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.

 

F-16 designer calls the F-22 Raptor a 'turkey' among other design & cost criticisms

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The Raptor is a fine air craft, from what I know.
Not only does it have low-profile, but also spectrum product equipment to jam signal reception.

I would like to see one, with a nose-down profile.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

And by the way in exercise Northern Edge the F-22, F-15C (AESA) and the F/A-18E/F (AESA) were tested in A2A combat against simulated Flanker opponents.


Could you elaborate on the 'simulated flanker' opponents bit?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Could you elaborate on the 'simulated flanker' opponents bit?


Well what do you want to know? I can’t find too many details besides that they were Su-27/30 flankers. I’m thinking Su-27SM and Su-30MKK/2 seeing as how this is a Pacific theater exercise. Don’t have too many details on the engagement scenario either but I’m assuming most likely joint BVR with combined F-15 and Super Hornet’s. Or do you want information on how simulated air battles are run?



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Please prey tell where you’re getting this information from because its definitely wrong, the F-22 has all aspect stealth, that includes IR, EM emissions, and RCS


No, it really doesn't.


Its IR emissions from the rear quadrant are as large as any other aircraft.

I would also expect the radar returns from its turbine blades and afterburner injectors are significant.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Myself: UCAV freak.


By far the most sensible view expressed by anyone in this entire thread.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Eventually for the experienced designer and engineer, Pierre Sprey really do underestimate the great fighting machine of F-22A. I agree to people who say right things in this thread and basically, F-22A itself is the support fighter for F-15 and F-16 currently in service with USAF. Just for example, Pentagon war planners can order fully armed 6 F-15E, 6 F-15C, 8 F-16C on mission alongside with only two F-22A because F-22 can banish and whup any fighters out of skies quickly and let the rest of these fighters do the sweep. That what Raptors were designed for, first look, first shot and first kill. In my opinion, stealth may be somewhat pointless due to aderoynamic flaws.



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Kilcoo316,

>>
No, it really doesn't.

Its IR emissions from the rear quadrant are as large as any other aircraft.

I would also expect the radar returns from its turbine blades and afterburner injectors are significant.
>>

The F-22 has RAM coated radar blocking serpentines in the inlets and 'devices' protecting the turbine afterstage within the exhausts. You _cannot_ see whirring metal to get JEM resonance from either the front or the back.

It is one of the key factors which differentiates it as an all-aspect LO airframe from the F-35 which has saber-petal nozzles good for X-Band scatter. But nothing much to prevent a straight shot up the burner can to see the low pressure stages aft of the combustor.

I have also read that the square section nozzles create an unstable plume:wake interaction that does not persist as long as those of round-hole fighters, causing the heated exhaust to rapidly break up.

How much this 'counts' at 40-50K and Mach 1.5 against IR-OTIS/OSF/PIRATE level systems, I don't know. My personal belief is that when the threat has a missile that can run out 80-100km to defeat AMRAAM-D or GBU-39 _from an airborne_ application, "Then we'll talk about it".

As is, SAM EO systems have problems looking up through the cludge that is 0-15K air saturated with pollutants, water vapor and other obscurrants. And they are the only ones (in the latest models) which can kinematically reach out to the distance that a Raptor can fire from, before it turns off.

And to whoever else made that comment about the F-22 'enabling' other F-15/16/35 fighters:

CRAP. Nothing it (publically) has can protect them from a SAM or AAM which kills them BEFORE the GBU-32/39 arrives. And there is no reason to support a huge inventory of aging jets when multiple small-IAM carriage leverages the ability of a much smaller number of all-LO machines.

Lastly, the F-22 _has better be_ 'more than an Air Dominance platform'. Because the next 'best fighter' is going to be a 747 with a 2MW laser on it's nose.

And the USAF is just kidding themselves thinking otherwise.


KPl.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
The F-22 has RAM coated radar blocking serpentines in the inlets and 'devices' protecting the turbine afterstage within the exhausts. You _cannot_ see whirring metal to get JEM resonance from either the front or the back.


I'd love to know exactly what "devices" that these can be.

Outside of a stator row, there is pretty much nothing they can do without imposing an unpayable penalty on engine performance. The constraints of minimal blockage for drag/axial exit flow make it so.

There is also the issue of the underexpanded afterburning plume having a radar signature of its own.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
I love how many people seem to misunderstand engineering.

The F-22A has had many sub-systems incorporated on it that are applicable to any/all aircraft. The only features unique to the raptor are its geometry and structural composition. All other systems are, ultimately, interchangable with other aircraft (you can do it - I can prove it to you if you give me the aircraft - but it's definately not standard protocol or cost-effective in all cases as heavy modification of some airframes may be necessary). I can take the F-4 and give it a modified F-22 avionics system as well as cockpit interface (situational awareness) - bingo - multi-role aircraft...... although with more physical limitations and not worth the time and money on upgrading it.

I am skeptical about the radar returns of the F-22 for a few reasons. First off is the geometry - which has many lobe overlaps and will generate a highly unnecessary number and sweep of return envelopes. If you don't know anything about this - then go research radio communications and how various shapes of antennas generate different lobes of signals and their effect on each other. Then compare the geometry of the F-22 with the F-23.

Also - the engine ducts cannot be made of composite materials - or none that I am aware of. They fail to reflect radar rays - and will result in the engine being clearly visible on radar (defeating the point of hiding it). This means that a rather significant portion of the plane must be made of a material that reflects radar rays - as no material feasable for use on an aircraft exists on a declassified fighter that can even come close to absorbing 100% of radar emissions. This is a large area, and also one of the 'nastiest' areas to have to put in shielding and also a nightmare to keep their edges parallel to those of the leading and trailing edges of the wings.

Finally - the JSF is more suited to the only practical role of this aircraft - SEAD - with no current need for an ATF. The money spent on the current line of raptors would be better spent on a more updated aircraft that is not already 15 years old and will be more rapidly developed by a more compitent contractor.

That, and with the Interim bomber concept in motion - all strike advantages of the F-22A will be voided.

I'm not saying it's a bad plane. I'm saying Lockheed dropped the ball in a REALLY bad way taking 14 years to develop a plane that does not show 14 years of engineering - but a multi-billion dollar screw up. We needed the F-22 by 1996 - 5 years after Lockheed won the bid - prefferably 3. There is no excuse for 14 years - EVER - especially when the plane is nowhere near revolutionary.

As far as the radar filters, I know they can do it. However, much of the information about military radars is classified. But I assure you that they can track an insect the size of a dragon fly from about thirty nauticle miles over a busy street. It's well within the digital processing capabilities of today's commercially available computers - with the military having such computing abilities (in a device the size of a modern day 'Flash drive') back in the late 60s - I would wager a LOT that it's a matter of child's play, today.

I'm sure radar is ancient technology, as well. Overpressure sensors could pick up fast moving objects well before they are within striking range, geomagnetic sensors can detect the slightest change in an area's magnetic field, and via satelite - capable of tracking even very small magnetic distortions. Still others use laser emitters to search for and track objects - with the option to simply switch modes and turn that tracking laser into the very weapon you use to destroy an aircraft.

Russia was and still is very close to the U.S. in researching direct energy weapons and forms of science that are typically not taught in western universities (not commonly accepted). This will mean that we face the possibility of facing detection methods that eliminate all advantages of current Low Observable technologies known to be employed.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:58 AM
link   
F-22 > F-16

Money is not a problem.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Could you elaborate on the 'simulated flanker' opponents bit?


It probaly means a aircraft with similar performace to a flanker. eg turn rates, thrust.

China uses the J-7E/G to simulate F-16s



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN
F-22 > F-16

Money is not a problem.


While the first statement is true, the second isn't. The USAF has a serious money crunch -- over the next 10-15 years, it needs to replace its

  • Tanker Fleet
  • Heavy-lift Cargo Fleet (C-17 buy cut short, C-5 airframe life issues)
  • Tactical Cargo Fleet (C-130J buy cut short)
  • Electronic Attack Fleet (currently non-existant)
  • Air Superiority Fleet
  • Air to Ground / CAS Fleet
  • Surveillance Fleet (U-2S retirement imminent over next decade)

Not to mention that its heavy strike capability is mostly comprised of 60+ year old B-52s.

Congress has slashed the F-22 buy from over 500, to 300 and now to less than 200. That makes each example of the $130,000,000+ aircraft even more valuable, and less likely to be used in engagements where there's a high risk of aircraft and aircrew loss. (Which is why the F-117 wasn't used in Libya and the B-2 wasn't used until Kosovo.)

Pierre Sprey didn't design the F-16, he helped draft the original requirements of the LWF competition that produced the YF-16 and YF-17. Sprey was one of "Boyd's Accolytes", a group of Air Force officers, Marines and civilians who attempted to re-write the way the U.S. military approached combat strategy in the mold of John Boyd's Schwerpunkt, EM and OODA theories.

If one were to examine the YF-16, which reflected Boyd and Sprey's LWF vision, you would see a much lighter, simpler, cheaper and more pure air-to-air fighter than the F-16A which was eventually produced. In fact, Sprey's main victory has been to keep the A-10, which was developed by Sprey's A-X program, true to its roots as a simple, rugged and effective Close-Air-Support platform.

Sprey is a leading critic of the current trend of Defense budget creep and the services' obsession with high-cost, high-tech systems that rarely see combat due to the risk of damage. In essence, he believes, we are eliminating our combat capabilities through excessive spending. If you were to talk to most of the pilots who transitioned from the F-14D to the F/A-18F, or those few at Nellis who have flown the MiG-29 and the F-22A, they'd agree with that assessment. (In private conversations with some of the pilots conducting the F-22 OpEval at Nellis, there was concern expressed about the F-22's maneuverability and visual signature, compared to the maneuverability and helmet-mounted cueing of the Su-37 series when viewed in the visual-ID constraints of the ROEs that have been in effect for U.S./NATO aircrews since 1969.)



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Kilcoo316,

>>
I'd love to know exactly what "devices" that these can be.
>>

A combination of a secondary after stage rotor on the same shaft or perhaps mounted to the case wall (the reverse of the F/A-18E/F device) plus the variable exhaust throat having a unique function beyond Con/Di.

>>
Outside of a stator row, there is pretty much nothing they can do without imposing an unpayable penalty on engine performance. The constraints of minimal blockage for drag/axial exit flow make it so.
>>

Try squirting anything up the nozzles of an F-22 when it's at 50K moving at 1.5 and you're at Zero (or 25) trying to keep your nose up so that you can keep your array on.

The F-35 is a joke because it weighs almost 36,000lbs empty yet has only a 150 square feet more wing area than an F-16. As such, it is going to be motorvating in EXACTLY the same profile band (25-35K transit, 15-20K combat) that the Vaunted Viper does and the combination of 'public stealth' and everybody lining up their ducks in the same altitude band and speed range /begging/ for a chance to nail a LO jets hide to their wall will ensure that it is exactly the victim that it's design factors assure it should be.

>>
There is also the issue of the underexpanded afterburning plume having a radar signature of its own.
>>

Except, unlike the F-35, the F-22 has an IRT thrust range which is a lot more than what you would expect for 'pure military', in fact operating almost like a 'DEEC turbo mode' ala the J79 on the 104. As such, it doesn't suffer thrust droop at height, nor does it need to use burner EXCEPT to hold smash in breakaway turns or to gain acceleration in cutoff geometry change. The plume thus expanding and dissipating MORE RAPIDLY than a conventional round hole airframe because it the engine is in fact NOT accelerating and heating the flow by dumping gas into reheat and 'shocking it up'.

Not that it matters.

You go ahead and look for a jet plume at 60 miles with your X-Band, mechanical array, radar. I will see your gibbering giggle and raise you a horse laugh. And then the AMRAAM-D or ABL will slice through your canopy along with the 3-5 other jets running QRA or standing CAP shooting gallery popup drill and the GBU-39s will crash through the HAS farm of those who chose to cower on the ground instead and 'the air war' will be OVER. As D1/R1 tactics switch to COP/OBAS and _sustainment_ of a viable ISR awareness. Which is where the F-35 will fall flat on it's face due to cost:inventory:sortie density shortfalls and pilot-snore factors.

But you can sure bet that /someone/ at Lunchmeat and BAe will still be smiling.

All the way to the bank.


KPl.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
A combination of a secondary after stage rotor on the same shaft or perhaps mounted to the case wall (the reverse of the F/A-18E/F device) plus the variable exhaust throat having a unique function beyond Con/Di.


You mean a contra-rotating rotor or a stator



Unfortunately, there is only so much they can do, pretty much keeping the turbine blades well up the duct to reduce the direct emission angles to a minimum is about the most effective thing they can do.


Give 340 deg 'all' aspect stealth - better than 300 I suppose.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


That is incorrect there. The F-22 has a greatly reduced IR signature, given the high-bypass F119-PW-100 turbofans and the triangular TVC nozzles. Plus, the RAM smartskin helps reduce the IR signature, and the liquid cooled avionics takes the IR signature down several more pegs. Anyway, any missile fired at a Raptor will set off the MAWS (Missile Approach Warning System) and the pilots' headset will go beep beep beep. The flare dispenser will help throw off an IR guided heatseeker.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ch1466

But you can sure bet that /someone/ at Lunchmeat and BAe will still be smiling.

All the way to the bank.

KPl.


I have to agree with ch1466's arguments / points..

Do not let get emotion clouding your judgement and analysis. Let's all step back and see this objectively :
- 'Stealth' was used in 1991 to great success. It is logical to assume every nation in the world will look for counter-stealth.. it's 2014 now, im sure it is also safe to say that RADAR tech have advanced along with the computer tech / signal analysis capabilities. (The CPU we used mostly in 1991 is Intel 80386 , nowadays our lowest performing CPU is million years ahead of an i386)
- F-22 was designed to replace the F15 Air Superiority Fighters and to use Stealth as it's primary advantage. In achieving it's stealth, the F-22 have to sacrifice certain design considerations which affect it's dogfight potential. F-22's advantage will be in BVR and not WVR as every modern 4th gen /4.5 gen fighter can maneuver as good if not better than F-22.
- Other nations realized F-22's advantage in X-Band radar (used in jet fighters) and they also planned to implement other type of radar , for example the Russians planned to implement different type of radar on the wing leading edge). In other words : The Potential Opponent wont stay still and let USAF keep their advantage forever.

Some of us are too infatuated and taken by these promotions by Lockheed Martin and their 'stealth can beat anyone' marketing line.. Let's be realistic, when the F117 1st deployed and used properly in Iraq 1991, it was a suprise to every nation because they penetrated iraqi AD/Radar so easily. Back then , the F117 was considered as 'silver bullet' weapon , to be revealed and shown to the enemy at the time of conflict AKA surprise weapon in which the enemy got no counter..



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: buntalanlucu

Holy resurrected thread, batman! Just kidding, I agree with what you said. Everyone needs to keep in mind that back then Baghdad was one of the most heavily defended cities in the world and the stealths cut through it like a knife cutting through butter.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135
a reply to: buntalanlucu

Holy resurrected thread, batman! Just kidding, I agree with what you said. Everyone needs to keep in mind that back then Baghdad was one of the most heavily defended cities in the world and the stealths cut through it like a knife cutting through butter.


i just following the logical trend of weapon development history.. People invented Swords, their enemies invented Shields.. People used elephants, their enemies used trumpets and gongs to scare them.. People use war chariots , their opponents use formations and spikes to deter them..

up to a point, the offensive one got the advantage it is folly to create a full suit of armour capable of stopping a longbow arrow.. it is folly to create tank armour so massive it cannot be penetrated.. it is folly to create 'stealth' so perfect that the only shape possible was a flying saucer..

some of the discussion in UAV/UCAV thread debating about the possibilty of UCAV having their own intelligence.. but what if computer technology got so advanced that A MISSILE CAN HAVE IT'S OWN INTELLIGENCE ?? i know this already happened in modern missile, i am talking about an AI software thats way more capable than the current Missile Guidance SOftware..



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Somewhere on one of the many military news sites, there is a report that the F 22 did not do very well when on exercise against the Indian air force, usual drivel about the F 22 was not allowed to do this, that, and the other in the exerscise, so what was the point?



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: pikestaff
Somewhere on one of the many military news sites, there is a report that the F 22 did not do very well when on exercise against the Indian air force, usual drivel about the F 22 was not allowed to do this, that, and the other in the exerscise, so what was the point?


what i heard from indian pilot article, they were restricted in their radar mode , as to not reveal their sukhoi's full capabilities. One of the pilots said that they knew the french and the US certainly interested in their radar capability for their own gain.

again, on BVR today, i have to bet on F22. But in a merge / WVR i hold it 50-50 if F22 faced against gen 4 / gen 4.5 fighters




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join