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.

 

some strong suspicion of capability of raptor

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   

:
The F–22 has not yet demonstrated effective supersonic cruise

The USAF has never appreciated that speed without persistence is meaningless.
Proof—Six USAF aircraft capable of Mach 2.2 never exceeded 1.4 Mach in combat over North Vietnam in 10 years of war, in hundreds of thousands of sorties. The F–15 has never demonstrated its performance guarantee of Mach 2.5 flight in a combat configuration on a realistic combat mission profile.

The USAF has the wrong definition of supercruise —(supersonic flight in turbojet thrust, i.e. without using an afterburner.

Cruise means covering distance efficiently. Fighters with wings properly sized for subsonic maneuver achieve efficient supersonic flight at altitudes of 60,000 feet requiring partial afterburning thrust. This may be unknown to the testers since the test program limits testing to below 50,000. The proper cruise condition may remain unknown. All supercruisers cruise at very high altitudes using some afterburning (i.e. ramjet) thrust—MiG–31, SR-71, as did the many designs that I have studied, generated, or supervised.
(Detailed aerodynamic-thermodynamic analysis is available upon request.)

The GAO report that the F–22 has demonstrated supercruise is specious and misleading.
The reports have merely stated that the F–22 has demonstrated 1.6 Mach flight speeds in pure turbojet (dry) thrust. No report of distance traveled or persistence at those speeds was made. Supersonic speeds in dry thrust bode well, but this capability is not sufficient to achieve supercruise. Proper data are global radius of action and global persistence plots as functions of speed and altitude, for rational missions. These data must be then compared to those of the F–15 and the ancient F–104-19 to establish progress. For example—the 40 year old F-104A-19 has twice the supersonic radius of the 20 year old F-15C at 1.7 Mach, and out-accelerates it at Mach 2.2.Compare! In comparison lies the proof of progress.

The Fuel Fraction of the F–22 is insufficient for pragmatic supersonic cruise missions.
Fuel Fraction, the weight of the fuel divided by the weight of the aircraft at take-off, impacts cruise-range, be it super- or subsonic. At today’s state of the art, fuel fractions of 29 percent and below yield subcruisers; 33 percent provides a quasi–supercruiser; and 35 percent and above provides useful missions. The F–22’s fuel fraction is 29 percent, equal to those of the subcruising F–4s, F–15s and the Russian MiG-29 Flanker. The Russian medium range supersonic interceptor, the MiG-31 Foxhound, has a fuel fraction of over 45 percent. Supersonic cruise fighters require higher fuel fractions since they must have excessive wing for supersonic cruise. Breguet’s range equation establishes the dependence of aircraft radius on speed, lift–to-drag ratio, specific fuel consumption and the part of the total fuel fraction available for cruise.


I just found these resources by debat in China, all the art said is what I have been worrying and suspecting. But no one can refute and still haven't found some evidence can rebut it. If this question has already been discussed, please delet it and tell me link.


[edit on 21-2-2006 by emile]




posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   
That report was written August 10, 2000. It's clearly outdated.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Man that sounds like communistic drivel if i ever heard it!

Where did you source sh#t like that from?? China....ooooo now theres a trust worthy nation if i ever seen one! wow, lets all go stand in a square in beijing.... and no, those nasty men wont run us all down in their tanks will they...nooo!

Look, chinas crapping itself about the raptor, as most hostile nations are. When that bird becomes operational, the skys will truely be a place of danger for any aircraft opposed to the raptor. Its awesome, technologicaly so far advanced its un-believable, and fast.


Stick to the little red book not chinese tactical info...their full of anti western sh#t.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 04:22 AM
link   
So have either of you two got anything constructive to say?

For JP_8: the rules of flight have not changed since 2000.

For MadGreebo: the source of the argument matters little, the content of the argument matters alot.



Anyway, in my personal opinion the author is forgetting that the F-22 will cover ground alot faster for equivalent fuel consumption rate than current fighters (assuming similar engine fuel consumption rates). Thus, despite its smaller fuel fraction, it wll be able to cover the same amount of ground, but in a shorter space of time.

Since the F-22 and F-15 have similar fuel fractions (according to that article posted), I would expect the F-22 to have a range about 1.5 times that of the F-15, simply due to the fact its 1.5x faster for (what I would imagine is...) similar fuel consumption.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
So have either of you two got anything constructive to say?

For JP_8: the rules of flight have not changed since 2000.

For MadGreebo: the source of the argument matters little, the content of the argument matters alot.

Anyway, in my personal opinion the author is forgetting that the F-22 will cover ground alot faster for equivalent fuel consumption rate than current fighters (assuming similar engine fuel consumption rates). Thus, despite its smaller fuel fraction, it wll be able to cover the same amount of ground, but in a shorter space of time.

Since the F-22 and F-15 have similar fuel fractions (according to that article posted), I would expect the F-22 to have a range about 1.5 times that of the F-15, simply due to the fact its 1.5x faster for (what I would imagine is...) similar fuel consumption.

kilcoo316:
Thanks alot for you support. I don't like the Beijing auther either, but what can I do? Using hand fighting to tanks and Helicopter controled by govenment? Maybe you gays can, but you guys needn't!


I have noticed that articale witten in 5 years ago. But I have to make a warning don't satisfied with Raptor too much. Since I have been being military fans I knew that sruise speed means a speed with max. range no matter if use afterburner. But as I knew even flight with no use aftburner the max range F-22 taken still being under subsonic. Such supersonic will be cheating yourself at the end.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I see there are two different definitions of supercruise here now (we'll not argue about which one is "right").


One is pure range, the other is speed when travelling under military power.


Does anyone have any information on the fuel flow rates for an F-15 and F-22 under full military throttle?



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   
This probably has nothing to do with the point of the thread, but I'm new to compbat aircraft.

Is the new X-35 basically the same thing as the FA-22, only that is has vector thrust that point down, and a fan so it can vertically take off?


It looked like a sweet plane on the Science channel (I think thaqt's where I saw it).



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   
that article was very quick to talk about how cr#p us planes are. but if we compare us planes to chinese planes then we see that the chinese havent produced any planes worth talking about ever. Even the new "super" fighter the J-10 is a copy of an f-16.



I don't like the Beijing auther either, but what can I do?


If you dont like the author then dont quote it, its not difficult.



Is the new X-35 basically the same thing as the FA-22, only that is has vector thrust that point down, and a fan so it can vertically take off?


THe f-35 and the f-22 are completly different planes. try these links

www.airforce-technology.com...
www.airforce-technology.com...

if your still confused then just google each aircraft, i find that thats usually the best way when im confused or want more infomation.

Justin

[edit on 21-2-2006 by justin_barton3]



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
that article was very quick to talk about how cr#p us planes are. but if we compare us planes to chinese planes then we see that the chinese havent produced any planes worth talking about ever. Even the new "super" fighter the J-10 is a copy of an f-16.



No, the article was pointing out some things worth thinking about, and other things that were quite silly.


The point about air superiority is particularly good - in the current world, will a large scale open conflict ever happen again? To be honest, it doesn't look likely.


I would greatly appreciate it if people disagreeing with the original post and content would argue the points it presents instead of dismissing it as "biased commie rubbish".



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
MadGreebo,

>>
Man that sounds like communistic drivel if i ever heard it!
>>

Nah pure American BS written by a man jealous of his 'sucks to excess'-full history ruining the USAF with the Lightweight Fighter Mafia (i.e. the idiot club that invented the F-16).

Here's the full article. Anytime I hear 'specious' and 'fuel fraction' the first words out of my subconscience are "Smells like Riccioni..."

www.pogo.org...

FACTS
1. The typical takeoff weight for the F-22 is listed as 64,800lbs or thereabouts.
2. NO ONE KNOWS the internal fuel totals because the AF hasn't published them. For the original ATF demonstrators, these were in the range 20-22,000lbs for the YF-22 and 25,000lbs for the YF-23.
3. .29 X 64,800 = 18,792lbs. Either Riccioni is smokin' something he shouldn't be or th USAF _deliberately_ took away upwards of 4,000lbs of fuel from the F-22 for next to no reason (well, the JSF and profiteering for it's own sake I suppose).
4. If you stick with the original fuel quantity, 20,000lbs/64,800lbs = .31 and by his own formula Mr. LWF is hosed.
5. _NOBODY KNOWS_ how long the F-22 will supercruise for, in fact we only have four basic 'knowns' about it's performance profile:
A. The jet's best profile (fuel burn to efficient cruise) is supersonic from the deck to best altitude.
B. Test pilots trying to fill out their test cards had to 'continually throttle back' to maintain a Mach 1.5 datapoint.
C. They could not do the full workup within the Black Mountain Supersonic Corridor at Edwards (110nm X 25nm IIRR). Nor apparently any of the other nearby ranges at Nellis
(70X100nm) and China Lake.
D. When they DID finally get around to 'sustained cruise signature validation' (computer model vs. live recording using an IR spectrograph equipped C-135) they went to the
PMTR or 'Pacific Missile Test Range' which is THE LARGEST test range in the world, off Southern California. There they /could/ run the jet, through contiguous legs,
400nm long.

CONCLUSION 1:
Flat Out- Until Mr. Ricky starts quoting more than "I am an _ex_ USAF Colonel". Indeed, until his blue suited monkey club itself puts out more than 10 year old data on their 'pride and joy'; the only thing you can responsibly do is hand him his cowboy hat and send him right on back out onto the pastured range. Him and his horse Agenda he rode in on.

A few other comments:
1. The F-104 has no drag. You could put two under each wing of an F-15E and not double it's base drag. BUT. You start hanging /weapons/ on the Zipper and both induced drag and parasitics/tunnel interactions involving the type's utility as a _combat platform_ go right back into 'real airplane' territory. Not least because, to do what it does, as a 5,000lbs Zoom Up; 2,500lbs to go 500nm downrange (@ Mach 2 and 70,000ft); 1,500lbs recovery gas; system, it _has to_ yield it's tiprail stations to tanks. Yet it cannot make the /return trip/ (with another pair of underwing tanks) because of some specific high Mach restrictions to carriage of same. i.e. it's a one way weaponless wonder no one in their -right minds- would use as an illustration in 'proper supercruise'.
2. The F-22 has more thrust /in military/ on ONE engine, than the F-104 has at full burner.
3. The F-22 can cruise (as the F-104 can) well above 50,000ft. At these altitudes, thrust _minus_ drag becomes critical and the F-22 has so much spare lift margin that it can actually carry a 6,000lb weapons load and more or less come up even with the F-104's clean shape. Without external tanks.
4. The F-22s advantages lie in it's _linear legs_ of range. i.e. Every jet out there, including the vaunted F-35 is going to need gas pass. The difference is how many times at what range point on an efficiency profile: X. For the F-22 that point is probably going to be 600nm downrange. Where it will tank once, go /another/ 300nm in and out of the combat area. Come out, tank again. And come home. It won't need ten kinds of escort. It won't need a SOJAMer (not that we will have one at the rate we're going). it sure as hell won't need 'pack-age' tactics of some 4-8 other aircraft to make up for it's lack of 'more than both pylons today!' internal ordnance as the F-35 will have to have to be safe-in-numbers. THAT is where you gain back fuel. That and the fact that a jet which takes 7-10hrs to fly a mission, subsonically, is going to be a pure pilot whipper on the typical 1.5 sortie per day ethic that makes the USAF into a 'commute' service.
While a jet that flies the same distance in 3. Can actually USE it's 1.25:1 manning ratio to it's it's max. In getting 3-5 sorties per day.

CONCLUSION 2:
The USAF was 'all about the Raptor' until they SAW how good it would be. Then they immediately shut up and let any and all take their free potshot because they knew that they could have 500 F-22. Or 2,000 F-35. And being worthless SOBs, they chose to 'vote union'.
Reality Check: Never trust your slaughter dogs to pay for an adequate defense in peace. They exist SOLELY to ensure their existence as a mandate of total war.
That is why we have the Just So Fracked 35. Because the USAF pilot community doesn't care about this country, only themselves.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Thank you very much for the above post, very very concise and informative.


I adore the raptor, as to me as an aviation enthuisiast I truely appreciate just how its going to change air warfare, and as ex- forces member boy can i see a world of hurt involved for any targets this airframe attacks...

Oh and as for my 'anti communist' earlier,sorry about that
well I just get so fed up of hearing china says this, china says that....gggrrrrr



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   
"Raptor can't supercruise"
What a load of BS!

F-22 drops 1,000lb JDAM while in supercruise



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
if your still confused then just google each aircraft, i find that thats usually the best way when im confused or want more infomation.


Just don't use Google's self-sensored Commie loving Chinese version.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Americans. Dont you love them



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Needless to say if the F-22 couldn't do supercruise it would NEVER have entered service, let alone lost out to the F-23. Besides the fact the article is 6 years old, I'd say it's an interesting read, but nothing that would give anyone killjoy.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3


Is the new X-35 basically the same thing as the FA-22, only that is has vector thrust that point down, and a fan so it can vertically take off?


THe f-35 and the f-22 are completly different planes. try these links

www.airforce-technology.com...
www.airforce-technology.com...

if your still confused then just google each aircraft, i find that thats usually the best way when im confused or want more infomation.

Justin


Cool. thanks for the links


Man, they sure do look similar (to a crappy civilian such as myself :lol
. I guess that's just the way newer fighters are going to look. Better Aerodynamics in the 'huge one-piece" look.

they sure do look neat.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Americans. Dont you love them




Um...whats the purpose of this post? Thats baiting China, your reply has no other purpose. And baiting or taunting is a clear violation of the TOS. Too add its also a one line response.

If I made a reply to a post stating: "Jews. Dont you love them
" People would be offended right? Then why is the same infraction allowed against Americans?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I think any country would be insane to attack a Raptor squadron with any current aircraft (except if you got a F-23 squad...)
though I wanted the YF-22 to win...

Everytime you go to a site that proclaim they have the Raptors specs, they are always upgraded from the few data that the AF releases. It seems the aircraft is actually better than planned. I remember they started claiming a top speed of Mach 1.8, then 1.9. Multiple sources claimed it couldn't reach Mach 2. Then I watched on the Discovery channel a F-22 test pilot claiming well above Mach 2 (he pilots the plane, no rumour filter here). And like these there are tons of myths about the plane. I guess with the raptor it happens the opposite than with Russian planes that claim to be invincible and that in battle they end up being destroyed by a inferior aircraft.

I guess the AF is like the owner of A Ferrari/Porsche, a guy with a pimped car can brag anything they like about their pimped machine, but when the race comes... it is another story



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
The Raptor has been piloted to Mach 1.72 without using afterburners, and as mentioned above it has even dropped weapons while in supercruise mode.

Also, according to Lockheed Martin and several pilots/test pilots the Raptor can easily exceed Mach 2 speeds, one former test pilot put the Raptor's top speed at Mach 2.4. IMO I’ll take the word of the pilots over the "official" USAF stat sheet, the USAF’s primary concern is spreading Dis Info.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Um...whats the purpose of this post? Thats baiting China, your reply has no other purpose. And baiting or taunting is a clear violation of the TOS. Too add its also a one line response.

If I made a reply to a post stating: "Jews. Dont you love them
" People would be offended right? Then why is the same infraction allowed against Americans?


Yeah???


And if i made these comments to
"Just don't use Google's self-sensored Commie loving Chinese version. "

"chinese planes then we see that the chinese havent produced any planes worth talking about ever"

"Where did you source sh#t like that from?? China....ooooo now theres a trust worthy nation if i ever seen one!"



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join