Is the Raptor capable of this...

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Oh... Damn with me and the fact that I'am not american/English...
Thanks for correcting me...
I'am greatfull...




posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Now, I just noticed that i wasn't quite finnished... Dear Seekerof

BTW, I herad that you are in the army, did you even think taht those arm-chair generals are the ones who decide if you go to battle or stay at home...



Btw, you heard wrong.
I was in the Air Force as a PJ, that would be Pararescueman to you, not the Army. And btw, there is a picture of me as a PJ posted on a military PJ site, but I won't never tell which one...

As to your question: my job was not to second-guess those above me who were in the know.
I do, however, second-guess those novices and arm-chair generals.






seekerof

[edit on 30-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
If afterburners were only used for pure speed, that would be true, but they are also used for acceleration. As I said before, the Mach 1.78 figure may not be accurate, but it wouldn't shock me much either. The F-22 is not a intended to be a sprinter (the F-15 is almost certainly faster WRT absolute top speed) but a marathon runner.

[edit on 7/24/05 by xmotex]


Sorry, you don't really appear to know much about fighters. ALL modern fighters are sprinters, perhaps with the exception of the F-117 since it doesn't have afterburners, but it isn't really a fighter, it is a night time precision bomber. Afterburners are for sprinting. Afterburners are for two things, engaging the enemy with some advantage (position, altitude or speed), or disengaging with the enemy when you loose the advantage. Fighters don't fly around willy nilly using afterburners, it uses way too much fuel. What you should consider about the Raptor - it cruises at Mach 1.8, FASTER than ALL OTHER FIGHTERS which can only do so WITH afterburner, and it carries its ordinance INSIDE meaning that it has much less drag than any of its competitors. Once again your lack of understanding is apparent with your comments about the F-15. The F-15 CAN'T POSSIBLY COMPETE WITH THE RAPTOR. The Raptor has superior speed, radars and accelleration. Just look at a picture of an F-15 loaded up for Air to Air, all those external munitions really slow it down compared to a Raptor. The Raptor can disengage from the Eagle any time it wants and without even using afterburner (most likely). I agree that the Raptor is a "marathon runner" in fact, the F/A-22 has a much greater range than the F-15 without external tanks. But it can sprint faster than the F-15 also.

Read this article:
www.globalsecurity.org...


Some have talked about Russian phased radar arrays that can see U.S. stealth aircraft, big deal. They still can't engage them and win in a meaningful way.

[edit on 30-7-2005 by CaptAvatar]

[edit on 30-7-2005 by CaptAvatar]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The incredible speed posted by fighted of the past such as the F-4 and F-15 were planes meant to go extremely fast. In a normal configuration with no extra s added to the engines or extremely smooth exteriors were much slower. The engines tended to burn out after on the those top speed runs. See F-15 streak eagle. The F-22 is capable of the same type of one time speed. But operationally mid to high 1+ is more reasonable and more useful for all configurations. Front windscreen heat and fuel tend to be the limiting factors as far as how long full acceleration can be held.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
What makes you so sure?

Every single resource I have seen on the subject says the F-15 has a higher top speed than the Raptor. The Raptor has a better thrust/weight ratio, and thus can out-accelerate the F-15 - but at speeds approaching and above Mach 2, drag and aerodynamic heating become much more important. The F-22 is not designed for tremendous sprint speed, that's sacrificed for signature reduction features (the big internal bay, simplified intakes.)

As I said before, I think the Mach 1.78 figure is a low end estimate. But I would be suprised if it can exceed Mach 2 by much, and everything I have seen says the Eagle is faster by a decent margin in terms of absolute top speed.

As for childish comments like "Sorry, you don't really appear to know much about fighters." and "Once again your lack of understanding is apparent", you can shove it until you come up with some evidence to back up your claims, as you appear to have nothing but poorly deduced theories to back you up so far.

If, as you claim, "ALL modern fighters are sprinters" then the Mig-31 is the most advanced airplane on the planet. I don't think so. Absolute top speed is becoming less and less important, energy maneuverability, signature reduction, and operational flexibility increasingly take precedence. Thus all recent fighter designs sacrifice absolute speed to these considerations, and current fighter designs (Eurofighter, F-35, Rafale) are down on top end speed compared to their predecessors (Tornado, F-16, Mirage 2000.)


[edit on 7/30/05 by xmotex]

[edit on 7/30/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
This message is to everybody and no one in particular (well it is to a few people). Please refrain from personal attacks during the discussion. Aside from not being polite and against the T&C of the site. They also add nothing to the discussion at hand.


Thanks



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
the problem is that the f15 isnt a greate interceptor or sprinter, the max speed with missiles -clean ,no tanks and other stuffs- is arround M1.7-1.8, compared that with the M2.8 mig 25 is a huge difference, so yes the f22 is faster than the f15, but that because the f15s M2.5 speed is completely unuseful, due the aerodynamics and a high by-pass turbofan -it takes a huge quantity of fuel and loooong time-

the famous raptor M1.7 supercruiser was in a test in a dive flight, so please dont confuse the things

the fantastic predictions of the f22 supercruiser range were done with the hope of the use of a functional variable bypass turbojet-fan, now the 22s use a veeeery conventional engine, and the last USAF reports only claim 100-150 nm of supercruiser, thats obvious, with the failure of the variable bypass turbofan

among the other reasons, there are some things that the people dont understand, because they dont know even basic aerodynamics, there are two basic variables in aerodynamics, lift and drag, to design a supercruiser plane you needs tons of lift, thats because in supersonic velocity the lift force fall, but the only way to induce soo much lift is to increase the drag, that is the drag induce lift, so the f22s plane needs tooons of lift to sustain supercruiser, in the end you need to create more drag to turn in lift, so the max speed isnt sooo big, and is M1.8 not M2 or 2.2......or M3!!!!!


the f22 performance isnt so greate, we should read about climb altitude records, but nothing at all, huge engines dont mean proportional huge power or acceleration because is the peak power, not the sustained one, also we must concider the drag induced and other factors, but we know the overheating problems of the 22 -nice to a "stealth" plane-, right now the production aircrats -not the prototipes- are limited to M1.4 supercruiser, due the higher aspect wing

also is obvious that dont have a stealth design

the plane is greate -and costly-, is a greate replacement of the f15, but isnt the technologic wonder that some guys think



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I thought the Thrust to Weight ratio on the F-22 was top-notch?


Anyway, informative post there grunt!



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

as posted by grunt2
among the other reasons, there are some things that the people dont understand, because they dont know even basic aerodynamics, there are two basic variables in aerodynamics, lift and drag, to design a supercruiser plane you needs tons of lift, thats because in supersonic velocity the lift force fall, but the only way to induce soo much lift is to increase the drag, that is the drag induce lift, so the f22s plane needs tooons of lift to sustain supercruiser, in the end you need to create more drag to turn in lift, so the max speed isnt sooo big, and is M1.8 not M2 or 2.2......or M3!!!!!

Uhhh, your source that your citing such from is what, exactly?
Cause if it is from the top of your head and amounting to opinion, not buying it one bit, especially since there is enough documented sources in this thread to totally make what you have asserted, from the top of your head, quite unfounded, in regards to supercruise not exceeding Mach 1.8. I guess you also forgot to mention that drag, when applied to the Raptor, is good drag, not the bad type drag, huh? Means it turns on a dime, among other positive non-mentions by you...



seekerof

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Seekerof, dont play to much these pc games, go and try to learn some of the aerodynamics, yes there are good and bad drag, but both are drag, and if you want to sustain a flight at such speed you need a looot of your "good drag"


i dont understand why is soooo hard to accept the M1.8 max speed????

[edit on 1-8-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I thought the Thrust to Weight ratio on the F-22 was top-notch?




It is top notch, it's the highest of any modern fighter.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I think the issue might be the Raptors "Super Cruise" ability.
In short, it can go supersonic without afterburners. Faster than that may requirer after burners.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
Seekerof, dont play to much these pc games, go and try to learn some of the aerodynamics, yes there are good and bad drag, but both are drag, and if you want to sustain a flight at such speed you need a looot of your "good drag"


i dont understand why is soooo hard to accept the M1.8 max speed????


Computer games?!
grunt2, you talk more without factual backing than a fly hovering around crap.
Save your rhetoric for someone who gives two cents about you taking things from the top of your head, k?
Provide to the contrary. Sources have been provided for you.
The stated credible sources indicate a supercruise of 1.8 and officially clocked supercruise at 2.25.
So let me guess, you were at the official supercruise clocking at 2.25 and thus are in the know that what has been cited is incorrect indeed, huh?
Keep talking, just watch your step so you don't trip over your feet.




seekerof

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
supercruiser at M1.8???? max speed of M2.2???what are you smoking???


well, Seekerof, whatever you wish



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
You know, I explicitly wrote a mistake into what I said hoping you would have enough willpower to bump thru this thread and find the error.
Sometimes I wonder about some...:shk:

1.8, you say?
2.0, you say?
Yep, and yep.
I know what all the internet sources indicate, but I also know for a fact, that neither the military nor the Raptor designers are giving up the ghost on what the actual supercruise speed is on the Raptor. Again, your quoting from what?

As such, and as previously provided for in this total thread:
The 2.0 mention:


At 60,000 feet, it flies higher than any other warplane, can zip along at Mach 2 without an afterburner -- meaning it's efficient so it can stay aloft longer....

F22: Most Advanced Warplane Uncloaked

At any rate there, grunt2, this aircraft is still largely under the label: classified and you can bet all the money you have in any bank account, that the Raptor can supercruise beyond 1.5 at 80% military thrusts, 1.72, to more like 1.8 or possibly better. Under programs that are still labeled as "classified," as with the Raptor, truth and fact are not the same and at any rate, are not available for civilain consumption, being they are not in the need to know. You in the know?





seekerof

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
man, there are loooot of sources -even official- that says the max M1.8 speed and 1.5M supercruiser -in the pre-production planes-, the missunderstanding is about the logic of the guys that dont understand the technology -even in abovetopsecret saying "could reach M3"-, they say "well, if it can run M1.4-1.5 without AB, it must run as hell with AB!!!!"
, but then you must consider the nature of the design

official numbers are clear, max M1.8, supercruiser M1.4

now, the planes always can reach higher speeds than the nominal, but under special conditions

"classificated", the last resource to keep that myth



[edit on 1-8-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
...even in abovetopsecret saying "could reach M3"....

Again, fi you had or would take the time to read through the entirety of the topic, very few are stipulating the Raptor can do Mach 3.




official numbers are clear, max M1.8, supercruiser M1.4

And again, "official" is not official, because as pointed out, and this can be readily backed by an industry insiders, security cleared military and government individuals, when it comes to military hardware, rarely is there "official" data readily available for civilain consumption. Hence there would be no need for "classified" or "secret," would there? The US Air Force and the Raptor manufacturer's, Lockheed Martin, have listed their civilain versions of "official," which really equates to unofficial, being that "official" real data is still classified and deemed secret--not for civilain consumption or knowledge. Industry people know this, as do military people.






seekerof



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Well, the F-15 top-speed is 2.5 mach... so it's about as mfast as the Rptor, if not even faster...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

And btw, there is a picture of me as a PJ posted on a military PJ site, but I won't never tell which one...

I do, however, second-guess those novices and arm-chair generals.






seekerof

[edit on 30-7-2005 by Seekerof]


OK, but i ahve no desire waht so ever to see your picture... How in the earth could it possibly help this disscussion... However I wouldn't mind to see a picture of somebody who I' am arguing with...



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
wan`t it IntelGirl that stated that the Raptor has a higher thrust to weight ratio than the balckbird? and the limiting factor in its pure speed was the fixed inlets ?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum