USAF To Request More F-22 Raptors

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Sorry, for this simple question, I won't post a new thread to enrage moderator, so I follow here
where is picture come from? Is it a true plan?




posted on May, 8 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I've never heard of this specific pod but the idea isn't a new one. Its very possible we will see something like this on the raptor or the F-35s.



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
stumason,

Originally posted by Ghost01
The threat of terrorist and rouge nations has shown us that we can't afford to take air defense for granted.

Tim


Arrgh!!! Sorry for the off topic post (I am interested by the topic though)

But it's Rogue!

Not rouge! Rouge is a shade of Red!

Or is a rouge nation a slightly commie nation, but not gone all the way? So instead of Pinko-commies, it's now rouge?



EDIT: Sorry for the impromptu spelling lesson, but I've seen it so many times misspelt on here that I cracked....


Only a Pom would feel the need to correct a Yank about their atrocious murdering of the mother tongue (and only an Aussie would bother to point that out
). Poor Ghost1


Would it be fair to say you saw red with anger?

LEE.



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by emile
Sorry, for this simple question, I won't post a new thread to enrage moderator, so I follow here
where is picture come from? Is it a true plan?



Here's a wind tunnel model with the same external stealth pod:



Wind tunnel testing of a stealthy external stores pod, designed to carry weapons such as the GBU-39/B and GBU-40/B Small Diameter Bomb. The pylons are rated for 5,000 lb stores (US Air Force photo).



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 11:53 AM
link   
If you look at how the Pod you posted Deadalus is rooted to the wing compare to the Picture that was posted there is a major difference. Also the doors on the pods are different but then again the idea is the same and the over all shape is the same so the picture may just be an earlier idea while the photo is a test of the same idea. Correct?



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I don't understand what you mean by 'rooted to the wing'..

It is only a wind tunnel model and not a scale down mockup


I find it quite similar to what emile posted except for an obvious lack to detail.
Afterall its a wind tunnel model to test drag, and so catering to detail beyond general shape and postion(of the pod) would not be necessary IMO.



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Unless they perfected the pods since photo taken.
A multi purpose pod to carry a multitude of stores would
be more sensible and cost effecient.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
emile,
nice find, that is the first detailed image of an F-22's LO pod I have seen. Can't help you on its origin though.

It does raise an interesting question however, does anyone know if the F-22 wepons bays are plumbed for fuel in the same way that the F-111's are, or if this has been investigated? And if so how much of a range increase would it afford the aircraft? If you think about it, inconcert with the LO pods and their 2000Lbs of fuel you could have yourself a usefull medium/long range strike vehicle carrying a respectable 10,000Lbs weapon payload (so long as all this doesn't excede the aircrafts MTOW). It would still maintain the aircrafts stealth profile and quite possibly its supercruise ability, albeit with a temporarily reduced manouvering envelope.

LEE.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I don't understand what you mean by 'rooted to the wing'..

It is only a wind tunnel model and not a scale down mockup


I find it quite similar to what emile posted except for an obvious lack to detail.
Afterall its a wind tunnel model to test drag, and so catering to detail beyond general shape and postion(of the pod) would not be necessary IMO.


Here is what I was refering too.





I know its not HUGE but its a difference that is a little odd. And it begs the question which image came first.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Canada_EH,

Well the CGI one obviously has less credence because its CGI.
Copyrighted by some entity called 'lantinia'..


The actual wind tunnel photo is just that: an actual photo and that too obtained from the USAF.

And my layman's knowledge on fluid dynamics makes me think that the single pylon hardpoint is a more drag-free config than the two-pylon config.
But that's just me I don't know if will effect RCS in any way; not majorly.

Actually 'what came first' is not what you want to know.
What you want to know is 'what was implemented as a final design' if
implemented into the production variant at all.

Anyways we now know for a fact that the LOSP is not just a CGI creation but something that has definitely been tested to the wind-tunnel level at least.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I agree that the most likely layout is the one that was wind tunnel tested. As for it RCS effect it would form a 90 degree angle with the wing and pylon in the tested layout so in laymans terms that would interpret a increased in RCS or at least compromise. The pods seem neat and its pity that there seems to be a lack of information on them eh?

Very much like the conformal fuel tanks. Good idea but seems to be limited to long huals and training aircraft where they are less of a restriction.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Here's a wind tunnel model with the same external stealth pod:



Wind tunnel testing of a stealthy external stores pod, designed to carry weapons such as the GBU-39/B and GBU-40/B Small Diameter Bomb. The pylons are rated for 5,000 lb stores (US Air Force photo).


This is (in my oppion) a highly unlikely combat configuration for stealthy pods on the F-22. Look closely, you will see that the pylons meet the airframe at a Perfect Right angle. This would throw the plane's stealth out the window in a milisecond. Back when they tested Have Blue in the 1970's one loose screw that stuck up 1/4 inch above the surfact increased the planes RCS enough for it to be detected and tracked from several miles. What do you think the right angles at the the points were the pylons attach to the pods would do?

Tim



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   
You do read the post above you right Ghost? You do bring up the history though of why the 90 degree angle is a problem. I dont think that the CGI sketch is really right idea though either.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
You do read the post above you right Ghost? You do bring up the history though of why the 90 degree angle is a problem. I dont think that the CGI sketch is really right idea though either.


Canada_EH,

I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to say!

I was pointing out that the 90 degree angle created by the way the pylon is mounted would be a huge problem for stealth on the aircraft. The second part of my post, where I mention the screws is intended to show how even the smalles detail (like the screw sticking up) can create a Huge problem for a stealth aircraft. The fact that a tiny detail can have such a dramatic effect means that something like a Right angle on a pylon would throw away all of the stealth technology appled to the plane in a second, by rendreing it worthless.

Also, the picture isn't a CGI sketch, it's a wind tunnle model made of metal.

Buddy, I respect you a lot, but I don't understand what you are trying to point out! What do you see that I'm overlooking?


Tim

[edit on 5/10/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Tim,

If I read Canada correctly all he is saying is that you repeated what he had already said about RCS returns from the pylon in his post above yours. Thats fine, you both are saying the same thing about RCS returns which is essentially correct. As for the images there is a multi view CGI artists rendering, and a photo of an actual wind tunnel model.

Relax guys there's no problem, your both on the same page you just could have both worded your points a little clearer.


PS. I would still like to know if the F-22 main bays are plumbed for carrying internal auxilliary tanks.

LEE.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Boz basically said it right. I was just pointing out that we said the same things thats all. sorry I should of added a smile or LOL or something since I was being light hearted no problems tim I'm good man.

As for the internal bays for fuel for ferrying I'm not sure. I've seen pictures with external drop tanks and the like but never information about internal fuel bays.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
the U.S Air Force needs more than 183 Raptors. I don't think even 240-260 would be enough.

something like a quarter century ago, when the USAF came up with the requirement for the ATF / Advanced Tactical Fighter, and through the 1980s, it was planned that about 750 airframes would be built, with a flyaway cost of $35M per plane in 1984 or 1985 dollars.

in 1991 after the YF-22 had emerged and won the ATF competition, the number of aircraft that would be bought was reduced to 648.

in 1994, the number of F-22s was cut to 442 airframes

in 1997 it was reduced again, to 339 airframes

around 2002 or so, the amount was reduced to yet again to 276, and then the most recent amount became 183 sometime after that.

I think the Air Force should get no less than the 442, which is two reductions below the original 750 amount.

with just over 440 F-22s, the Air Force could have an active force of 400 strong, with extra for spares, attrition, losing some airframes, some for testing, upgrades, airshows, etc.

I also think the Pentagon and the Air Force should push for a "Super Raptor" with more powerful engines, higher supercruise speeds of over mach 2.0, longer range, larger wing & airframe allowing for a larger bay to hold upto 12 medium or long range A2A missiles, advanced IRST, stealthier engine exhausts (engines buried deeper like the YF-23) to reduce its infra-red sig. more advanced rader.

A mixed force of 400 F-22 Raptors and ~150 Super Raptors, operating in teams ( 4 Super Raptors, 20 Raptors, the SR could be even more of a forward air controller with AWACS like capabilities, directing regular Raptors into the fight ) would be interesting, and perhaps proove more difficult for advacaries to overcome with a single new fighter.




[edit on 28-12-2007 by airraidjet]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by airraidjet
I also think the Pentagon and the Air Force should push for a "Super Raptor" with more powerful engines, higher supercruise speeds of over mach 2.0, longer range, larger wing & airframe allowing for a larger bay to hold upto 12 medium or long range A2A missiles, advanced IRST, stealthier engine exhausts (engines buried deeper like the YF-23) to reduce its infra-red sig. more advanced rader.


Isn't the F-18 E/F Super Fries taking a lot of flak after having tried something like that?


The problem with just generally being bigger and more powerful is that it hurts RCS. Larger empennage areas, larger wing area, large engine plumes, you get the idea. Also, on that note, can engine exhaust really be made stealth against IR detectors? No matter how you disguise the outlet, there's still a massive plume of hot air following you no matter where you go.





top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join