonstration aircraft. It is basically a supercomputer system with wings. That has HUGE implications for what the aircraft is capable of in the future.

Many seem to mention that the Raptor has a shorter range than it should. While I am only speculating, I would feel pretty sure that it is plenty adequate, whether that is the real range or it is just the range given to the public. The U.S. Air Force is not stupid; it has some of the most highly trained technical and tactical experts in the world. We have the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School, which teaches personnel how to be weapons experts on those subjects.

If the Air Force was presented with an aircraft with a range that is too short, I'd think they'd have called out this problem already and told Lockheed to fix it long before the aircraft went into production. It is already known not to have short-range aircraft right now; that was one of the problems with the F/A-18 A, B, C, and D Hornets, and why the Navy is phasing them out.

I'd rather take the word of guys who've been defending our airspace for 50+ years now, rather than the word of the many so-called experts in such an area.

And expanding on what Intelgurl mentioned about the "bureaucrats in Washington," those politicians usually haven't the slightest clue as to what they are talking about with regards to military equipment. History itself shows that.

IMO, the Raptor will always be scrutinized highly until a major conflict comes along that allows the Raptor to do things not before seen, and prove that it provides the U.S. a decisive edge in combat.


[edit on 3-3-2005 by Broadsword20068]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join