Raptors Fatal Flaw

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by waynos
Cheers AMM, some people think I'm anti-American you know


same case with me


NO, you just can't stop pointing out the copa india exercises, however unrealistic the circumstances may have been




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
just because i am pro-india, dose'nt mean that i am anti-american



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   


The Flanker is capable of 3 dimensional TVC, where as the Raptor is only capable of 2D.


Why would you even need 3D tvc? A bit overkill isn't it.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Will the first set of F-35’s to be produced have thrust vectoring?



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
From what I've heard the thrust vectoring is actually the exhaust moving into the vertical position, and a fan in the forward portion of the aircraft, with doors that open on the top and bottom of the plane to vent the air from it.

www.fas.org...



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Dear all,

Are we still talking about the doors on the F-35 and F-22 as being the flaws when the real problems are elsewhere?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Wery possible... every plane has a weak point... You just might have found them Raptors...



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Greetings,

I don't see the F-35 with Thrust Vectoring for a simple reason, weight, they have already had to slim that puppy down at least once to meet the requirements.

I would be interested BHR if you could tell us what those flaws are?

- Phil



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Gooseuk,

Going back to the first page of this thread, the one that stuck out for me was the computer systems on both aircraft.

This is all the more important since this is going to be the difference in the future.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Greetings,

To me, I agree that these aircraft depend on these "operating" systems to merely stay in the air, not to mention, to fight. I personally program and to be honest, I know how easy it is to make a minor mistake wihtin the program and then find it once it locked up the computer.

I am interested in knowing if, in the new world order of Cyber Warfare, Aircraft control porgrams could come under attack?

Whats your view on that?

- Phil



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83


The Flanker is capable of 3 dimensional TVC, where as the Raptor is only capable of 2D.


Why would you even need 3D tvc? A bit overkill isn't it.


for the same reason you need TVC in the first place. manuverability



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Gooseuk,

I think that in a world of UAVs and UCAVs along with conventional manned aircraft, it will give someone a huge tech advantage if they can develop a system that can remotely access the internal systems of any aircraft.

I am sure that it is being worked on at least in the US since they would be most vulnerable to it given the high prevalence of FBW aircraft now and even more so in the future.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Westpoint - to answer your question, the F-35 will not have TVC, The F-32 (X-32) was designed to have it but not the F-35, apparently it is not possible because of the way the main nozzle rotates for vertical landing (limited to straight back or straight down, no upward movement at all).



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Quite right, waynos.

As for the Raptor and having 2D versus 3D TVC, the Raptor does not require 3D TVC. There are slight variances and differences in the two being they enhances maneuverability, but the first thing I would suggest that be considered is the aircraft that utilize such and the respective weight of each aircraft, in general. 2D on the Raptor works for the aircraft weight to thrust ratios versus the 3D and it being employed in a flying tank that seems representitive of a small bomber in weight.






seekerof

[edit on 1-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I have to ask Seekerof where did you get your Avatar? Its very funny.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Actually the main reason the raptor dose'nt use 3D TVC is because of stealth. 2D TVC vectors the thrust up and down and does not compromise thermal signature.

3D TVC can make the heat from the engines to go beserk in all directions while manuvering the airplane and is antagonistic to the concepts stealth.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
That I also knew, StealthSpy, I simply choose to illustrate my point by pointing out the other obvious factoid.






seekerof



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
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.
>>

No. It's a procurement system which is designed to build the most of whatever's out there to keep it's own hunger at bay and the 'majority of pilots' employed. Whether they need to be or not.

ALL modern aircraft work on a federate SEM-E architecture which uses liquid cooled VME cards packed in a particular type of line replaceable unit called a Standard Electronics Module. While you can get into trouble if your control language is dated/flawed (as Ada certaintly is) or if your backplane speeds can't handle the total throughput, the _basic functionality_ of the airframe is that of any 'plug'n'play' type computer card you are familiar with at home.

As such, you could completely redesign the 'nervous system' of the jet, and with a few switchouts on the production line, reinvent whatever element of dated architecture you thought needed improving. For _vastly_ less than the 257 BILLION WITH A B dollars it's going to take to get the particularly worthless (physically) JSF into squadron use.

>>
Without them the plane is useless.
>>

No it is not. People /vastly/ underestimate the technical and manufacturing challenges inherent to such simple things as getting a smooth composite skin which neither contracts nor expands so much as to compromise internal framework or crack under high thermal, Q and contact loads.

Just as they equally fail to understand how HUGE an investment is required to from a 2,300` stochio limit on an engine to a 2,700` equivalent.

All of which 'makes the Raptor what it is'. As much if not more than any onboard electronics.

FACE IT. If the Raptor's digital fly by wire and data modem works, /every other element/ of the aircraft could _fail_ and the jet would still be able to function just on the 'physical' properties of stealth + supercruise which carries a bomb or a missile to the point at which it can PHYSICALLY reach a target. Defined by offboard sensor systems.

And other nations cannot even manage to match that.

The truth then is that the Raptor is so good that we don't /need/ many of them (though certainly more than 181) and thus it puts jobs in the blue suited union at risk.

This is why they are willing to betray their own best (wartime) interests and indeed the safety of the nation and Constitution they are are SWORN to protect at such seditious risk.

>>
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.
>>

The only reason the F/A-22 is being 'restricted' to fighter roles is because civillians have this MORONIC idea that 'only do one mission well'. When, in point of fact, in war you do whatever mission is most immediately a threat to your hide. Lest it does you.

In this, 'Air Dominance' is 70% SEAD/DEAD (Suppression/Destruction of Air Defensses) and /maybe/ 30% AAW (Air to Air Warfare). The very REASON for stealth being that the Surface to Air threat was _so damn high_ that we could no longer isolate it from the A2A one.

And yet AAW or 'Air Superiority' is itself a mission. which is perhaps 70% flown. 20% maneuvered. And 10% fought. In that if you don't /have/ a MASSIVE force available to ride herd on all the strikers, covering each and every one at various points in their mission:

TARCAP/Sweep = lead offensive patrol to encounter and break up threats before they can mass.

BARCAP = direct blocking or 'barrier' combat air patrols which cover specific threat lanes not associated with the given target but still capable of generating an air threat.

Shotgun/Close Escort = direct support of raid packages to prevent them from being attacked by threats which have got past or around the TARCAP or BARCAP.

HAVCAP = High Asset Value CAP. Escorts for specific missions or platforms which are considered particularly critical to the accomplishment of the overall raid objectives. Like jammers and sensors and tanking.

Recovery Escort/Delouse = 'A full tank of gas' to run aggressive (afterburner) intercepts on jets coming back over the fence with broken avionics. Or a trailing threat aircraft trying to share an IFF squawk. The purpose being to investigate and if need be terminate threats BEFORE they get 'in amongst' your tired returning raiders.

ALL of these missions have to be flown Yet 70% of the time they are not _used_. The irony being that if you can't fill out all the slots, you **increase** the likelihood of an enemy 'trying something'.

>>
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.
>>

Which is stupid beyond words 'but let me try anway'.

1. The B-2 is worth 2.2 billion dollars on the hoof. The F-117 about 60. NEITHER airframe is in production.
2. NEITHER airframe can maneuver against a SAM shot at it. Their sole hope is to avoid being detected and shot at to begin with. The F/A-22 cannot protect these assets once they are fired at. While it can attack the radars which could detect them, the question rapidly becomes: "Why support a support mission when you could be attacking the command bunker or hardened GCI/sector center yourself?"
3. The F/A-22 _is a bomber_. The F-15C, for reasons of aging airframe decrepitude, will never be so. It needs every pylon it can muster for external tanks. And it has an incredibly weak nose gear. Which more or less proscribes the airframe from even a token JDAM carriage option.
4. WHO SAYS that the 'radar threat' is going to go away? We spend the better part of 60 days trying to destroy a second rate hump nations IADS during Operation Allied Force and _failed miserably_. Because we couldn't find them all. And we were prohibited from attacking critical (networked into the air defense) civillian ATC radars. Again, face the facts bucko. A 'radar threat' is a MISSILE with it's own active seeker, flying up on a strapdown navigator (blind) to a given point in space where it can activate and acquire the target, irrespective of stealth. WHAT tells it to shoot at that point in space need not be associated with the essentially dumb launch box. Nor even based on RF. ONLY the Raptor can use BOTH stealth -and- supercruise to complicate the enemy's flyup into the thin air of 40,000+ ft. While tracking a 6-8G target that is moving away at upwards of 1,700fps.
5. The B-2 and F-117 (and indeed _every other_ jet out there) is based on a subsonic transit to target. This means it may take upwards of 7-10 HOURS to fly a single mission. The F/A-22 is like a gerbil on amphetamines. It can run equivalent (700-800nm radius missions) in HALF THAT TIME. Which means that, if you stick it with 'escort' missions for the slowest-marcher, you not only squander the 2-3 more sorties it could fly that day. But you also TRIPLE the fuel use of an airframe:engine combination _specifically designed_ to go fast.
6. By 2015, we will be up to our necks in a gator pit of Directed Energy Weapons. At that time, ONLY the Raptor will be able to sling bomb targets with small glide munitions from the 60-80nm required to be beyond the (likely) prepositioned range of tactical lasers. Everybody else will be _rueing the day_ we decided to go cheap with direct delivered IAMs instead of smart standoff missiles. Because they will not dare to fly into the heart of enemy air defenses for fear of a nearly random attrition from these 'eyeblink and you're gone!' weapons.
7. For the 90% of missions where there IS NO threat, because you are bombing what amounts to armed civillians, the 'alternative' platform (F-35 JSF) is no more useful than the Raptor. Because these kinds of idiot-threat targets can be overflown (literally above the floor of trashfire's ability to ballistically reach up and touch you) by a small business jet. And so the only thing 'required' is that they be cheap enough to be _available_ in the numbers required to keep the bad guys from starting sumthin' up on the notion that if they are not seen they won't get caught. Such is not the role of a manned airframe. It is the role of an autopilot with a bomb release code for small diameter weapons that can take out single targets within about 34" of miss distance.


CONCLUSION:
The F/A-22's sole flaw is that it is so good we cannot export it. And so costly that we cannot build it 'for home use only'. Between them, the racketeering charge vulnerable Armed Forces and Congress are instead determined to drive up the technology escalation spiral yet another notch by selling 'cheapy VLO' to the world at large. All so that we can have half the capability and twice the threat level. While they get to keep their jobs and their constituency votes respectively. Such is not honorable. It is not patriotic. It's certainly not necessary. It is, instead, _an insane waste_.


Kurt Plummer



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
u guys are paranoid not everything the military, govt, or people say is a lie





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join