F-22 Update

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile
2) Russia got some progress of plasma tech


Ahh yes, the Raptor detractors always love to speak of the Russian plasma stealth. My question is this:

If they had it, why haven't they used it AT ALL? Where is there any sort of proof it even exists in a working manner. Sure they have a program to make it, but if we are just talking about military programs, there are a few the US is working on as well - anti-matter bombs come to mind.

Also, where does it say that Russia is the ONLY country to be working on plasma stealth? I think that would be a bit outlandish don't you - what with the US military budget so many times greater then everyone elses.




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fenix F 308
intelgurl did you read the secret dockument, or what ?
[edit on 3-3-2005 by Fenix F 308]

Что втихомолку документ?!?


[edit on 3-3-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:31 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.


As it was pointed out, Supercruise is the ability to fly at supersonic speeds WITHOUT afterburner. The concorde needed to use it's afterburner to get up to speed.

The reason that this is such a leap forward is not so much the fact that it is traveling at the speed it does, but that it manages to do this while also staying stealthy.

Generally, stealth shapes do not mix well with fast shapes, and likewise traveling quickly usually involves more heat which does not mix well with a stealthy platform.

The idea isn't so much that it can travel at Mach 1+, it's that it does this WHILE staying stealthy.




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.


TVC is still a state of the art aspect of modern fighters - the first production fighters in the world with it are just coming out.

And again, I believe that what makes the Raptors TVC so impressive is that it manages to have it while also not giving up anything in it's RCS and it's thermal stealth.



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.


I believe you are wrong in your assumption that stealth only aplies to BVR engagements. First of all, the Raptor uses a stealth paint scheme to hide it from visual protection.

Secondly, A2A missles still use radar and heat as the means of tracking an enemy. The Raptor does not give off these signatures in the way normal fighters do.

As Intelgurl pointed out, an F-15 didn't even have the Raptor on radar untill it flew over top of him. Well obviously the missles are going to need a lock BEFORE the Raptor passes overhead don't ya think? I'm no pilot, but I would recon that it might be too late to fight back if my enemy has already flown over me.



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.


Actually, there ARE new weapons planned for the Raptor including a specialised anti cruise missle missle. The AMRAAM is the main weapon, but I fail to see how that is a bad thing. If my memory serves me right, it has a 93% kill ratio. Also, one has to keep in mind that the AMRAAM keeps in line with the stealth aspect of the raptor.

With the AMRAAM, the Raptor may fire on it's target and the AMRAAM will use the Raptors radar to navigate. This prevents the enemy from ever getting a warning untill the AMRAAM turns on it's own radar, at which point the enemy will have just seconds to react.



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


Well I would beg to differ, but you are entitled to your own opinion. However, I believe we were speaking about "generations" of fighters. The Raptor represents THE LARGEST leap in technology ever in fighter aircraft, adding THREE technological developements never before used (Stealth, TVC, Supercruise) so if this is not a new generation, then we are still on the first one.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Good rebuttal AMM, the other neglected aspect is that we are speculating about the plane with what data we have recived from open sources. No doubt there are many hidden surprises contained within that airframe.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

AMM
Generally, stealth shapes do not mix well with fast shapes

- says who?

The F-117 was the first stealth aircraft, one of the bigger reasons it was subsonic was because of its (lack-of) aerodynamics, the reason all parts of it are flat and not curves is because computers wern't yet good enough.
The B-2 was subsonic because its a bomber and going subsonic gives you better range and no sonic boom to alert the enemy when your at their front door.

Speed had nothing to do with stealth.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

AMM
Generally, stealth shapes do not mix well with fast shapes

- says who?

The F-117 was the first stealth aircraft, one of the bigger reasons it was subsonic was because of its (lack-of) aerodynamics, the reason all parts of it are flat and not curves is because computers wern't yet good enough.
The B-2 was subsonic because its a bomber and going subsonic gives you better range and no sonic boom to alert the enemy when your at their front door.

Speed had nothing to do with stealth.


Like I said, generally. It is my understanding (and I freely admit I could be 100% wrong on this - I am no aerospace engineer) that building an airframe that can perform efficiently at highspeeds while also maintaining a high degree of stealth is very hard.

The point I was trying to make is that while making a stealthy, fast, or agile aircraft is not hard, making an aircraft with the combination of stealth, speed, and manueverability is. That, IMHO, is what really makes the Raptor impressive.

Building an aircraft, especially a military one, is all about compromises. When you are building a fighter, most times the designers (performance wise) do not have to worry about the stealth aspect, and so can simply design the best mix of speed and agility.

When the ATF project went underway, the very first thing they had to worry about was stealth, and then had to work the speed and agility into it. The BWII went for more speed and stealth, while the Raptor went for agility and price.

As for your comparisons between the F-117 and B-2, I agree, with the exception of the B-2. I believe the reason it was not supersonic was because of the flying wing design it's self, which gave it better legs AND payload - very important factors for a strategic nuclear bomber. I would imagine that building a supersonic STEALTH bomber would have been VASTLY more expensive as well.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Murcielago, AMM is absolutely spot on with this one. designing for stealth and designing for high speed have always been mutually exclusive until the demands of ATF focussed minds on how this problem could be solved, or rather circumnavigated.

ATB was never going to be supersonic for this very reason and it was figured that payload, range and low observability would be the critical factors in what became the B-2, going for supersonics too would have complicated matters out of all proportion and almost certainly have doomed the programme to failure, 21 B-2's are better than nothing.

The Raptor is indeed a huge technical leap forward in fighter design for the reasons that AMM has stated as it manages to incorporate stealth attributes that are maintained through most of the flight regime while still being a state of the art fighter, these are two separate disciplines that the Raptor brings together in one airframe. Supersonic design is about much more than highly swept wings and lots of power and in the F-117 generation it was totally incompatible with the requirements for stealth.

The technical term for the fact that it could not be done then but can be done now is 'progress'. Raptor is the mark of a new generation in fighter design because it achieves something that was previously impossible.

When you say that the reason the F-117 was subsonic was down to the computers of the time, it is akin to saying the reason the P-51 wasn't a jet fighter was because they didn't have jets then, a bit pointless don't you think?

[edit on 4-3-2005 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
AMM,

Good post in general but I have to pick you up on one glaring error.

"The Raptor represents THE LARGEST leap in technology ever in fighter aircraft"

Really? I can think of at least two LARGER leaps in fighter tech in the past, care to hazard a guess as to what I am referring?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
AMM,

Good post in general but I have to pick you up on one glaring error.

"The Raptor represents THE LARGEST leap in technology ever in fighter aircraft"

Really? I can think of at least two LARGER leaps in fighter tech in the past, care to hazard a guess as to what I am referring?

Cheers

BHR


I'd imagine RADAR and A2A missles?

If I am correct in this, I can certainly argue that the Raptors leap is greater



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
AMM,

Good post in general but I have to pick you up on one glaring error.

"The Raptor represents THE LARGEST leap in technology ever in fighter aircraft"

Really? I can think of at least two LARGER leaps in fighter tech in the past, care to hazard a guess as to what I am referring?

Cheers

BHR



Hmm....jet aircraft?.........and basically aircraft itself



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
AMM/Warlord,

I was thinking of the change from biplanes to monoplanes and the change from props to jets.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
AMM/Warlord,

I was thinking of the change from biplanes to monoplanes and the change from props to jets.

Cheers

BHR


Cool. Just like I thought.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
AMM/Warlord,

I was thinking of the change from biplanes to monoplanes and the change from props to jets.

Cheers

BHR

I gotta disagree with you, the change from bi-planes to mono-wings wasnt all that big really just a reduction in the size of the wing, I think the two biggest changes were from prop to jet, and from Visual flight to instrument based flight.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   
mwnn, you are joking aren't you? The change from the externally braced biplane layout to the internally braced cantilever monoplane was a complete revolution in the fundamental way aeroplanes were designed and built.

If you took a biplane and simply removed its top wing the bottom wing would collapse, either immediately, or as soon as take off speed was reached if it was one of the stronger ones. The biplane wasn't created because people thought you needed two wings one above the other, its sole purpose was to create a box like structure capable of withstanding flight stresses, externally braced monoplanes which also existed throughout this period were simply a variation on the same constructional theme.

With the appearance of the I-16, Bf 109 and Hurricane etc this theory went right out of the window and the leap forward it represented was HUGE.

It is true that cantilever monoplanes had existed for a number of years previously but this discussion relates to their use in fighter aircraft and the considerable obsticle that was the military mindset of the time that only biplanes could be trusted with combat roles.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Murcielago, AMM is absolutely spot on with this one. designing for stealth and designing for high speed have always been mutually exclusive until the demands of ATF focussed minds on how this problem could be solved, or rather circumnavigated.

ATB was never going to be supersonic for this very reason and it was figured that payload, range and low observability would be the critical factors in what became the B-2, going for supersonics too would have complicated matters out of all proportion and almost certainly have doomed the programme to failure, 21 B-2's are better than nothing.

The Raptor is indeed a huge technical leap forward in fighter design for the reasons that AMM has stated as it manages to incorporate stealth attributes that are maintained through most of the flight regime while still being a state of the art fighter, these are two separate disciplines that the Raptor brings together in one airframe. Supersonic design is about much more than highly swept wings and lots of power and in the F-117 generation it was totally incompatible with the requirements for stealth.

The technical term for the fact that it could not be done then but can be done now is 'progress'. Raptor is the mark of a new generation in fighter design because it achieves something that was previously impossible.

When you say that the reason the F-117 was subsonic was down to the computers of the time, it is akin to saying the reason the P-51 wasn't a jet fighter was because they didn't have jets then, a bit pointless don't you think?

[edit on 4-3-2005 by waynos]


Actually, they did have jets in the 1930s, they just had yet to put them on aircraft. Though it probably would've been a bad idea to put them on the fighters of the time anyhow, as WWII propeller fighters still had some ways to go development-wise in those times.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Broadsword,

I have to say I agree with the Gerbilmeister.

The F/A-22 whilst being a better aircraft than those that came before it does not offer a significant leap forward in capabilities for the USAF over the F-15. The semi-stealth and supercruise are nice to have but when it will be employing the same weaponry as the current F-15 fleet then it does seem to be a step forward rather than the leap that it is being sold as.
BHR


Employing the same Weapons? You might want to check your facts, the F-22 has newer weapons:

F-15 weapons: F-22 Weapons:
Aim-9L/M Sidewinder Aim-9X Sidewinder
Aim-120A AMRAAM Aim-120C AMRAAM

See the difference? All of the F-22's air to air weapons are upgrades! Also the F-22 carries the JDAM, I'm not sure if the F-15 has JDAM yet.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Ghost,

Thanks for making my point for me. STEP not LEAP.

I think you will find that the F-15s of today carry the most up to date versions of both Sidewinder and AMRAAM (when are they going to give this an actual name??)

Waynos,

I agree.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
This is a humorous situation for me as I really don't want to be such an advocate of the F-22 and yet here I am taking up for it. (I would love to have seen the YF-23 come to fruition instead, but that's for another thread.)
Having said that - I think this discussion is almost turning into a disagreement of definitions, semantics if you will.

I see the F-22 incorporating so many "firsts" in design, manufacture process, and integration of systems, that even with all the detractions brought up against it, it still represents an unprecedented leap forward in fighter aircraft.
If it was "only" a step as some insist, it would be a step that the Typhoon & Raphael would have easily incorporated in their desgn (as well as the latest stable of Russian fighter jets, don't want to forget them).
But none of these other aircraft manufacturers have applied these technological advances in such a robust fashion and they aren't expected to anytime in this decade.

Waynos accurately illustrated the "leap" forward in technology that was made in the transition from biplanes to monoplanes. That was a single design and manufacturing advancement to which BillHicks agrees that it represents one of the largest "leaps" in fighter aircraft development ever.

And here we have the F-22 Raptor with an unprecidented melding of stealth and speed in basic airframe design, a unification of onboard systems previously unfeasible that individually represent many "firsts" in their respective technologies - and so many "firsts" in the manufacturing process that the list would be prohibitively long in both a physical sense and in the time it takes to research and type... but anyone can Google it an find the same information I have...
And yet the transition from biplane to monoplane is a "leap" and the transition from the F-15 to the F-22 is a mere step or upgrade.

Baloney... Your prejudice against the F-22 is glaring -

As stated before, I would have preferred that the YF-23 had been chosen as the ATF design, I am also not very enamoured by the way bureaucrats have in essense dilluted the F-22's initial vision and hence quantity - but even so I at least try to stay open minded about the F-22 and whether I like the F-22 or not it does indeed represent a great "leap" forward in many areas of fighter aircraft technology.





[edit on 4-3-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Intelgurl,

You and Broadsword's opinion that the Raptor is a leap forward in fighter design is simply that, an opinion.

As is my opinion that it is merely a step.

Lets not fall out over it and lets not hijack this thread arguing over the word leap.

I would rather have such a beautiful woman who works (or has worked) for such a groundbreaking company, as a friend than an adversary.

Cheers

BHR

p.s. I have nothing against the F-22.

p.p.s. I also preferred the F-23 but that was simply the look of the thing.

[edit on 4-3-2005 by BillHicksRules]



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
To be honest, the Raptor's a great leap forward - but, not good enough in my view to be 'Leading Next Generation' of Aircraft. Also, try to remember the S-400 isn't the missile system that'll be protecting Russia, that'll be the S-500 and will be done by 2012.

As for it being so many steps a head, we'll see once it gets used. It's hard to say it's far a head of whatever Russia, The E.U, China, India, etc, have until it has been in a combat situation. After all, the way it is being bigged up might cause pilots to become lazy and focus more on computers and tech than skill. Which could cost the pilot his life and in turn have a plane fall into 'enemy hands', which is why we'll not see the Raptor used till a major war - in my view.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join