Raptors Fatal Flaw

I think that beretboy has found half the answer to the question about the nazi scientists... they were bought by money, so simple as that. And don't talk about freedom and USA in the same paragraph, please... Every country and every person has a very limited degree of freedom. Don't even think in the USA people is more free. probably they were as free in germany than in the US, because, well, Hitler was a dictator and did terrible things, I WILL NEVER defend Hitler, but Germany never was a country were germans were oppressed. If german scientists went to the US was mainly for economical reasons (after a war the "looser countries" haven't got too much money for scientifical purposes) and those who scaped before or during the war, went out for ideological questions. In fact, they probably were more free in Germany, because I don't think the hospitality of the US people with nazi scientists was very good...

And well, sorry again, Seekerof, I will not talk about this theme anymore in this thread

Originally posted by Chemapeich
... but Germany never was a country were germans were oppressed.

You've gotta be kidding!
Besides hundreds of thousands of German Jews, Hitler killed off gypsies, Roman Catholics/christians, and publically hung those who heckled his speeches.
No oppression? Lived better than those poor oppressed Americans under George Bush?
You have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a few comments about the actual topic stated in the thread, but first in a stunning act of charity.

*writes out a reality check to peachie and signs He needs it real bad in the memo line* Germans were not free under Hitler, and we asked scientists to come here sometimes with the underlying threat of leaving them to the Russians if they didn't.

Now back to the topic at hand... after much consideration I can think of two massivelly fatal flaws in the Raptor. Both of which magnify the other one.

Fatal Flaw 1 Price Tag: Raptors aren't cheap, in fact they are amazingly expensive and even at the original order size would cost over 100 million each. Which leads to....

Fatal Flaw 2 Congress: In a shortsighted effort to save money congress keeps cutting the amount of raptors we plan to buy. Which not only leaves us less prepared for a future conflict but also raises the per aircraft cost. I don't think I need to go into why ordering less planes raises per unit cost as the free market economy and the vagaries of setting up the necessary manufacturing and tooling to build an aircraft should be passably familiar to all of you.

So yeah I have spoken my piece, feel free to send nasty U2U's or beer.

Dear all,

I find it laughable that everyone on here seems to be so focused on bay doors when the real issue is that the computers do not work.

Without them the plane is useless.

As it currently stands the GAO is close to recommending a massive draw down in the number of Raptors to be built. The figures quoted so far are "less than half the 381 requested"

When you consider there are currently (according to the USAF's own website) 522 F-15 Eagles and 217 F-15E Strike Eagles in service this means one of two things. Either a big reduction in capabilties of the USAF or the continuation of usage of a large number of Eagles.

Now I do not know how long the current Eagle fleet can carry on in terms of airframe lifetimes but I guess it would be at least 10-15 years given the timeframes of other aircraft.

Although the F-22 is undoubtedly a step up from the F-15 I personally do not see the USAF getting more than 200 of them. They will not be the replacement envisaged at the start of the project.

I think they will be used in the same manner as the B-2 and the F-117. As specialist strike aircraft, perhaps escorting the first waves of an air attack until the radar net of the opponent is disabled. At which point the F-15 will take over the Air Superiority role again.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by bios

Originally posted by Chemapeich
... but Germany never was a country were germans were oppressed.

You've gotta be kidding!
Besides hundreds of thousands of German Jews, Hitler killed off gypsies, Roman Catholics/christians, and publically hung those who heckled his speeches.
No oppression? Lived better than those poor oppressed Americans under George Bush?
You have no idea what you are talking about.

But the scientists working for hitler were all non jews and did not belong to any of the other oppressed races. They were all honoured and respected by the Fuhrer himself.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by bios

Originally posted by Chemapeich
... but Germany never was a country were germans were oppressed.

You've gotta be kidding!
Besides hundreds of thousands of German Jews, Hitler killed off gypsies, Roman Catholics/christians, and publically hung those who heckled his speeches.
No oppression? Lived better than those poor oppressed Americans under George Bush?
You have no idea what you are talking about.

But the scientists working for hitler were all non jews and did not belong to any of the other oppressed races. They were all honoured and respected by the Fuhrer himself.

Is that a fact? Is it really?

Only a few were honoured, many scientists under Hitler were jewish, only they hid it so that they can work freely without the risk of being sent to a camp. Many of Hitler's scientists were sent to camps because they were jewish, as well as doctors and such.

Which would explain why so many scientists went to America. Also, Van Braun went to america after WWII to continue his research into Space Travel, that was his dream, and he knew that America would be the country that would accept his help.

Watch the History Channel, this kind of information is on every now and then.

And Billhicks, the author of the thread didn't ask for money problems and congress, he asked if there was a fatal flaw with the Bay doors opening, he wasn't stating there was, he was asking if there was.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Only a few were honoured

Agreed

many scientists under Hitler were jewish, only they hid it so that they can work freely without the risk of being sent to a camp. Many of Hitler's scientists were sent to camps because they were jewish, as well as doctors and such.

That is highly speculative and i dont believe that. The gestapo were so good, they would never let any jew to work for hitler. Do you have anything that supports your groundbreaking speculation ?

Which would explain why so many scientists went to America.

That is only in the case of some jewish scardy-cats who escaped before the war(like Einstien) and they are not the CAPTURED Nazi scientists i am refering to.

Also, Van Braun went to america after WWII to continue his research into Space Travel, that was his dream, and he knew that America would be the country that would accept his help.

He was captured...and tortured(i assume). Did he have a choice ??
He (like anyone else) would have loved to serve Germany and not America.
His decesion to work for America was not voluntary, but he did'nt have a choice.

America is indebted to the Nazis for its current tech-level, for reaching the moon, for its ICBM's, for the more advanced flying wing designs, better atomic bomb(the Nazis too almost comleted their own atomic bomb which was much superior to the one America developed "itself", although it was initiated an developed by scientists of 6 nations)

IMO America has not given the deserved credit to him and the remaining Nazi scientists.

Watch the History Channel, this kind of information is on every now and then.

I have watched a lot of that. But both history channel, discovery, etc are american networks and leave no stone unturned in covering up for america in such issues and IMO they run a misinformation campaing. The BBC documentaries are heavily laden with anti-Nazi tech view.

The History Channnel and Discovery i recieve here in India usually repeat most of their documentaries over and over again and very rarely come up with anything new.

Shattered OUT...

Yeah, whatever.

Sure the F-22 is a highly manuverable airplane and significantly more manuverable than the YF-23 and and the F-15, but it does not even come close to matching that of the Sukhoi.

The F-22 is a large airplane with a stable airframe and has 2D TVC, while the Sukhoi is an unstable triplane with 3-D TVC.

IMO the F-22 cant even match the manuverability of the Mig-29.

We all know that the F-22 is meant to take down its enemy before it can sight it. But to assume that this will be the case everytime will be silly.

Surely lots of Sukhoi's will escape the 22's BVR might and engage the raptor in WVR.

Besides russian short range missiles are far superior to western equivalents.

What's the big deal if the F-22 can do a 60 degree AoA manuver. Sukhoi's used to do Cobras (where the Su goes upto 120 degrees AoA), with full fuel and a full ordinance fit some two decades back. The new Sukhoi's with 3D TVC, new FBW can do Kulbits cork screws and what not.

There is no conclusive evidence that the F-22 can do a cobra, and even if it did its only matching something that the Sukhoi could do 2 decades back.

Stealth Spy, you are clearly delusional. The F-22 is an UNSTABLE AIRFRAME like your beloved Flanker, combat maneverability wise, the Raptor easily outmaneuvers it, it's quite obvious. The F-22 will carry NO EXTERNAL ORDNANCE so there will be virtually no drag, unlike the Su-3x which carries all of its weapons externally, and therefore inherits a TON of drag. The Raptor also has a better sustained turn rate because of the much larger wing area, which is the key in the WVR arena; their instantaneous turn rates on the other hand, are about the same. The F-22 also has a signifgantly better T/W ratio meaning it can climb faster than the Flanker opening it up for a better shot.

And you gotta get over this "Russian made missles are superior" wet dream, GET OVER IT! The AIM-9X easily beats the Archer in terms of not only flight performance, but it has a much higher offboresight capability (+90/-90 for the AIMX, which will be increased to 180; compared to the +60/-60 for the R-73E, which have only been produced in modest numbers, typicaly R-73's have a +45/-45 off boresight capability and have only hit non-maneuvering targets.)

And what makes you so confident any version of the Flanker can magically dodge AMRAAMs. Does it have some sort of top secret missile-evading maneuver we are unaware of? I would sure love to see that trick.

Oh, and just for the record, none of the Flanker versions can do the Cobra fully loaded, it will snap the wings right off. As a matter of fact the Flanker can only perform these super-maneuvers with only a very small fuel load and no external carriage becuase of structural limitations.



[edit on 19-5-2005 by Hockeyguy567]

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Also, Van Braun went to america after WWII to continue his research into Space Travel, that was his dream, and he knew that America would be the country that would accept his help.

He was captured...and tortured(i assume). Did he have a choice ??
He (like anyone else) would have loved to serve Germany and not America.
His decesion to work for America was not voluntary, but he did'nt have a choice.

I would love for you to provide proof (other than some other delusional amerika-hater's post on some obscure web forum) that the Americans tortured Werner Van Braun.



[edit on 19-5-2005 by bios]

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

Sure the F-22 is a highly manuverable airplane and significantly more manuverable than the YF-23 and and the F-15, but it does not even come close to matching that of the Sukhoi.

The F-22 is a large airplane with a stable airframe and has 2D TVC, while the Sukhoi is an unstable triplane with 3-D TVC.

IMO the F-22 cant even match the manuverability of the Mig-29.

We all know that the F-22 is meant to take down its enemy before it can sight it. But to assume that this will be the case everytime will be silly.

Surely lots of Sukhoi's will escape the 22's BVR might and engage the raptor in WVR.

Besides russian short range missiles are far superior to western equivalents.

What's the big deal if the F-22 can do a 60 degree AoA manuver. Sukhoi's used to do Cobras (where the Su goes upto 120 degrees AoA), with full fuel and a full ordinance fit some two decades back. The new Sukhoi's with 3D TVC, new FBW can do Kulbits cork screws and what not.

There is no conclusive evidence that the F-22 can do a cobra, and even if it did its only matching something that the Sukhoi could do 2 decades back.

Stealth Spy, you are clearly delusional. The F-22 is an UNSTABLE AIRFRAME like your beloved Flanker, combat maneverability wise, the Raptor easily outmaneuvers it, it's quite obvious. The F-22 will carry NO EXTERNAL ORDNANCE so there will be virtually no drag, unlike the Su-3x which carries all of its weapons externally, and therefore inherits a TON of drag. The Raptor also has a better sustained turn rate because of the much larger wing area, which is the key in the WVR arena; their instantaneous turn rates on the other hand, are about the same. The F-22 also has a signifgantly better T/W ratio meaning it can climb faster than the Flanker opening it up for a better shot.

And you gotta get over this "Russian made missles are superior" wet dream, GET OVER IT! The AIM-9X easily beats the Archer in terms of not only flight performance, but it has a much higher offboresight capability (+90/-90 for the AIMX, which will be increased to 180; compared to the +60/-60 for the R-73E, which have only been produced in modest numbers, typicaly R-73's have a +45/-45 off boresight capability and have only hit non-maneuvering targets.)

And what makes you so confident any version of the Flanker can magically dodge AMRAAMs. Does it have some sort of top secret missile-evading maneuver we are unaware of? I would sure love to see that trick.

Oh, and just for the record, none of the Flanker versions can do the Cobra fully loaded, it will snap the wings right off. As a matter of fact the Flanker can only perform these super-maneuvers with only a very small fuel load and no external carriage becuase of structural limitations.



[edit on 19-5-2005 by Hockeyguy567]

LOL! Hockey, your post is just as misinformative, in fact, it's probably more than Stealth Spy's. What stealth spy speaks of is true, not in all cases, but some of it does have truth behind it.

Who told you that the Raptor doesn't have an external Configuration?
www.fas.org...

Just a bit of information from FAS(I know the site doesn't update much, but the information is trustable).

I think most Raptor enthusiasts know that there is an external configuration.

About the Cobra... A lot of aircraft can perform the Cobra, even the F-15 can. The Cobra is strictly an Air Show manuever, not for combat, however there is talk about using the Cobra in combat, but I just don't know how that will get a pilot out of a jam. It is only said that the Su-27 was the FIRST aircraft to perform the cobra maneuver.

And the Su-37 is a fly-by-wire aircraft and is extremely maneuverable, right up there with the Raptor, possibly even better, they are both great aircraft, I don't think anyone can despute that.

Su-37

Two Lyulka AL-37FU vectored-thrust afterburning turbofans, 30,855 lb thrust each

Length: 21.94 m (72 ft)
Wingspan: 15.16 m (49 ft 9 in)

F/A-22 Raptor

Two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines (155.69 kN / 35,000 lb st with afterburning each)

Length: 62 ft 1 inch
Wingspan: 44 ft 6 inches

A bit of comparison and reference.

Stealth, why did you quote "Shattered OUT..." and respond with "Yeah, Whatever"???

You do know that's just me signing off right?

Shattered OUT...

Even if the US did "capture" some scientists, can that even be considered bad??? I mean we WERE at WAR, and they WERE producing technology for the enemy. As for freedom in the US, I love this country to death but I do believe we are not as free as many Americans think we are, but I would take the U.S.A. at its worst over 99 percent of nearly everything else. No offense intended.

I don't feel like making quotes or mentioning names, but I think it is unwise to underestimate the lethality of an air to air missle, especially the AIM-120. What good is a flanker if it's loosing airspeed while making tight turns in order to avoid a shoot-down. If and IF my first missle missed, as the pilot of the Raptor I would just shoot another one for a kill. As I stated early, first shot almost always wins. In a gunfight between to skilled shooters, who do you think would win, the person who gets the first shot or the person who has to wait fight seconds to fire???? Come on, it's not rocket science.

And the F-22 CAN perform a Cobra maneuver, it's just not widely known because the USAF does not flaunt it because they believe it is simply irrelevant. As far as problems with the Raptor's computers, a few years ago, I went to a Junior ROTC honors camp and got the opportunity to speak with the people in charge of the F-22 program under heavy security clearance. They didn't tell us anything classified, but me being the nerd and aviation buff that I am, I asked just about every question I could on its weakenesses...maybe they are bluffing, but does Russia have any better record than the US on bluffing????

Originally posted by beretboy22
I don't feel like making quotes or mentioning names, but I think it is unwise to underestimate the lethality of an air to air missle, especially the AIM-120. What good is a flanker if it's loosing airspeed while making tight turns in order to avoid a shoot-down. If and IF my first missle missed, as the pilot of the Raptor I would just shoot another one for a kill. As I stated early, first shot almost always wins. In a gunfight between to skilled shooters, who do you think would win, the person who gets the first shot or the person who has to wait fight seconds to fire???? Come on, it's not rocket science.

Actually, technically, it is.

Well off that, the only problem, is that you will have 6 missiles max, and several aircraft in the sky, this is why we have a gun cannon.

But if a raptor is forced to engage in close combat, the Raptor will probably lose, there is that good chance, a Flanker is a very formidable aircraft, and can easily turn the tables if the Raptor misses the first shot.

Shattered OUT...

Come on beretboy, learn how to type or get a spellchecker

My point is that an aircraft cannot maneuver nearly as well as missle, even if the missle is flying mach 4+ and the aircraft is pulling tight turns. I highly doubt that the Raptor would engage a fairly advanced and expensive aircraft in large numbers as well. Missles are becoming more and more agile, it's easy to guestimate in a chair in front of a computer, but if I were a pilot, I would be scared crapless (sorry mods) if I was the first person to be SHOT AT. Unlike a simulator, there is no second chance or restart. It only takes one kill to eliminate a Flanker and all 10+ of its missiles.

As far as close AA combat, a victory is more dependant on the skill of the actual pilots involved as opposed to the aircraft. In my humble opinion, it is bad strategy to depend on the Raptor missing it's first OR second shot and hoping that you can win a dogfight. There's no garuantee even that will happen. What if the Raptor's wingman who has probably wiped out the Fankers that weren't so LUCKY out, he'll probably engage the "lucky" flanker that is still lingering.

there is no flaw, just think about it. Why would any airforce with this aircraft have to open these doors at supesonic flight? With weapons being more complex and going further distances, the aircraft can slow down to cruising speeds, release weapon, close doors and then back to supersonic. Thats the answer right there. When you cant be seen and weapons can go further then an enemies, whats the worry?


An aircraft does not need to be the best today, the technology on the aircraft has to be the best.

EDIT : [double post cottected]

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Originally posted by bios

I would love for you to provide proof (other than some other delusional amerika-hater's post on some obscure web forum) that the Americans tortured Werner Van Braun.

Like i said , i assume and believe that happened. I cant provide sources for that.

BTW : I would like to see you and the others to provide proof (other than from some delusional American website)for saying things like Van Braun volunatrily worked for America without any compulsion.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Shattered,

Does it mean that since the first poster did not mention it that it is not true?

If you think what I have posted is incorrect then correct me. What you did instead was the posting equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LA LA LA LA LA I CANNOT HEAR YOU!!!! and I thought you were more mature than that. I guess I have misread you.

Cheers

BHR