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.

 

Russia's next-generation warplane to make maiden flight in 2009

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Americantrucker
 


Here's an interesting link regarding the dynamics of bird flight

Bird Flight

i think planes will never come close to the agility of birds in flight, planes just don't have enough control surfaces to compete with birds.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Sorry, I know it's off topic, but was wondering if there a good online comparison of different aircraft that anyone knows of?

There are only comparisons between the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft, and these can be misleading. The maximum speed of the F-15 is usually quoted at Mach 2.5, even though the 'slower' F-22 is in practise significantly faster than what the F-15 flies.

Generally for performance details, find as many sources as you can, take into account fuel capacity, and weapons loadouts and do the calculations yourself. There's also documents such as these...:
www.gao.gov...

There is usually very little information on the sensors in these aircraft, so it's also very important to research (google) all the information about the avionics, sensors, pilot thoughts, maintianability, too. These are all very important. For example, this...: www.aviationtoday.com...

You can also read of past discussions on forums, such as DefenseTalk and Ares blog, make sure to read the comments too. Forum with more professional analysts = better. Forums like Key Publishing crack me up, please don't go there.

[edit on 6/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Additionally as you alluded, cold air is mixed in with the hot gases, along with nozzle design and materials, to lower the IR footprint.

www.f-22raptor.com...

www.f-22raptor.com...



Err - that is just a result of it being a low bypass ratio turbofan.

I can assure you, IR signature was not a consideration when designing the F-22's nozzles.

The YF-23 on the other hand, did consider IR signature, and tried to shield the worst of it from the ground.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Every aircraft with a radar is its own mini-AWACs.

Every aircraft does not have a AN/APG-77, IFDL, and ALR-94?


Last time I checked, neither did an E-3...

Is it now not an AWACs either?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Update the firmware if that threat finally comes to existance then? Degrade performance, how? Declutter? What kind of datalink are we talking about?


I'm talking about information clutter - for instance why tell the pilot 50 things when all he needs is 5?





Jam the radio frequency?


What about jam the datalink? What happens to all the fancy net-centric then?


Why is one considered susceptible to jamming and the other not?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Could you point me to some articles that show the system of LPI the F-22 uses could be detected? That would be wide spectrum, random pulses, with ultra-low sidelobes. Frequency modulation is used on 30 year old MSA radars, so that doesn't count.

Thanks.


There are literally dozens of papers dealing with it - you can get them through the IEEE.

Here is the link to a thesis on the subject - dated 2001

oai.dtic.mil...

I can assure you - what is in the public domain is at least 5 years behind what is not.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
That doesn't work.

www.aoe.vt.edu...

At the WVR combat is going to take place TVC will not be a massive advantage, and certainly, 3d TVC is hardly an advantage over 2d... How is the Flanker a better airframe?


Sorry - it probably looks like I'm picking on you - its just most of your posts I'm seeing problems with!!



Anyhoo - 3D TVC is a major advantage over 2D.


From page 10 of your own link:

"Control effectiveness tends to diminish as the angle of attack increases. This is especially true for the ability to generate yawing moment."

2D TVC cannot help in this regard.




Also using asymmetric TVC to increase roll response and rates is a massive, massive advantage. The F-16 has made a career on its roll rate - getting an OVT to meet or beat those roll rates through asymmetric TVC is a big thing.

Lockheed tried asymmetric TVC on the F-22, but the nozzles were too closely coupled to make it much use. The Flanker and Fulcrum have enough lateral space to make it worthwhile.


Oh, and at high speeds - TVC is used to trim out the aircraft for improved control authority - but thats a 2D thing that the F-22 has as well.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Radio jamming? Not to mention that a radio signal is a LOT easier to pick up than their LPI radar will be. Radio can get confusing too. Pilots have a tendency to tune out some broadcasts, and have to repeat them. So it's not just a quick broadcast, and your flight lead knows just what's going on.


As I said earlier - why is a radio vulnerable to jamming and a datalink not?

These aren't old analogue radios anymore!

Hell - the F-22 can use its radar for transmitting data!



Originally posted by Zaphod58 If you're using your radio THEN you're getting into information overload.


This deserves a space all of its own...

In the words of John McEnroe... "You cannot be serious!"


How is getting a verbal communication worse than having to drop your eyes down to the MFD, find the appropriate screen, see what you need to, then get your eyes up and reacquire what you were looking at...

Seriously man!



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


How much radio work have you done? I used to run a radio net and it could get confusing. People stepping all over each other trying to talk at the same time, or someone talking right after another person, so the response to one message gets lost, etc. In combat it's even more confusing. A datalink gives you all the information right there without having to sort out radio calls.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How much radio work have you done? I used to run a radio net and it could get confusing. People stepping all over each other trying to talk at the same time, or someone talking right after another person, so the response to one message gets lost, etc.


And that is why there is training!

So there is a structure to radio calls.




In combat it's even more confusing. A datalink gives you all the information right there without having to sort out radio calls.


But it requires you to take your eye off the ball - you seem to be ignoring that.

Gimme a verbal over a (MFD) visual communication any day of the week in a combat situation.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
But it requires you to take your eye off the ball - you seem to be ignoring that.


What ball?


Raptor pilots had all the available data on the airspace fused and displayed on a single, easy-to-read screen.

"When I look down at my scope and put my cursor over a [friendly] F-15 or F/A-18, it tells me who they are locked on to," he says. For example, "I could help them out by saying, 'You're double-targeted and there's a group over here untargeted' . . . to make sure we got everybody." F-15 targets will be latent because of the radar sweep.

However, these messages are less and less verbal. "When you watch [tapes of the Alaska] exercise, it's fairly spooky," says Gen. Ronald Keys, chief of Air Combat Command. "There's hardly a word spoken among Raptor pilots." That silence also previews some of the fighter's possible future capabilities.

"Because of the way the aircraft was designed, we have the capability to do more," Keys says. "We can put unmanned combat aircraft systems in there with Raptor. You've got three fairly low-observable UCAS in the battlespace. An air defense system pops up, and I click on a UCAS icon and drag it over [the emitter's location] and click. The UCAS throttles over and jams it, blows it up or whatever."

Link


Raptors kill the bad guys without breaking a sweat (or using a vocal cord) and still hang around to help out the other fighters. And when they work alone, as was mentioned above, there is no need for a radio or talking, they share everything via datalink, it really is the future. Once the F-22 gets the transmit capability for other (non F-22) aircraft they wont have to use the radio at all. Everyone will be able to have an instantaneous and continuos, fused, picture of the battle space.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Gimme a verbal over a (MFD) visual communication any day of the week in a combat situation.


Jeez, that is so off the mark I don't even know what to say.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
"When I look down at my scope and put my cursor over a [friendly] F-15 or F/A-18


"When I look down"

"put my cursor"


Right. Read the thing.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Right. Read the thing.


Reading without comprehension? Not after middle school.

The F-22's single fused MFD provides all the information he needs to know (almost instantaneously) in an easy to understand way. Everything from his status, to where the enemy is, what they're doing, and if he's at risk or not. This allows him to always remain out of reach and a step ahead, so to speak, and to not really worry about trying to stay alive every second or to fly the plane. The Raptor is apparently a very easy jet to fly.

This saved time (worrying from situational awareness or sudden death) from the combined effects of the sensor suite and the VLO/kinematic properties allows for more freedom to plan, organize and conduct an attack. That's the whole big deal with "stealth" and avionics, more time can be alloted for planning and execution wihout being overburdened with other things. Clearly this is evident not only from pilot comments but from the results of the exercise, which you have ignored.

Once they do get the transmit capability for other aircraft all they have to do is send their battle-space picture to that F-15 and F/A-18 in question. Those drivers would then instantly realize if they're double targeted or not etc... without any further additional input from Raptor pilots. Hence why Raptor to Raptor transmissions during the exercise were brief and almost exclusively non vocal.

Still, F-22's were able to avoid a single loss, even when sticking around without weapons, even when having to devote a few seconds to help other fighters. And did I mention they racked up 100+ kills too?



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I guess the Raptors don't use the RADIOS because they are forced to use datalinks, not because they are more capable (god forbid pilots using operations that are more capable) but because they are being forced to by the Military Industrial Complex. Apon using radio, the canopy is jetissoned and the pilot is ejected from the aircraft. The Common Integrated Processor will then carry on flying, the proper way; with datalinks.



I'll respond properly when I get the time.

[edit on 8/2/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


Something you are overlooking is that your radio call, when you are dealing with a flight of 8-10 Raptors is going to take a lot of time. You have to call each aircraft individually to find out weapons status, to keep from walking all over each other.

As for training, the net that I ran WAS operated by trained radio operators, and we still managed to talk over each other, and have some confusion going on with it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join