It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Raptor capable of this...

page: 12
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
look seekerof, again and again you repeat that "is classified" and "why not" "is classified" and "why not""is classified" and "why not""is classified" and "why not", again you can believe in your fairy tales, im just dot care



Remember mate, you claimed that your here for an objective techincal discussion. Your planning on starting when, exactly?

You have a good one too mate.





seekerof




posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by Harlequin
Its also similar to when the RAF downed the F-15`s using the Typhoon (in an exercise) it was over in a minute and the eagle drivers never stood a chance - and they were the upgraded ones!


Could we have some more data on this exercise??
I'm assuming you're talking AESA equipped F-15Cs?? Also equipped with the
AIM-120B/C/D..? (whatever is the latest..)


No, they we're F-15E's.



And that means what?? The average F-15E is much better than the Average F-15C - the GITB means the workload is halved- and AFAIK NO `c`s have had new engines.or can take the stores load out of an E



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Apparently, you have no clue as to how supercruise enhances BVR, air-to-air missile ranges, detections, ECCM, ESM, etc.?

Why is this remotely relevant? In exactly what way would knowing the top speed figure benefit anyone? The way I see it, you're just throwing in this argument in a childish I-know-more-than-you kind of fashion, even though I doubt whether you actually "know" the answer or can simply google it.




Originally posted by Seekerof
Just "several years"? Try 8-12 years behind.

As far as my comprehension of the English language stretches, 8-12 years is "several years".




Originally posted by Seekerof
I have presented, time and time again, along with a couple others, nothing but facts.

You have presented a lot of speculation and the few facts you did provide were about security clearances and that the information is in fact classified, in order to make it seems as if your speculation is supported by "facts" even though your facts either have no direct relation to the subject at hand or instead confirm that its top speed etcetera are not known and hence any speculation as to being much higher than the base figure is completely unwarranted.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
Why is this remotely relevant? In exactly what way would knowing the top speed figure benefit anyone? The way I see it, you're just throwing in this argument in a childish I-know-more-than-you kind of fashion, even though I doubt whether you actually "know" the answer or can simply google it.

Are you here to counter anything brought forth in this topic or here to replace grunt2?
Enlighten me, k?




As far as my comprehension of the English language stretches, 8-12 years is "several years".


I see. Several would imply to many here as 2-3.
Technicalities aside, specifics on your part might add to this discussion and the direction you wish to take it, maybe?





You have presented a lot of speculation and the few facts you did provide were about security clearances and that the information is in fact classified, in order to make it seems as if your speculation is supported by "facts" even though your facts either have no direct relation to the subject at hand or instead confirm that its top speed etcetera are not known and hence any speculation as to being much higher than the base figure is completely unwarranted.

Quote exactly what I have provided as 'speculation' and then feel free to imput your own speculative or knowledge based counter-explanation. Interesting you want to zero in on me, all the while ignoring the speculative comments of the one specific member. No biggie to me, you can be likewise dealt with if you wish to enter into a discussion on the merits of the supercruise and top speed of the F-22 Raptor, Simon666.

You game, or simply here to challenge?
Discuss if you wish to discuss the topic, other than that, file a complaint and move on?




seekerof

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   


Are you here to counter anything brought forth in this topic or here to replace grunt2?


so this is your last resource, not????
, please dont put my nick in a discussion with other members, only as a excuse to your speculations


[edit on 6-8-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
It's funny watching how agressive has te thread become around the top speed of a plane. I must say that all these things about mach 2 suprecruising look like fairy tales. It doesn't matter what the pilots say, even if the plane wasn't able to go supersonic with full afterburners pilots would say it's fantastic. That's the way it works, none of the sources is fully credible because all of them are interested in people thinking the plane is impressive. The mach 1.5 sounds like the most possible, maybe the 1.7 in a dive...

Now you would say... give us links please!! but I won't, I have just said my opinion that doesn't really count for anything



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chemapeich


Now you would say... give us links please!! but I won't, I have just said my opinion that doesn't really count for anything


And, some people have first hand knowledge and experience with the aircraft, but that doesn't count for anything these days either.

I had fun extinguishing the fire after the F-22 crashed the week of Christmass last year. I enjoyed translating the F-22 Technical Order into an AFTO 88, for the benefit of emergency workers who need to be aware of hazards and shutdown proceedures in case of a response.

But, what do I know. People who need/require proof will always know far less than those that do not.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666


Besides, even if you could, Russia doesn't have the money to build a competing design both China and India are not that advanced yet for some several years to come.




What if they're all working together on this...secretly...



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
What if they're all working together on this...secretly...


For some reason, the prospect of India and China working together on what would be both nations best aircraft seems a bit farfetched.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the discussion at hand, it has gotten a bit too hostile IMO.

The way I see it, a Mach 1.5 - Mach 1.8 supercruise seems very attainable from what we do know about the aircraft.

Since Grunt claims to have a very technical background, with a career in the field, I would like him to explain why the Raptor can not do this. I would also like him to provide links to credable sources that back his reasoning (more so for my own understanding of the subject, since I do not have a background this field).

Maybe it is the fact that his native language is not English, but nothing he has said has even made me consider the idea that the Raptor could not obtain a speed of Mach 2 with afterburner and Mach 1.8 in supercruise.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
For some reason, the prospect of India and China working together on what would be both nations best aircraft seems a bit farfetched.


I would agree with this.



field, I would like him to explain why the Raptor can not do this. I would also


This is an almost impossible question to answer. A .3Mn difference is peanuts. There's nothing physical (like a sound barrier) that would prevent the Raptor from supercruising at either 1.5 and 1.8Mn. It's a simple function of dry thrust, drag and weight. Whatever speed comes out of the balanace is what you get.

You might be able to get a rough estimate of the achievable speed from the thrust of the F-15 engine or maybe Su-27 at 1.5Mn with burners divided by weight of the aircraft and correlate that to the Raptor dry with its weights. They're both similarly sized aircraft AFAIR and will produce similar drags (Raptor will do better of course). I don't have enough data to do the math however. Personally, I believe the lower number simply because I don't believe engine technology and aircraft aerodynamics have come so far so quickly that only a short time ago supercruise was not even possible. A .5 to .6Mn jump in dry top speed is an amazing achievement!!



said has even made me consider the idea that the Raptor could not obtain a speed of Mach 2 with afterburner and Mach 1.8 in supercruise.


+0.2Mn between supercruise and afterburner? That seems like a very small difference. 2.5 with burner is more believable.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
1)the plane isnt superfast, its supercruiser and supersonic lift
2)the difference between supercruiser and max speed isnt sooo big, mainly because the engine is a high dry thrust -as someone explained before-

the links are there

AMM, again you are again speculating



but nothing he has said has even made me consider the idea that the Raptor could not obtain a speed of Mach 2 with afterburner and Mach 1.8 in supercruise.


yes,yes, because is a national symbol



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
1)the plane isnt superfast, its supercruiser and supersonic lift


OK, I assume you mean that the Raptor is not designed to go super fast. What is the TECHNICAL difference between the optimal design of a supercruising aircraft and an aircraft with a very high top speed.




AMM, again you are again speculating



but nothing he has said has even made me consider the idea that the Raptor could not obtain a speed of Mach 2 with afterburner and Mach 1.8 in supercruise.


yes,yes, because is a national symbol


I am speculating no more then you, grunt. You and I are BOTH speculating. You were obviously not involved in any part of the ATF program, nor were/are you in any way involved in the USAF.

And no, the reasons for my believing it can reach a Mach 1.5 to 1.8 super cruise in level flight as well as a Mach 2 to mach 2.3 with afterburners is my admitedly limited understanding of how aircraft work, many MANY links and articals I have read, and the opinions of very reliable people in the industry, one of whom (intelgurl) gave the same estimates that another person I know personaly in the industry.

[edit on 8-8-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:23 AM
link   
again is explained, read my posts, at high speed you must reduce the drag, a supersonic lift machine must induce lift -at supersonic velocity the lift fall by the induce of shockwaves-, for that is unavoidable the induce of more drag -turn drag into lift-, and that limit the speed.

supercruiser dont mean to reduce drag for a better flight, mean flight a supersonic without afterburners

the plane use a high supersonic lift configuration, to compensate the high induced drag it use huge dry power engines

a conventional fighter can turn instantaneus 5-6 gs at mach 1.5, but one thing is instantaneous, and other is sustained -this last is more a lift problem-, also the machine have much better supersonic climb, where you think it get the lift?, at faster design the goal is avoid drag, and lower the lift to the minimun needed

in supersonic maneuvres you lost toooo much energy -altitude and speed-, the plane was designed to compensate these energy loses, a faster plane would use other configuration like tipical untailed delta or a looong nose

also at supersonics speeds there are other problems than drag and lift, like stabilization

the plane was designed to fly high and fast, at higher levels the minimun speed became higher, actually closer to supersonic, at lower heights minimun speed is lower

also higher power engine dont mean higher sustained power , the f15e-c use a 12 tons power turbofan, the f15a use a 10 tons machine, it dont mean that the 15c will be faster than the a, it could be faster at lower or higher levels, but not with the max total speed, the same case is for other planes, all the planes have different numbers and performances, depends of the height and speed, also max thrust dont mean that performance at all speeds or heighs, actualy afterburners are better at medium high supersonic speeds in power output than only turbojets machines -the extreme is the use of ramjet on the sr71 at higher mach-, the engines are designed specifically for a max operation speed, that depends on the dynamical pressure in the compressor ,the temperature in the turbine, rpm and other factors

su27, mig29, f16 and other planes were designed for subsonic-transonic lift, these use huge engines with huge t/w -even higher than the sr71-, you pay that with a lower max speed -lower than the blackbird-, but the bill is bigger for a plane that is designed for subsonic and supersonic agility

in physics there arent magical solutions



[edit on 8-8-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I think that more important thing is what the definition of supercruise is?
If the supercruise was definited supersonic without using afterburner, how do we understand supersonic in dive flying without using afterburner? How do we understand a supersonic flying without using afterburner but just for one minute two minutes …… thirty minutes etc.?
So supercruse must be definted in supersonic with max. radius.
Wheather using afterburn only is an instrument or method of tech. for supercruise not a standard of measure or result.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
From Wikpedie:
A supercruising aircraft is able to cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners. The first aircraft to exceed Mach 1 in level flight without afterburners was the P.1 prototype of the English Electric Lightning, on August 4, 1954.

The F-22 isn't the first, but it's the first production fighter IIRC that is capable of supercruise.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   
OK, now i got a bit smarter again... The thing from wikipedia sounds very natural...



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
For allot of reasons, this is probably the last big manned fighter project for an extreamly long time. If you look at the advances in UAV's in cost/performance. This could be the last large scale production.

I would imagine that the "think forward planning" the airframe and materials were engineered to be very capable of sustained mach 3 performance. Out of the gate the top airpseed on the 1st models is less relevant for the role its going to take over. Official numbers or not, its one fast jet. What will be real impressive is the structural changes, avionics, and powerplant upgrades in later model variants.

Scenario
If I was in the sky in sky with fast, smaller, high G, pilotless fighters, speed would be only a small part of my survival equation.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The first aircraft to exceed Mach 1 in level flight without afterburners was the P.1 prototype of the English Electric Lightning, on August 4, 1954.

The F-22 isn't the first, but it's the first production fighter IIRC that is capable of supercruise.


The Lightning not only went into production but served with the RAF for nearly 30 years.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Well that just goes to show I didn't recall correctly. lol



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nullster
For allot of reasons, this is probably the last big manned fighter project for an extreamly long time. If you look at the advances in UAV's in cost/performance. This could be the last large scale production.




Highly doubtful!


Being a former Avionics Tech in the US Military, I am aware of government "behaviors" when it comes to upgrading to the next best thing.

I am very sure they will progress into UAV, but not only produce UAV's.

A good example would be the movie "Stealth".. which came out on DVD today!

They would probably make new lines of Manned/Unmanned versions at first with the ability to fly as a team.

Also to consider, until they work out a good AI computer, then humans will still fly the craft.... on the ground.... which means delay in response time, and other factors that limit ability to preform! (because of communication delays and such)

Can't dogfight if your "lagging"
I can see more long range bombers become Unmanned then fighters at first.

In-other-words, we still have a looooong time to go before manned fighter planes are a thing of the past.




top topics



 
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join