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-22 and F-35 superiority

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
STOP trying to sound like StellarX, you ain't impressing me...


Impressing you and trying to sound like Stellar are the least of my concerns at the moment.


Originally posted by YASKY
...now your trying to sound like him in your attempt to look knowlegable about AirCombat...


I'm not an expert on the posting habits of Stellar and my "knowledge" can be judged by my posts on the subject.


Originally posted by YASKY
...anyways a MiG-25 with new AESA radar will be able to shoot down the 22 thats what "New Radar" is supposed to do is find and lock on to the NEW threat...


Now this is bad logic if I've ever seen one. In any case almost all combat fighters can shoot down the F-22.



Originally posted by YASKY
just like that 18 that shotdown the 22, now how would it not happen with a new AESA radar in the 25, what would the 22 do?


See the bad logic reference above, no offense but you are making very little sense. Anyway, I do not normally personalize posts but you still insist (for some unknown reason) on mentioning that specific training engaging between the Rhino and the Raptor. I have posted the information showing this to be irrelevant and unrealistic multiple times. It has very little weight in terms of real world combat and virtually noting to do with the Super Hornets radar.




posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
See the bad logic reference above, no offense but you are making very little sense. Anyway, I do not normally personalize posts but you still insist (for some unknown reason) on mentioning that specific training engaging between the Rhino and the Raptor. I have posted the information showing this to be irrelevant and unrealistic multiple times. It has very little weight in terms of real world combat and virtually noting to do with the Super Hornets radar.


Much as I hate to say anything nice about the Raptor, this is absolutley true. The instance in which the Super Fries shot down the Raptor was not what it looked like, and was not actually a recordable "kill".

The Super Fries did not maintain its perspective on the Raptor long enough for it to actually "kill" it. Rather, it maneuvered in a last-ditch attempt to get a single shot of the Raptor being in the sights. No matter how you cut it, a couple rounds in a probable hit area are not going to completely disable an aircraft. That particular Raptor kill has been debunked. So has the Red Flag F-16 kill (which was actually a kill, but not really a fair one.).

I think the closest thing that comes to an actual, feasible Raptor kill is the currently controversial radar lock by the EF-2000 Typhoon. That one is also up in the air.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Correct me if I'm wrong here but surely THE advantage of supercruise is that a speed of Mach 1.5 can be maintained on dry thrust, thus massively increasing the range.


Well in my opinion that does not even logically lead but i guess we can presume that with the same fuel fraction or weight being able to go that much faster without afterburner should increase the range.

This official page claims the F-22 can do only 1/4 of it's 800 km internal fuel range at supersonic speed and it's the reason why i think the supercruise propaganda is particularly devoid of reason. In fact i think the 800 must be at sea level as the F-22 has as much internal fuel as the Su-27...

www.f22-raptor.com...


It doesn't matter if the Flanker has a more efficient engine than the Raptor (and that's still only IF) because afterburning (which the Flanker must use to reach that speed) simply eats fuel.


Well i don't think it's more efficient but it's' combat radius' is rather longer even at sea level and that most certainly allows for a dash that lasts longer at the same speed.

www.sukhoi.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In closing as far as i know Russian engines are less efficient at subsonic speeds but more efficient at supersonic speeds but i do wonder about the numbers from these 'official' sources.


Stellar



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
In closing as far as i know Russian engines are less efficient at subsonic speeds but more efficient at supersonic speeds but i do wonder about the numbers from these 'official' sources.



Check for stats on the Tumansky R-15 engines from the MiG-25, and Soloviev D-30 engines from the MiG-31. Reports are pretty consistent that they're efficient as dustbusters at low altitude, but do rule the roost at high altitude.

Oh, and look what I found. It looks like this tend might continue.


On the whole work, is done in two directions. One the one hand, it is the development of a fifth generation engine. It differs from previous domestic designs by minimal dimensions, a high degree of aerodynamic perfection, a 15% boost in thrust, a 12% rise in the temperature of gas before the turbine, a significant reduction in the number of compressor stages, and increased pressure in the compressor. For the first time in the Russian aircraft engine making it will em­ploy advanced composite materials of a new generation.


Link

Since the 5th generation is intended for the PAK-FA and will be descended from the AL-41 F1 clocked at 176 kN (40,000 pounds for those that don't know metric), so a 15% thrust increase looks like 202 kN (45,000 pounds). Which is pretty powerful. Judging also by their other claims, it could be pretty efficient as well. Nifty.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Much as I hate to say anything nice about the Raptor


And there you have it, folks. The mind set of StellarX and Darkpr0, summarized.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard223
And there you have it, folks. The mind set of StellarX and Darkpr0, summarized.


Why, then, did I follow through explaining why the Raptor was not at fault in those cases, thus making it better? See the slogan of the entire ATS sight for the answer to this skill-testing question.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The combat range of the F-22 (in all flight profiles) is still classified same goes for it's maximum supercruise speed and supercruise duration. I do not know why that website posted those figures as there are others that contradict it. Anyway, the original ATF requirement met by Lockheed was at least 700 miles. I cannot post links but suffice it to say that from what I've gathered the F-22 can do that on supercruise alone and subsonic combat range is significantly longer.



[edit on 26-8-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I looked up the fuel capacity of the su-30 and the F-22. The Sukhoi thirty can carry 9400 kilos of fuel internally, while the F-22 can carry 11000 kilos. The F-22 is significantly lighter and carries all of its missiles internal, I beleive that in no circumstance, a su-30 could ever come close to the range of the F-22.
As Westpoint stated, 700 miles is what Lockheed met, so I would beleive that to be the performance of the F-22.


I still think it's stupid that the amount of F-22s are so limited. I think, at minimum, they should double the amount, because really, the F-15 has no hope against emerging threats wth newer Flanker varients.


Thanks.

[edit on 27/8/2007 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Cheers for the links. I know its not the same thing but that F-22 link states a ferry range of 1,724 miles. Not as a 'max' but as 'demonstrated to date'. According to Janes the combat range of the Su 30 is given as 1,865 miles on max internal fuel.

A ferry range is outbound as far as you can go and then land, is it not? Would I be right in thinking that a 'combat range' also allows for the plane to get home again, still on internal fuel?

If this is the case then the Su 30 would appear to be nothing short of remarkable, or am I missing something?

[edit on 27-8-2007 by waynos]



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Wow! Its like the cold war n here!

So I'm just going to respond to something in random now!




Originally posted by StellarX
Even Amraams are likely to be ripple fired and a F-15 can not take on four flankers without running out of missiles by assigning two per target. The Flankers are in the lucky position that whichever aircraft is not fired on can simply keep on providing mid course updates for all the missiles in flight while the targeted flankers turn and run while sending the mid course updates trough tail mounted radar.
Stellar


The mid course corrections would have serious range shortcomings if updated throught the RWR right?

Then there's this other really cool feature one could employ:

Rugby-style transfer of the guidance of a already 'loose' missile from one a/c to another using the now famous TKS-2 intra-flight datalink(IFDL) feed.
Taking LOAL to a new level..
I'm sure the Americans have got a grip on the concept too. It would work brilliantly with LO paltforms like the Raptor.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I have been looking over the specifications for the F-35, remarkable aircraft; almost double the payload and range of the F-16 while having the RCS of a Golf ball.


But it is supposed to be abled to fill the role of the A-10 and that includes SEAD, but the F-35 cannot carry the AGM-65K & D, so will the JDAM fill the role of the AGM-65? Wiki quotes a 15 nautical mile range; impressive. But that would be from high altitude not the CAS role of the A-10.

JASSM? JSOW? These have huge cost though, $400 000 a peice, far more expensive than a $160 000 Maverick. I would think they'd be going for cheaper munitions rather than more expensive ones.


Thanks.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by YASKY
STOP trying to sound like StellarX, you ain't impressing me...


Impressing you and trying to sound like Stellar are the least of my concerns at the moment.


Originally posted by YASKY
...now your trying to sound like him in your attempt to look knowlegable about AirCombat...


I'm not an expert on the posting habits of Stellar and my "knowledge" can be judged by my posts on the subject.


Originally posted by YASKY
...anyways a MiG-25 with new AESA radar will be able to shoot down the 22 thats what "New Radar" is supposed to do is find and lock on to the NEW threat...


Now this is bad logic if I've ever seen one. In any case almost all combat fighters can shoot down the F-22.



Originally posted by YASKY
just like that 18 that shotdown the 22, now how would it not happen with a new AESA radar in the 25, what would the 22 do?


See the bad logic reference above, no offense but you are making very little sense. Anyway, I do not normally personalize posts but you still insist (for some unknown reason) on mentioning that specific training engaging between the Rhino and the Raptor. I have posted the information showing this to be irrelevant and unrealistic multiple times. It has very little weight in terms of real world combat and virtually noting to do with the Super Hornets radar.
I appologise if I offended you, I thought you were trying to post as if you were StellarX, sorry!



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
I looked up the fuel capacity of the su-30 and the F-22. The Sukhoi thirty can carry 9400 kilos of fuel internally, while the F-22 can carry 11000 kilos.


You managed to find the highest possible estimate for the F-22 and high end estimate for the Su-27


Fuel in four integral tanks: three in the fuselage and one split between each outer wing. Max internal fuel capacity is approximately 11,775 litres (3,110 US gallons or 2,590 Imp gallons), while the normal operational fuel load is 6,600 litres (1,744 US gallons or 1,452 Imp gallons). The higher figure represents an internal auxiliary tank for missions in which manoeuvrability is not deemed important. There are no provisions for external fuel tanks, except in those versions where it is specifically indicated. The aircraft is fuelled by either pressure or gravity fuelling. An in-flight refuelling capability is optional, as the Su-27UB operated as buddy tanker during the development of the system.

www.scramble.nl...



The F-22 is significantly lighter and carries all of its missiles internal, I beleive that in no circumstance, a su-30 could ever come close to the range of the F-22.


While you are free to believe what you like the evidence ( to say nothing of basic old physics) tells us that even the early version flankers have comparable range WITHOUT drop tanks. The F-22 is 15-20% lighter but i am not sure how you reconcile that figure , and the additional space required by the internal bays, with a longer range; sure those F-22's wings are damn large but....


As Westpoint stated, 700 miles is what Lockheed met, so I would beleive that to be the performance of the F-22.


Lockheed Martin was supposed to build a far better plane but they didn't so i have little reason to believe that the initial specs were met.. As to the claims that this plane can supercruise as far as it should have...

www.pogo.org...

I am no great fan of Riccioni and disagree with him on many issues ( I think the US does in fact need air superiority figthers buy many more and better at that) but his data on range and the like should count for something.


I still think it's stupid that the amount of F-22s are so limited. I think, at minimum, they should double the amount, because really, the F-15 has no hope against emerging threats wth newer Flanker varients.


Thanks.


It's not as much stupid as it's a deliberate policy to ensure that there won't be enough F-22's to get the job done. The F-15 were never going to have very favourable exchange ratio with the Su-27 but given proper upgrades and the same type of evolution as the Su-27 it would have made the F-22 all but redundant and allowed for the construction of 2-3000 F-15'C/D's; certainly enough to do the job.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
The F-22's fuel capacity is not secret, it has a maximum internal capacity of 20,650 lb. This comes from an official US safety technical doc... And when combat loaded the F-22 should have less drag than any other 'heavy fighter'. No matter what is true range is the F-22's almost always outlast the Eagles in training ops... That should be telling enough.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Hey guys, im new to ATS and ive found this website to be a great learning tool and im learning much from it. About this topic though, i dont think there is nothing that can touch the F-22 right now that a enemy has. Now maybe some russian plane might get lucky and shoot one down, but other then that it cant be touched. The F-22 is just vastly superior then anything in the worlds arsenal. Maybe the EF can take her on and give it a battle but all in all the F-22 would prevail. I was at Sun N Fun in lakeland when it was debuted to the public and it didnt do all the fance things there for the people, but when i was flying around at a airport about 5 miled south of LAL, i got to see it pretty close doin some manuvers. It was awesome. So i think right now, nothing can touch the F-22, its just to far advanced. unless a country has some secret plane or something. The F-35, isnt all that great...its made for STOL operations so there in itself has a bigger radar cross section, but it to is a great fighter.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Sorry Stellar, Wikipedia told me Su-30 had nine tons of fuel and many other sources told me F-22 had Eleven tons.
I still think a very clean F-22 carrying everything internally could easily outfly a Sukhoi 27 while at Mach 1.7. Heck, that article said the F-22 has double the supercruise radius as the F-15 which has something like ten tons of fuel.



Lockheed Martin was supposed to build a far better plane but they didn't so i have little reason to believe that the initial specs were met.. As to the claims that this plane can supercruise as far as it should have...

www.pogo.org...

I am no great fan of Riccioni and disagree with him on many issues ( I think the US does in fact need air superiority figthers buy many more and better at that) but his data on range and the like should count for something.

Ahhhh. That's a real eye opener and it really shows that the F-22, is a FAILURE. A big 70 billion dollar failure.... though it will kill any other aircraft; easily.
You should start a topic about it.
If you don't, mind if I do?

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
...many other sources told me F-22 had Eleven tons...


As I said before the F-22 has an internal fuel capacity of 20,650 lb (3,082 gallons), or roughly 10.3 tons. So far with the external fuel tanks certified for it is has a total fuel capacity of 36,515 lb (5,450 gallons) or roughly 18.2 tons.

Remember the F-22 carries it's weapons load internally and therefore sacrifices nothing if it initially launches with external fuel tanks. The tanks are all designed to be jettisoned along with the pylon. Meaning there is no adverse adverse on the VLO characteristics of the F-22. I hope that settles it...


Originally posted by C0bzz
...the F-15 which has something like ten tons of fuel...


The F-15C has an internal fuel capacity of 11,792 lb (1,760 gallons), or roughly 5.9 tons. The F-15E with conformal tanks (see internal) has a fuel capacity of 21,842 lb (3,260 gallons), roughly 10.9 tons.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   

I hope that settles it...

Of course it does.


I mentioned that some sources told me eleven tons just so you guys don't think I'm some nub who makes up numbers off the top of my head.






posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Sorry Stellar, Wikipedia told me Su-30 had nine tons of fuel and many other sources told me F-22 had Eleven tons.


Well The numbers are cited are max internal for the Su-27( alphabet soup) types and the numbers WP used should be that for F-22. According to the physics i know the F-22 should at least match the Flanker types in range but that's not what that official site is saying so i guess we should start wondering who sabotaged what; it sure wont be the first time.


I still think a very clean F-22 carrying everything internally could easily outfly a Sukhoi 27 while at Mach 1.7.


For that price it should but the data does not seem to be supporting such conclusions...


Heck, that article said the F-22 has double the supercruise radius as the F-15 which has something like ten tons of fuel.


Well other articles says it flies almost exactly like the F-15C and it's not explained why the F-15 can fly out to such ranges while having little more than half the fuel capacity of the F-15. I am thinking those F-22's are very hungry and that their 'super cruising' ability comes at far less efficiency than is commonly advertised. ANYTHING can super cruise with sufficient fuel and the best super cruise in active duty is certainly the Mig-31M....


Ahhhh. That's a real eye opener and it really shows that the F-22, is a FAILURE. A big 70 billion dollar failure.... though it will kill any other aircraft; easily.


Individually i am quite sure that it would but my argument so far has been that that same capability could have been had for 1/4 of the price with the possibility of very many more frames being built; they American people could have been far better defended and for a rather smaller price.


You should start a topic about it.
If you don't, mind if I do?

Thanks.


If you MUST make a threat i suppose that's as good a topic as most on this section...

Stellar



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I am thinking those F-22's are very hungry and that their 'super cruising' ability comes at far less efficiency than is commonly advertised. ANYTHING can super cruise with sufficient fuel and the best super cruise in active duty is certainly the Mig-31M....

Stellar

I think you meant anything can super cruise with the right engine... I don't think that fuel capacity alone reflects an aircrafts ability to super cruise.

Shattered OUT...




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join