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.

 

If the F-22 wasnt supposed to dogfight why was is it so maneuverable?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
When talking about the F-22 development and planning, the objective was to make the all around best platform available. It's clear that it was not designed just for BVR, or it would look like the F-35.


reply to post by kondor
 


I have a feeling your are right about the return of WWII tactics. It's very clear by looking at the PAK FA and Su-35 that the Russians feel that the dogfight is absolutely not dead and passive sensors are the way to go. The same could be said about the J-20, but with such a large airframe and non-TVC engines, I cannot be 100% certain on the Chinese design logic.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Some sources claim that the production J-20 will have thrust vectoring

"The J-20 prototype is powered by Saturn 117S engines supplied by Russia. Each engine produces 32,000lb of thrust.

The production aircraft will be powered by two WS-10G thrust vectoring turbofan engines each generating 30,000lbs of thrust. The engine is being designed and manufactured by Shenyang Liming Aircraft Engine Company. It will feature a single high-pressure turbine, dual low-pressure turbine, annular combustors and compressors.

The WS-10G will be fitted with thrust vector controlled (TVC) nozzles to decrease radar cross section (RCS) and infrared (IR) emissions. The diameter of the engine is 0.95m. The dry weight is 1,494kg."

asian-defence-news.blogspot.com...

www.airforce-technology.com...

edit on 18-6-2011 by kondor because: missed info



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by kondor
 


We will see what China can produce, but don't hold your breath. TVC is a very complex system and China can barely produce their own engines.

I was surprised by the J-20's progress of development, but China's lack of innovation put into the J-20 is rather disappointing. A lot of what I see in it is regurgitated technology from east and west. I have to give the Chinese a thumbs up for the all-moving vertical stabilizers, an excellent choice. I still have serious doubts about the TVC claims. After all, the J-20 suffers from the same problem the Typhoon has, they put the nozzles too damn close, probably because they wanted the much flaunted "S-duct". However the EF is in a much worst situation for TVC than the J-20 because of the position of the vertical stabilizer.

J-20 needs a long, massive weapon bay, lots of gas, and quick engines. Keep in mind, the J-20 doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be better that 4+ gen fighters and the F-35, which, even with poorly placed TVC nozzles, will be. If the Chinese can make it



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Yes, you are right, because the engine nozzles on the Typhoon are very close to the vertical stabilizer, would be difficult to implement thrust vectoring. However work is already underway for this system. It is in testing on a fixed testbed, and they plan to install it in an X-31, before they would try it on the Typhoon.

typhoon.starstreak.net...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by kondor
 
kondor what are you talking about?

Several things you have said here are completely wrong. There is no "plan" to fly any TVC nozzle system on the X-31 because it hasn't flown since 2003/04 and the only remaining one is now on display in a museum. What you are referring to is old information and hasn't led to anything in the end, at least so far.

In your previous post you quoted the following claim from one of your sources


The WS-10G will be fitted with thrust vector controlled (TVC) nozzles to decrease radar cross section (RCS)....
. I honestly dont know where your source got this from but it is untrue. TVC nozzles do not reduce RCS, in general they tend to add to it or at the very, very best make little difference. It's extremely difficult not to have a moving/translating 2D/3D nozzle give off scintillating radar returns unless slathered in RAM, and that is currently extremely difficult. It is true that a properly designed TVC nozzle can reduce IR signatures but again only if done carefully and on the proviso that disciplined flying tactics are employed.

On the subject of two stealth aircraft meeting in combat, regardless of whether you are using LPI sets and tactics or not doesn't matter. ALL stealth aircraft are visible in at least one radar band at any point in time. This is precisely why the F-35 is such a heap of crap as it was only developed to have reasonable stealth against certain radar bands typically used by battlefield surveillance radars and only from front on. NOT by airborne search sets looking down, from the side or behind. Unfortunately for the stealth cheer leaders the same goes for even the F-22, which despite having probably the best broadband stealth of any manned jet is still detectable by current generation radar sets when they are carefully employed and particularly when the stealth platform is improperly employed. In short radar stealth and stealth in general is NOT a panacea but a tool that must be carefully used as it is not infallible.

LEE.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by kondor
 


Thanks for not copy-pasting your usual endless statistics again.

Your source is a little outdated. They are certainly NOT putting it onto a X-31 as the last surviving airframe sits in a german museum. The TVC for the Eurofighter has meanwhile left the conceptual stage and could be perfected within a short amount of time - but noone wants it so far as the maneuverability of the airplane, especially in the transonic region, is mind-boggling as it is - and because of costs, obviously.


Originally posted by kondor
...Stealth cancels all this years of development in radars and long range missiles. No one can find the adversary with radar. ...


Plainly said, that is wrong. I feel there is a little bit of reality missing in this thread: Stealth is NOT an invisibility cloak. Stealth is instead PASSIVE camouflage against electro-optic sensors. It can reduce detectability; it CANNOT erase it. You cannot make a 30 ton hot metal object travelling at 500+ knots vanish from an empty sky just by giving it a fancy shape and a RAMs coating.

Compare it to a Ghillie suit: it gives snipers and sharp shooters lower detectability and recognizability within certain parameters (mainly, lieing faraway and still in good cover). If he moves outside of these parameters, he can be detected. If an observant sentry with a decent binocular looks his way, or is plainly lucky, he can be detected. Just like optical camouflage plays with restrictions of human perception, stealth plays with restrictions of electronic perception.

Please watch this video in FULLSCREEN as a demonstration of perception restrictions

What it boils down to is this:
- The limitations of stealth require the underlieing aircraft to still be a top performer.
- Even with stealth, it is still an aircraft and largely has to rely on established combat procedures
- It still uses run-of-the-mill missiles, which dictate the operational parameters
- modern fighters need high turn ratios, acceleration and climb abilities even in BVR combat. These characteristics are not built in with the idea of "dog-fighting" in mind.
- increased computational power both in development and in avionics pretty much generate excellent flight characteristics as a by-product. No reason NOT to optimize and capitalize on these characteristics just because of the "invisibility cloak".

All this means that Stealth does not revolutionize air combat. It merely adds another facet to it.

As to the board gun issue, guys, please stop using the Vietnam-Phantom paradigm. That happened almost 50 years ago. Both aircraft and missiles were flying typewriters back then. The main reason why the F-22 has a board gun is that it cannot carry enough missiles anyway in the clean configuration to maximize combat load.
It was put there because of the occasional "What-If?" scenario (including A2G scenarios) and because it doesnt take up too much weight. Not because anyone expects dogfights between invisible super planes.
edit on 20/6/2011 by Lonestar24 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
To give a reply to the last two posts:

Of course that stealth can't erase IR emissions and radar reflections, but it reduces them a lot.
I found an article from the Air Force site, where in an exercise of F-22 versus F-15 and F-16, the pilots of these jets were unable to get missile lock even if they were within visual range.

www.acc.af.mil...



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by kondor
 


I wouldn't count on that testimony, I'm sure I've seen a picture floating around of a T-38 with a radar lock on the F-22. Please correct me if I'm wrong on the details.

Everyone and their brother wants TVC on their aircraft (at least the fan-boys do
), but unless it has the correct engine layout, the only improvement you can get out of it is an AOA increase, and that comes with a cost/maintenance increase.

Stealth will NOT put us in a WVR only situation, but engagement ranges will decrease obviously, thus increases the chances of a WVR engagement.
edit on 20/6/11 by ZIVONIC because: added comment



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kondor
 
kondor,

Please re-read my previous post regarding TVC nozzles. 2D/3D thrust vectoring nozzles do NOT reduce RCS, that is not there primary function. As I said they can at best be an aid in reducing IR plumes but only due to careful use and only because as a secondary design configuration the design engineers built in a reduced IR signature through careful mixing and cooling . That is what they achieved with the F-22. Without that IR reduction consideration they are just as thermally bright as a conventional nozzle.

ANY reduction in RCS is extremely difficult at this stage. However it was decided to sacrifice some RCS in the rear quarter in order to gain the benefits of improved maneuverability which in turn reduced the weight and size of the other primary flying surfaces to achieve the same net maneuverability and thus reduces the aircrafts RCS footprint anyway, e.g. smaller vertical stabilizers. And in any case you shouldn't be showing your backside to an enemy.

As for why the F-22 was designed with super maneuver capability, that is due to a number of things. Primarily the faster you can bring your sensors and or weapons to bare, the faster you can prosecute a target and the greater number of targets that can be prosecuted in a shorter kill chain cycle. This in turn reduces your own risk of exposure further because if the other guy is already dead or having to take violent defensive action he cant touch you. It was also realised that eventually rival designs with there own low observable capability would one day fly which paradoxically reduces the effectiveness of BVR tactics and increases the chance of having to go through the old "knife fight in a phone booth" scenario once again. So having an airframe that was highly maneuverable would ensure it's relevance for a longer period.

Yes warfare, technology and tactics does move in cycles.

LEE.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
There is a gun camera video from a training exercise where a Sukhoi owns the F 22, cross hairs lock and all. That is their design to be flankers and maneuverable. Where as the Mig is an interceptor much like how our FA 18 were used by the Navy for example.

It is all a matter of purpose.

Multipurpose even at that in many cases, but just be sure the platform is of a proper design.




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


There is no such video, there is one of a T-38 getting a lock, and I believe there is a Rafale one too, but I'm not certain.

Regardless, any Superflanker variant will be very tough opponent in the WVR environment.

@thebozeian

I wouldn't be so confident in saying TVC cannot reduce RCS. IIRC, Sukhoi stated they did research into using 3D TVC for supersonic maneuvering instead of the control surfaces. This would obviously decrease RCS to a certain degree if it's true. I'll see if I can find were I heard that, but it was a while back so I cannot promise anything.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ZIVONIC
 
ZIVONIC,

As I stated in my last post use of TVC nozzles can lead to a reduction in control surface area, in particular the size and shape of the stabs and thus by default a reduction in RCS. But not specifically reduce RCS just by being fitted. I am aware that much work was done on the Raptors F-119 TVC system to reduce radar returns to a minimum as has the work conducted on the F-35's F-135/136 nozzles. However this work was no different in outcome than work done on any other component of the airframe. It's a bit like having a reduced RCS refueling probe and arguing that it reduces radar returns simply by being fitted. In fact I suspect that if the F-22 was fitted with a conventional fixed convergent/divergent nozzle with similar coatings and RCS reduction research and measures taken you would see a lower db from that area of the empennage than it is currently

My problem was that kondor seems to be arguing from a position of believing that TVC nozzles automatically reduce radar returns and is therefore repeating an unsubstantiated or out of context statement from one of his posted links, which itself most likely was directly lifted from either the J-20 manufacturer or a related Chinese site that states,

...The WS-10G will be fitted with thrust vector controlled (TVC) nozzles to decrease radar cross section (RCS)...
. I did not have an issue with kondor making the statement and he at least provided a link. What I have an issue with is that when taken out of context by itself it erroneously implies that TVC's reduce radar returns and that is simply untrue. I can see that he probably believes that he has found some evidence supporting this idea but I would put it to him and you that the statement in the airforce-technology article is simply incorrect. In fact my suspicion that it was simply lifted from a Chinese site which will no doubt put a pro spin on it, is heightened by the fact that most of the specification measurements are in metric including altitude and aircraft dimensions. This is not accepted standard practice in either the US armed services or their suppliers. In fact measurements of altitude under international convention are in feet, NOT meters except in you guessed it, China and Russia. Further there are some slight grammatical errors that a person speaking and in particular writing UK or US based English would be unlikely to make, that lead me to believe that the author of the airforce-technology article did not in fact author but merely copy/pasted it. And therefore did not check the factual accuracy of the stated claims.

LEE.
edit on 21-6-2011 by thebozeian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
After Lee's top class post, I think it only remains to be said that to look at TVC and talk only of manoeuvrability is to close one eye and put your hand over the other one and peer between your fingers.


Eurojets position on TVC (being no doubt aware of the limited benefit to Typhoons agility) encompasses the ways in which TVC on the EJ200 also increases, by varying degrees, unrefuelled range, time to height and landing and take off performance, being especially prominent on the Sea Typhoon model shown to India for that specific reason. There is no reason to suppose that the Typhoon would be alone in this range of benefits.


edit on 21-6-2011 by waynos because: added image



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by thebozeian
 


OK, I see what you're getting at. I also should have added in my previous statement that by using flat nozzles, TVC or not, such as on the F-22 or for supersonic maneuvering like on the PAK FA, it will lead to an RCS reduction. If you just make round nozzles TVC without reducing control surface area, you will not get an RCS reduction whatsoever.

reply to post by waynos
 


Its funny, because on the AeroIndia model in your post. The TVC nozzles on the fighter wouldn't actually work or fit. They could only sit level or point down.

edit on 21/6/11 by ZIVONIC because: (no reason given)

edit on 21/6/11 by ZIVONIC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ZIVONIC
 


Why not? I can't see anything on the model to suggest this.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZIVONIC
reply to post by kondor
 


I wouldn't count on that testimony, I'm sure I've seen a picture floating around of a T-38 with a radar lock on the F-22. Please correct me if I'm wrong on the details.

Everyone and their brother wants TVC on their aircraft (at least the fan-boys do
), but unless it has the correct engine layout, the only improvement you can get out of it is an AOA increase, and that comes with a cost/maintenance increase.

Stealth will NOT put us in a WVR only situation, but engagement ranges will decrease obviously, thus increases the chances of a WVR engagement.
edit on 20/6/11 by ZIVONIC because: added comment


So you say that agressor pilots, who have more dogfight experience than any other US pilots, don't know how to use their jets?

Regarding the quoted film with the T-38 & F-22, I found a post in another forum:

"First, the T-38 has no radar, and is never "tracking" the Raptor. It is simply using a boresight missile symbology with a gunsight that moves based on the jet's INS. The T-38 is not a "nimble" aircraft. It's only 7.3g capable, and usually only 5.5-6.0g capable based on fuel load. Anything under 300kts and the damn thing is incredibly sluggish under g, so much so that pilots will typically have to use the rudder to roll it instead of the ailerons. The T-38 is INCREDIBLY spin resistant, and would not enter a spin because of high altitude. Trust me, the test pilots had to do crazy things to even get the aircraft to enter a spin INTENTIONALLY!

Next, let's take a look at the engagement. It lasts roughly 3 minutes, and we can tell the F-22 is aware of the T-38 because it is maneuvering in relation to the T-38. You can tell this because if you look at the heading throughout the fight, it's constantly changing through the entire 360 degrees. At the altitudes their at, the T-38 could maintain around a 4g turn without losing altitude or airspeed, the raptor could probably pull 8-9 without losing either. So, if the Raptor knows the T-38 is there (or else it would fly straight and not do circles), but isn't pulling Gs, and if the T-38 takes initial valid missile shots, but waits until roughly 3 minutes (a la when he finallt gets a valid gun track) to call a kill, what does this mean? It means they were simply doing a heat-to-guns exercise. It's a very basic engagement where the target flies gentle turns and allows the other jet to practice the basic mech of taking missile shots and tracking with the gun against a non-maneuvering target. In these sets kills are not called until a valid gun shot is made, so as to allow the pilot to continue practicing after the initial missile shots, which explains why the kill was not called until after the valid gun shot.

So for all of you worried about the Raptor losing to a trainer, don't worry, he was just helping him practice.

www.f-16.net...

In another forum (unfortunately I don't find the link anymore) somebody else was saying that the "beep" is not a lock, but is an indication that the pilot is pulling the trigger; you can see that the rounds counter of the simulated gun is decreasing while the beep is on.

edit on 21-6-2011 by kondor because: type error



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


You cannot see it very easily on the model, here is a clear picture of the vertical stabilizer. The nozzles either need to be moved back past the "tail boom", or spread out for 2D TVC to work. I'm not sure 3D is even possible. Thus discrediting Eurofighters claim that TVC can be equipped without any body modification, but whatever.




reply to post by kondor
 


Understandable kondor, interesting read on the T-38, do you have an explanation for the Rafale's shoot down or the EA-18 with an AIM 120 kill against the F-22.
edit on 21/6/11 by ZIVONIC because: added comments



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZIVONIC
reply to post by waynos
 


You cannot see it very easily on the model, here is a clear picture of the vertical stabilizer. The nozzles either need to be moved back past the "tail boom", or spread out for 2D TVC to work. I'm not sure 3D is even possible. Thus discrediting Eurofighters claim that TVC can be equipped without any body modification, but whatever.




reply to post by kondor
 


Understandable kondor, interesting read on the T-38, do you have an explanation for the Rafale's shoot down or the EA-18 with an AIM 120 kill against the F-22.
edit on 21/6/11 by ZIVONIC because: added comments


There was no shot down of an F-22 by the Rafale, it was the other way arround.

secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr...

lemamouth.blogspot.com...

After 8 years study of French language, I think I can manage to understand it


The articles are saying that the F-22 was confronted with the Rafale in dogfight 6 times, and during these engagements one Rafale was considered destroyed by a simulated gun kill.


Regarding the F/A-18F simulated gun kill, I found an post citing a pilot who explained that the F-22 was following the restrictions to avoid mid air collision, and the Navy pilot didn't follow these rules of engagement:

"Quoting Dozer-- "The Hornet "snap" shot - good story. Happened here at Langley. It was a stock, combat configured F-22 flying a BFM (dogfighting) sortie against an airshow configured, i.e. squeeky clean, not combat configured or loaded, Super Hornet (not at all representative of how it performs with 8 pylons, an EA pod and 4-6 or missiles hanging off the rails and probably a fuel tank or two or their out of gas real quick...). It started from a 9000 foot line abreast 300 knot setup (which AF pilots never fly) where they turned into each other at the "fights on" call. It's not a scenario we fly because we never find ourselves in those parameters, we try to set up realistic parameters we expect to see in combat - otherwise the lessons learned aren't applicable and while it might be fun it's not a good use of scarce training time. The Hornet pilot gave up everything he had to point at the Raptor and take a snap shot - it was NOT a tracking shot. The AF pilot honored the training rules we're all supposed to abide by, they've been written in blood because pilots have been killed in these scenarios so our training rules look to prevent those scenarios by causing guys to quit manuevering for the shot to prevent a mid-air collision. With greater than a 135 aspect angle and inside of 9000 feet we're supposed to avoid pure or lead pursuit to avoid that head on collision, inside that range at our tactical speeds there's not enough time to react to prevent a collision once you realize it's going to happen. The Navy pilot completely blew off that rule, the AF pilot honored it, the Navy pilot pulled lead pursuit all the way into the high aspect (greater than the 135 degree gun shot rule) snap shot, the AF pilot lagged off to prevent the mid-air collision potential, the Navy pilot was still on the trigger inside the 1000 foot rule (we're supposed to avoid getting inside of 1000 feet from each other to also help prevent mid-air collisions), attempting to get the snap shot, he's inside the 1000 foot range with the trigger on, flies within about 200 feet of the Raptor (remember who's backed off to honor the training rules), and dang near kills himself and the Raptor pilot and causing what would have been one of the worst fighter to fighter disasters in recorded history. I've had that happen twice to me when I was flying the Eagle as a weapons officer (close enough to hear very loud engine noise and I figured I was dead both times, but God wasn't ready to take me yet), and both times I knocked off the fight, made the guy fly home, busted him on the ride and he had to explain to me and the boss why he was being stupid. That is the ONLY gun shot video I have ever heard of or seen from ANY Hornet engagement, ever. And it was a hugely B.S. and completely boneheaded act as you can see from the actual circumstances."

www.alert5.com...

edit on 22-6-2011 by kondor because: type error



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kondor
 


It appears the Rafale story has been revised a few times since I've read the initial release from the French, how unfortunate. The French really do like their aircraft don't they?

Regarding the F-18 story, it is not important that the pilot broke the rules to get the shoot down, but because the F-18 was able to effectively target it.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
It's understandable that the Navy pilot was desperate enough to make a kill against a F-22 even if breaking the rules. It's a plane which is hard to fight against, and it's quite an achievement for a jet from previous generation. Fighter pilots have big egos, and after being defeated over an over again, I think was a big celebration.
edit on 23-6-2011 by kondor because: type error



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join