Raptors Fatal Flaw

Greetings,

I was reading a few aerodynamic transcripts the last few days, and I came across one that was talking about the failed TR1/TR2. Namely its weapon placement options, of those opitions it spoke in much detail about the use of an internal bombbay, while this isn't surprising, there was some thing interesting about it, the launch restriction limitations of tactical aircraft flying at mach and in turn then having the ability to launch its offensive weaponary.

This got me thinking, I have heard much about the the Raptor and its assocated supercruise ability, my point is, will there be an offensive limitation on the Raptor while in Supercruise mode? AKA is the Raptor helpless while still in super cruise? Due to the fact that the Raptor would have to open the aircrafts payload doors INTO the slip stream, there by having its doors ripped in the related slipstream of the aircraft at supercruise.

So if this is true, does this mean that the Raptor has a possible downfall? A Fatal Flaw... maybe?

Whats your view?
- Phil

"The Aim 120C is a compromise. Reason being, the tails and wings of the missile have been reduced in size with the intent for the missile to fit better into internal bays. "

source : www.f22fighter.com...

From the Washington post :

The Air Force originally wanted to see the plane's sophisticated avionics, or electronics gear, achieve 20 hours of uninterrupted flying time without a software failure. When the plane couldn't achieve that, the Air Force changed its goal to flying five hours without a software failure. As of January, the plane could average no better than 2.7 hours.

In addition, the plane's microprocessor is an obsolete model no longer manufactured. The Air Force plans to switch to a newer type, including one created for the upgraded F-16 fighter jet, a type of plane far older than the F-22.

It's no surprise, then, that watchdog groups like the Project on Government Oversight are asking the Pentagon to put this sick puppy of a program to sleep.

Link

[edit on 16-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Are you saying they could be ripped open in supersonic flight? i doubt it because this has been thought out and heavy duty materials were used to prevent this. Now if it opened to fire during supersonic flight it could cause problems cause opening things like that really fast can rip it off or at least limit the maneuverability and aerodynamics.

2.7 hours is crap, I think that is BS, if its true then that really sucks

[edit on 16-5-2005 by phantompatriot]

How does this change if you add an AWACS to the red side ?





How does this change when the thing gets a more powerful radar ?

To be honest,

I don't believe that they could be ripped out, the point I was making that if the aircraft or pilot tried to open those weapon bay doors while in super cruise, surely the sheer speed of the slip stream would rip the doors off, it the pilot tried to launch any missiles.

AKA if the aircraft can't open those doors while in supercruise surely that also means that it can't launch any thing due to the fact that the doors would be ripped off it, if it attempted to try and launch any thing.

- Phil

Raptors Fatal Flaw

"Fatal" flaw?
"Fatal" as in what? Someone care to clarify?
Heads up, Stealth Spy, and others, there is no "fatal" flaw in the Raptor. It is and will be for about the next 20+ years or so, the most advanced and capable of modern fighter aircraft flying and to fly. (scroll down to the May 11, 2005 article/mention).

Btw, this [article linked below] was a simulated engagement without AWACS. The results are self-evident, to most of us sane modern fighter aircraft enthusiasts. "Fatal" flaw? Yeah, okie dokie....
Five Eagles In Three Minutes

A single Raptor pilot from the Combined Test Force at Edwards AFB, California, launched four guided AIM-120 missiles against four separate targets on 24 July. The Raptor's integrated weapons system successfully identified, tracked, and linked each target's data to the AIM-120s and each missile passed within lethal range of its target. During a press conference at Andrews AFB, Maryland, in May, Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche told reporters that in one test "We had five F-15 Eagles against one Raptor and the engagement was over in three minutes. None of the F-15s even saw the Raptor. The Raptor simply went down the line and, in simulation, took out all five of the F-15s."

seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2005 by Seekerof]

I would have to say that while in super cruise and then the inability of being able to successfully launch an attack successfully while its bomb bay doors are being ripped off.

If you can think of a better fatal flaw, name cause, the inable to launch and defend itself will make it very unpopular with its pilots.

In my opinion, the fact that the Raptors payload doors opening into the slipstream and there fore preventing the aircraft from launching offensive weapons as a bloody huge fatal flaw in the combat zone.

As for your assumption of the 20 years, we will wait and see As for the Sane part, I never mentioned the combat abilities of the fighter, merely its inability to launch its weapons while in supercruise.

- Phil

[edit on 16-5-2005 by gooseuk]

i think the airforce or navy would know this problem, and the plane probility won't make it and the pentagon won't buy it. i bet it already been tested in supercrusie while firing it's missiles.

the people in the pentagon are not stupied if this fatal flaw is real they will know, thats a hugh fatal flaw you are talking about...

Originally posted by Seekerof
Raptors Fatal Flaw

"Fatal" flaw?
"Fatal" as in what? Someone care to clarify?
Heads up, Stealth Spy, and others, there is no "fatal" flaw in the Raptor.

Regardless of what you think, this thread is has a very valid point - opening a weapons bay at supersonic speeds will have detremental effects to the controlability of the aircraft. What happens when the aircraft is in tight manouevers doing a 7G turn and needs to fire a missile?

Sure, they may have run simulations on this, but you can bet your bottom dollar they havent actually gone out and done it - even one aircraft is very expensive and you cant afford to lose it.

What they will have done is place limits on the aircraft - yes, limits, its not some undefeatable and invincible supermachine, it has limits. Those limits are called ENVELOPES of the aircraft, and it will include when and how a pilot can fire a weapon.

It is and will be for about the next 20+ years or so, the most advanced and capable of modern fighter aircraft flying and to fly.

[edit on 16-5-2005 by Seekerof]

There is no way on EARTH you can say that, so just stop spouting that rubbish please. It may be the most advanced and capable aircraft now, but thats now - the developments stopped, the production aircraft are at a fixed point, they dont magically EVOLVE in anyway, and it costs time and money to go back and upgrade aircraft later on. Its extremely concievable that in the next 5 years someone produces an upgrade to a current weapons system that negates the effect of the F-22, increases another aircrafts BVR capability and radar systems.

- Edited by myself to remove curse words as suggested.

[edit on 16/5/2005 by RichardPrice]

So, gooseuk, it looks like you 'accidentally' left off the big question mark at the end of your thread title.

For the rest of you, you're not trying hard enough to hide the "oh, please, oh please, let there really be a fatal flaw" in your posts. Coming up with some kind of problem is really your last hope, then, of having whatever country you are from somehow stay in the same century "fighter technology-wise" as the U.S.

Kind of pathetic if that's all you've got.

I'm not that sure the problem of the weapons bay "must be solved"... I mean... even a person who knows only a little about aerodynamics, can imagine that it's not so easy to open these doors "safely"... I suppose that they must have thought about something to solve this, but I don't think that it's so much easy like using heavy dutty materials...
On the other side, Raptor IS SUPPOSED to be the most advanced fighter in the world. Don't forget that the F22 hasn't gone to war yet, so we don't know how much effective it is against a real enemy... also, maybe when the plane goes to war against a real enemy, enemys will be able to see the F22 in the radar (It's just a matter of time, don't fool you, the F22 won't be invisible forever) and then... will this plane be so good like they say??
To be truth, I'm not sure that the F22 worths the millions they have paid in the developement... I don't see easily a superiority so enormous like they want people to believe... I only think it's better than the rest, but not so much... and don't talk me about "simulations"... the real skills of the plane will be seen in real war...

as posted by RichardPrice
Regardless of what you think, this thread is has a very valid point - opening a weapons bay at supersonic speeds will have detremental effects to the controlability of the aircraft. What happens when the aircraft is in tight manouevers doing a 7G turn and needs to fire a missile?

Bear in mind that the F-22 is considered and designed to be a "first see, first kill" tactical fighter which simply equates to air superiority. With that mention, be assurded that the F-22 can dogfight and win in most cases.
The F-22 Raptor was the first modern fighter aircraft to successfully launch a missile doing turn and roll rates at 100 degrees per second. This has been actively tested in flight tests. This mention by Globalsecurity may be of interest to some?

The F-22 has a requirement to launch weapons throughout the service envelope at roll rates up to 100 degrees per second. This is a groundbreaking requirement made even tougher by tight clearances and flow fields that result from internal carriage.

F-22 Raptor Weapons

Also:

April 7th 2001: the Raptor launches a AIM-9 missile while rolling/turning at 60 degrees per second.

June 13, 2001: the Raptor becomes the first tactical fighter to successfully launch an AIM-9 missile while rolling/turning at 100 degrees per second.

Air Dominance With The F-22 Raptor

Obviously and apparently, there was no problems with firing these weapons in those upper G's, including supercruise turn and roll rates. I have yet to find one article or mention, other than what has been alleged in this topic thread, that the F-22 Raptor has had any problems firing its weapons in high G roll/truns or while in supercruise. May you or goose please provide to the contrary or to back what is being alleged or asserted in this topic?

as posted by RichardPrice
There is no way on EARTH you can say that, so just stop spouting that rubbish please.

If I am spouting "rubbish", then please, by all means, tell these people the same:
The f-22 will be the best tactical fighter for the next 20 years or so
The f-22 will be the best tactical fighter well into the 21st century

DERA performed simulation testings and confirmed this with 10.1:1 ratio kills versus the Su-35 Super Flanker.
But till it actually engages in active hostile air-combat, that remains to be seen whether any of the assertions and claims are true, correct? Active and actual testings and comparisons indicate that what has been mentioned is near accurate.

as posted by RichardPrice
Its extremely concievable that in the next 5 years someone produces an upgrade to a current weapons system that negates the effect of the F-22, increases another aircrafts BVR capability and radar systems.

And as you have asserted, everything is "evolving." This would also include the F-22 and upgrades and developments that will allow it to maintain air-superiority over those "upgrades" to and on other possible adversary or comparable tactical fighter aircraft, correct? Why? Because the US military will have the money and time to research, develop, and implement those upgrades.





seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2005 by Seekerof]

Haha, people act as if the US Air Force hasn't taken one second to consider any of the so-called flaws of the F/A-22. I happen to live on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, home of the F-22 program office, and I have asked just about every question possible and I can assure you the Air Force wouldn't poor billions of dollars into something that wouldn't work. And don't forget, that the F-22 program has been around for over a decade.

And for ya'lls information, the AIM-120 was succesfully fired at supercruise...no problems reported. Face it, no other country in the world has sucessfully created an aircraft with the Raptor's level of stealth, that's just the cold hard truth.

And don't forget that the Raptor's stealth will significantly reduce the range of enemy radars, by the time they know what's firing at them, it will be too late, the Raptor will be going the other way at Mach 1.5 while they retreat into futility.

The truth is...the Raptor will almost always get the first shot, and likely, that means eminent defeat for the unlucky soul being locked onto by the AMRAAM. And why would the AIM-120's wings rip off when it has a top speed of Mach 4. And if you're talking about the bay doors, that's been tested already as I said earlier.


One thing I think Raptor critics fail to realize is that low-observability opens the door for aerial tactics never previously employed. I heard the USAF can send a scout Raptor ahead of the pack in non-emitting mode, and have it launch it's AIM-120s through the guidance of other Raptors that are positioned at distances of over 100nm away, OR, you could have a flight of Raptors fire their weapons and have a group of Raptors with Radars off, attack simultaneously from behind.

And lastly, the Raptor's maneuverability is drastically underrated. The Cobra has no legitimate role in real air-air combat, the Raptor has exceptional turn rates and can hold 60 degree angle of attack, and that's only necessary IF the stealth fails.

I agree with Richard Price that the F-22 will not be the best aircraft in the next 20 years, I am considdering factors as the Russian T-50 PAK-FA and any chinese ventures into 5th gen aircraft (which they'll EVENTUALLY have).

Don't get me wrong, the Raptor is a GREAT machine, and I 100% support it, but I just don't think it will be THE best for 20 years, I bet they said the same thing about the F-15 when it was being developed.

All nice to learn, but the fact of the matter is that there is a distinct difference between stealth and manueverability.

The Su-37 Flanker and the F/A-22 Raptor.

Believed to be the world's two most powerful aircraft. It's true that the Raptor is way more advanced than the Flanker stealth wise, and can easily take out a flanker, but what alot of people seem to misunderstand, is the fact that if the Raptor's stealth fails for whatever reason, and it's in a dogfight with a Flanker(which by the way Raptor's are to not fall into dogfights, First sight, first kill basis), the flanker would most definetly win the dogfight.

The Flanker is capable of 3 dimensional TVC, where as the Raptor is only capable of 2D. I believe that the Raptor sacrifices a large part of its manueverability for stealth, and I believe it's for the better, this way the Raptor will always squeeze off the first shot, and will win the fight without the Flanker even seeing what's happening.

But, I think what Richard was trying to get at, is it's not the Raptor that will fall behind the times, is that the more inferior aircraft, like the Flanker, Super flanker, and Berkrut, will advance in radar technology, they will be able to see to the Raptor, so the Raptor in essence, will be completely useless with it's stealth, so in 5-10 years, there may possibly be Radar that can counter Stealth, and you can't go back and change the entire design of the Raptor's stealth so that it has a lower cross-section, the Raptor is only open to very limited improvement, so upgrades will be difficult. The Raptor may only reign dominant for a decade or so. But in level of technology, it will reign dominant for 2 decades. However there will always be a Radar that is built to counter the Raptor, and with that in place, the Raptor is virtually useless.

Shattered OUT...

Yes, there is no doubt about the raptor will be the best fighter when going into service, but it won't be the best for 20 years, no way
People here is talking about the fact that people uses to understimate maneuverability of the Raptor, but what I think is that you are overrating it's capabilities. The stealth capabilities play against the plane when we are talking about the specs... ALL the advantages of the plane are based on the stealth. the rest of specs aren't better than the other planes. you know I'm true in that part, and no plane is invisible forever... the raptor won't be invisible for 20 years, that's for sure... and then... what?? nothing, a very "normal" plane... sorry but that's my opinion

EDIT: Shattered Skies has said the same I wanted to say... but much better ^_^ sorry for my useless post XD

[edit on 16/5/05 by Chemapeich]

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
...I bet they said the same thing about the F-15 when it was being developed.

Yes, in fact "they" did, and rightfully so.
No other aircraft can match its combat record.
For nearly two decades, the F-15 carried the mention of 'Best Fighter in the world.'



seekerof

Originally posted by beretboy22
And for ya'lls information, the AIM-120 was succesfully fired at supercruise...no problems reported. Face it, no other country in the world has sucessfully created an aircraft with the Raptor's level of stealth, that's just the cold hard truth.

Then thats it, problem gone, the "fatal" flaw doesn't exist.

And no, the Raptor does not fly at Mach 4 or even Mach 3. Mach 2.1 is the best it can go, otherwise the stealth coat will melt off.


The F-22 might be the world's best fighter for say another 10-20 years, but don't count on it, when the F-4 came out, they said the same thing, but look what happened, the MiG-21 in the NVA's hands had a 1:1 kill ratio, and the MiG-21 was way before the F-4s time. (Later, it became 10:1,but that was after they stuck a gun in it).

What I'm trying to say is, the F-22 might be a good fighter, but remember, it has not seen ANY real combat, and during real combat, many things can happen, so don't count on the F-22 getting a 100:0 kill ratio in real battles.

The F-15 is not carrying the title of 'Best Fighter in the world'. It has already gone to the Eurofighter Typhoon. Besides, rusting Iraqi MiG-21s are all that have been shot down by the F-15.

Originally posted by Chemapeich
People here is talking about the fact that people uses to understimate maneuverability of the Raptor, but what I think is that you are overrating it's capabilities. The stealth capabilities play against the plane when we are talking about the specs... ALL the advantages of the plane are based on the stealth. the rest of specs aren't better than the other planes.

Based on those specs and inflight testings, I would have to somewhat disagree. I agree with alot of what ShatteredSkies has mentioned, but the problem I see is that he, as with others, are separating stealth and manueverability. This I do not agree with. Why? Though the main "thing" about the Raptor is its superb stealth abilities and characteristics, it also combines outstanding and superior manueverability characteristics, along with an electronic suite second to none.

Article of interest and worthy of reading:
F-22 Pilot Perspective

Within this one big article are two sub-articles:
Supercruising the Raptor
The Raptor At High Angles Of Attack

IMHO, without being slammed for the ever-used "national patriotism" rhetoric, the F-22 Raptor combines the best of all three worlds, whereas, in the comparision that ShatteredSkies gave [Su-37], may be lucky to have two. The Typhoon, Grippen, or Eurofighter might have been better choices.

as posted by W4rl0rD
The F-15 is not carrying the title of 'Best Fighter in the world'. It has already gone to the Eurofighter Typhoon. Besides, rusting Iraqi MiG-21s are all that have been shot down by the F-15.

The F-15 reference when I gave was in past tense, W4rl0rD. Nonetheless, it was for nearly two decades, no? As for those rusted Iraqi MiG-21s: lets include MiG-29's etc., k? But as par, unless it is a Russian aircraft or anything else other than an American aircraft, kills are certifiable and "good", whereas, those of the American F-15, are "bad" and are against "unworthy," "untrained," "old" aircraft.....
Give it a rest.

BTW, those MiG-21s in "NVA hands" [not to take anything away from Soviet-trained NVA pilots] were not all in their "hands." There were Soviet pilots flying in a number of those aircraft. Forget to mention that or is that still 'denied' rumors by Vietnam and Russia?






seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2005 by Seekerof]