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.

 

The F-22 some questions.....

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I'm very new on ATS. I am a huge F-22 "fan". I have, painstakingly, watched every video and site regarding the Raptor. F-16 net, DEW, etc.

There are information gaps, not classified, yet not really talked about, that I'd be very grateful to have answered.

The first being, "clean"(no externals) manouvering numbers, like the minimum radius turn, top speeds,(at altitude and on the deck) vs externally armed aircraft. Just how much degradation of performance does, say the SUs suffer from externals. With no externals, the F-22 is faster than even an SU-35 with externals, at any altitude? Besides the stealth, is that not a major reason Russia and China are racing to develop their knock-offs?

The second question 2-D vs 3-D thrust vectoring. Apparently, the 24 degrees deflection of the Raptor is more than an SU is capable of, pitch-wise. I also read one site that said the Russian were considering 2-d for the Pak-50. Not sure if that was a valid comment.

If you have a mind to educate me on these matters, I'd really be grateful. Thank you in advance. NWTrucker




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


You're not going to get hard numbers. Those things are short of classified, but the only people that really know them are the people that need to.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


That makes sense to a degree. Yet, the Russians already know the specs on their own SUs. LOL.

I don't really need hard numbers, more of an overview. Assuming that monster f-119 engine and the internalized weapons are a huge advantage, the F-22, by deduction,(and the dirt-eating grins when the pilots talk about the Raptor) is one flat out amazing aircraft despite all the noise otherwise.

There's a link at F-16 net that hooks up to the YF-23 story, apparently, recently declassified. It's about an hour long. A little one sided, yet quite a aircraft in itself.

I was chatting up a poster on You Tube out of some school in Moscow about Continuous turn rates, he linked me a video that showed an SU-27 doing the 360 in 13.5 seconds. It was damn impressive. The fastest I've seen on You Tube for a 22 was 18 seconds. That was without TV. If the "reports are true re 28 degrees/second" that puts it under 12 seconds. With TV? without?

Reading between the lines isn't that easy for an old, uneducated dude like me, but, Lord, I love it....Missed my calling....



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I am continually amazed how intelligent people can be so blinded by what they have accepted as the actual situation that they cannot see what is the true picture being played out before them.

That statement, in my opinion applies to you and millions of others good minds captivated by the PR efforts of TPTB. In this case, (as usual) the military-industrial complex and their, "Look here at our pretties that we are building for you in the interest of national defense. And, by the way, we are already taking orders from our good friends in other countries."

If you were to step back from your adulteration of what they "reveal" in Aviation Week[,/i] etc., and take a broad look at the world, you would find substantial material from the military (in the early years) and the sudden going black of R&D projects in the 1960s, and a decades of eye-witness details, then you could possible come up with a decent perspective such as this: The craft called UFOs are real in the larger sense, and by the mid-1960s they lead directly to our own craft that mimic their mass-canceling "rides." One of the developments was the creation of the mysterious triangles that have appeared (mostly) in US skies starting in the 1960s. The three-sided craft have a very useful design function in the placement of the "power units" mounted in each apex area. Such an arrangement allows for the standard system used from day-one of powered flight. That is the three axis control system. (Perhaps by now they have mastered the none-directional mode of control systems.) Because we can naturally assume that much headway has been made in every aspect of these magical ships in half a century. In other words, the triangles would be the "Model Ts" of terrestrially-made UFOs, yet still retaining the basic secret of massless "flight."

What you gather from your conventional sources is PR and mis- and dis-information for stockholders, the public, people like yourself, and those interested from other, competitive countries.

Can you imagine that we are working out the bugs on the F-22 and the F-35 while taking orders from our allies for these extremely advanced models. --Or that we would allow whole sets of blueprints of these machines to slip away to some foreign country? Let us include in this grand scheme the 30 years of the shuttle that was the beginning and evidently end of our manned rockets into space. Would you believe that would be the case if you didn't know that was the "supposed" situation? No. The US would NEVER drop that ball. The only answer is another answer that is not told or even allowed to be speculated about. That answer is that we have alternatives in both and space vehicles far beyond what we are told. If not found in the triangles, than in later generations of those unique principles of physics common to all alien UFO craft.

While the US Space Force has been outfitted with a variety of new machines to fulfill its mandated purposes, conventional weapons, building of planes such as the F-117A, the B-2 bomber, the F-22, the F-35, the so-called "space plane" are for a four-fold purpose, First, to keep high-tech America working and the economy humming in some fields (at least). The second purpose is to created an on-going facade for on-lookers foreign and domestic that we are running just as fast as we can in conventional directions. The third reason is the critical one. Massless movement of aerial craft is the single best weapon every brought to bear as a weapon (or deterrent) of war. The longer a government has that edge, the safer the world will be for decent governments. And in an overall picture, the massless UFO drive is the greatest advancement in human technological history since the invention of the wheel.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Cool, hope you feel better. Now, how much do externals on a SU degrade flight performance? ........



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
Cool, hope you feel better. Now, how much do externals on a SU degrade flight performance? ........




Just look at the data on triangles, friend, and have a wholesome, not military-industrial supplied look at the big picture and you just might want to give up some trivial pursuits for bigger game.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Every country in the world practices secrecy. What they reveal to the public and press is very different from the real specs and stats of any particular military equipment. Common people.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


OK, as I've admitted in the original post, I am completely uneducated in this area and in a "101" level of interest/understanding. I'm sure it's difficult to find "peers" with similar interests and understanding at your level.

I don't buy into the military-industrial complex mantra as a given. There is data availiable reading between the lines, so to speak.

For example, I'd bet we will see a second version of the F-22 with a lot of the inherent bugs removed and significant upgrades once the F-35 has been produced and delivered in sufficient numbers that ensures the profit level that was built into the program in the first place.

After all, the U.S. has the f-22 as the tip of the spear "protecting" the 35s and all the "allies" who are purchasing the 35 do not have a "22" to protect their '35's...

That leaves the allies with no alternative but to purchase Chinese or Russian copies to fill out their inventories.

That, of course, will never do and we will end up producing and selling a version without the skin issues, compartment issues, an f-119-200, already in development, apparently, on and on.

Now, back to 101, Thrust vectoring. As the U.S. did the initial development of TV and in both the 22 and 23 2-D thrust vectoring was chosen over 3-D that the russians have chosen. My question is why? I do see a higher deflection on the pitch from the 2-D and some exhaust/IR issues with the 3-D. Is there more to this than I can see?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Greetings from one of your local aircraft forum crawlers.


Originally posted by nwtrucker
The first being, "clean"(no externals) manouvering numbers, like the minimum radius turn, top speeds,(at altitude and on the deck) vs externally armed aircraft. Just how much degradation of performance does, say the SUs suffer from externals. With no externals, the F-22 is faster than even an SU-35 with externals, at any altitude?


There are several things that contribute to the degradation of aircraft performance when loaded vs unloaded. The first is the added mass of having things stuck onto your airplane (which is unavoidable), and the second is the aero drag on the exposed surfaces (relevant on external munitions, obviously less on internal). You'll find that the added mass of a loadout is probably more important than the actual aero drag just because the aero drag is a very small force compared to the inertia of lugging ordnance around. The major penalties you'll get are a lowered thrust/weight ratio (impacts acceleration and ability to maintain airspeed in maneuvers) and probably lowered maximum maneuver accelerations (regulated partially by the stress that the airframe can withstand, and partially by what the pilot can withstand). The reason you'd want internal carriage is mostly for reducing radar return (thus increasing stealth).


Originally posted by nwtrucker
Besides the stealth, is that not a major reason Russia and China are racing to develop their knock-offs?


The reason is stealth. More broadly, I'd say that the reason is the increasing understanding and importance of control of information as electronic warfare is on the rise. Also, Russia is well aware that the F-22 is not getting foreign sales and is racing to get into a market that the F-35 frankly has not impressed terribly.


Originally posted by nwtrucker
The second question 2-D vs 3-D thrust vectoring. Apparently, the 24 degrees deflection of the Raptor is more than an SU is capable of, pitch-wise. I also read one site that said the Russian were considering 2-d for the Pak-50.


TVC is different for America and Russia. Russia has always had a bigger urge to go commercial with 360 TVC, whereas the American designers don't have quite the hard-on for it. It's also notable that the engines on Russian aircraft are traditionally wider-set than the American ones, which are nudged right up on each other. This means that even 2D pitch TVC can be used asymmetrically for roll control more easily on Russian jets than American ones (or one, since only The F-22 has it. I don't believe it's asymmetric). You can be guaranteed that the Russians will run, at the very least, 2D asymmetric on PAK-FA, and 360 degrees TVC is very likely to be possible.

Note: While the F-22 may have greater maximum deflection in its TVC, you'd very rarely use it. Control surfaces and TVC are very rarely used to their maximum deflection in flight because, at most speed, it would produce stresses that are just too high for the aircraft and/or the pilot. The faster you are going, the less control surface input it takes to make the adjustment you want, and the more stress is imparted on the aircraft for the input you do make. Thus, max system deflection is probably not the best way to track the performance of a TVC system. You'd be more interested in the turn rate as a function of speed.

Another note: If you've got aircraft related questions, the Aircraft Project forums under Science Topics is probably the best place to go with it. We have a lot of very smart people, and a lot of them probably know more than myself on this subject.

Pr0



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


Thank you very much. That clarifies the subject hugely for me.

After starting the thread, I found the site you referred to and lapped it up like a thirsty puppy.LOL especially the 22-vs 23 thread. I also discovered why newbies shouldn't start threads....I'm so far below those guys in knowledge it's almost laughable.

I do have a couple more queations if you don't mind too much.

Regarding 22 vs 23, Ive seen on several videos where LM surveyed the pilots on what they wanted in an air-superiority fighter and largely attempted to produce those qualities in the Raptor. The idea I get, is the 23 was more of an engineers' concept rather than a "pilots'." EG manuverabilty, it seems to me, would trump top speed in a pilot's estimation,(I'm not a pilot). The Mig-25 being an extreme example of that error.

Also, one poster, a retired AF Col. seemed quite happy with the 22-35 combo as a package, seemed to be saying drop the argument. Pilot responses to the 22, other than the 2 ANG drivers in Virginia, is uniformly "blown away" especially the old F-15 drivers. Safe to say the argument is academic at best?

Next, what happened to the GE 120's after the 22-23 tests? gone?

Lastly, for now, a poster was saying how upgrading the 15 was smarter than the billions that went into the 5th gens. Obviously arguable, yet no one has raised the point of upgrading the E's with say F119s or even the F-120s or for that matter, in the new SEs, that kind of power, 173 kN's in the eagles? Wow.

Thank you again for your indulgence. I do love this stuff....



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58 You're not going to get hard numbers. Those things are short of classified, but the only people that really know them are the people that need to.


True enough Zaphod. If however you take the time to consider the latest post on TKA, His true identity will be revealed for He holds the knowledge you seek.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
Regarding 22 vs 23, Ive seen on several videos where LM surveyed the pilots on what they wanted in an air-superiority fighter and largely attempted to produce those qualities in the Raptor. The idea I get, is the 23 was more of an engineers' concept rather than a "pilots'."


I'm no expert on the 22 vs 23 debate, but I'll tell you what I think I know. Disclaimer: This could be totally wrong. There are those who have participated in the debate for far, far longer than I have and, accordingly, know more about it.

From my perspective, the F-23 was a bigger departure from the 'standard' military aviation model than the F-22. You can certainly see the radical changes to the engine position and ducting, and on the airframe's shape compared to previous aircraft in similar roles. The F-22, in contrast, was far more conventional and pretty much resembled what one would expect from something intended to replace the F-15C. This would pretty much be down to the philosophy of the engineers and their design methods at their respective companies. To boil the argument down into engineers vs pilots is probably not correct. Based on what I know of the evaluation process for the aircraft, both aircraft were very impressive. To my knowledge, a better attempt to distil the whole F-22 vs F-23 thing would be engineers vs politicians. The F-23's virtue of 'radical change' to an engineer would be roughly synonymous with the vice of 'risk' to whatever committee or person was in charge of procuring the winner of the competition. You can probably see how this led to a fleet of F-22s, and not F-23s.


Also, one poster, a retired AF Col. seemed quite happy with the 22-35 combo as a package, seemed to be saying drop the argument. Pilot responses to the 22, other than the 2 ANG drivers in Virginia, is uniformly "blown away" especially the old F-15 drivers. Safe to say the argument is academic at best?


There's very little complaints about the F-22 from anything I've seen. Even the Aircraft Projects forums is pretty complimentary to its performance (though I will admit no shortage of smiles when one got a simulated loss vs an F-18 using guns). The vast majority of complaints about that combination are aimed squarely at the F-35. I'll try and sum them up for you:

-It has one engine. Even though they do their best to show that the engine is really reliable and all that junk, we just sort of cringe when we know there's no redundancy there. Especially when countries like Canada expect to use it as their primary aircraft without a bigger, two-engined brother to take care of air superiority duties. If you get some damage and lose an engine on a two-engined craft, you get to make it back to base and be a war hero. If you lose an engine on a one-engined craft, you get to be a lawn dart. F-16, I'm looking at you.

-Its armament capacity suffers. The F-22 can carry 6 AIM-120s and a pair of AIM-9s in its internals bay alone. A Su-35 can carry 2 R-37s (equivalent to AIM-9s), and 12 R-77s (AIM-120 equivalents). A Eurofighter Typhoon can carry 12 or 13 missiles on its hardpoints. An F-35's internal bay maxes out at 6 missiles. The F-35B version may be even less, I can't recall what the status on that is. The point is that the armament capability of the F-35 just doesn't compare well with the other fighters it may have to deal with, and it may end up bringing a gun to a missilefight.

-The F-35's stealth is not the gamechanger they claim it is. This is not to say that the F-35 is not stealthy. It is certainly stealthier than the F-18s and whatnot it replaces. The problem is that it is well understood that its stealth is just not on par with the F-22. If PAK-FA and J-20 are designed to be on the same order of magnitude as the F-22, then the F-35 won't stack up to them either. If stealth is the big thing that makes the F-35 better than what these militaries have, then a) why bother purchasing it over the potentially better competitors, and b) how can you justify it as a defense mechanism against those same, potentially better, competitors?


Next, what happened to the GE 120's after the 22-23 tests? gone?


Likely. Hopefully they're in better shape than the F-23's themselves. Not happy days for the Widow and Ghost.


Lastly, for now, a poster was saying how upgrading the 15 was smarter than the billions that went into the 5th gens.


Link
I think you'll like this. It's not a matter of design or parts acquisition, it's convincing buyers that this is a better option than the full 5th gen airframe. Personally, I'm not convinced that it is, but that's just my point of view.


Thank you again for your indulgence. I do love this stuff....


NP.

Pr0



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Another note: If you've got aircraft related questions, the Aircraft Project forums under Science Topics is probably the best place to go with it. We have a lot of very smart people, and a lot of them probably know more than myself on this subject.

Pr0


Actually, you're not doing half bad so far.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The points you made re the selection of the 22 makes sense to me. I recall a video where the original engineer for the F-35 stated that it was to be a replacement for the Harrier. Then "expanded" for USAF and navy use in their verisions. Triple the bugs and problems therefore cost overruns. The fertilizer that's spread is so thick, it's hard to know the truth. I remember when the M-1A1 Abrams was introduced. The noise was how terrible it was, on and on. Now it's at the latter stages of the Standard that the rest of the world measures tanks..(Quiet, Brits.
).

Thanks for the link, I've seen that one, but had foregotten it. The specs say f-100s at 29000 per. I still wonder what the F-119 at 39000 per would do to make that plane scoot, especially the supercruise/range factor. If your going to come out with a new version, why not upgrade the engines as well?

Seeing I don't know much, I can get away with guessing. I'm betting the 22 was held back by LM to ensure sufficient orders of the F-35 went out. I'd also bet there was no way LM was going to put it's absolute best into an aircraft that was "jointly developed". The result a good plane, not a great one. Much like the "Joint EF project' equally a good plane but not a great one. These "short-comings" will result in a new F-22, sans the bugs, better skin, much more fully CPU'd that will now be sold to protect the 35s and counter the Pak and Js.

Just a suspicion.LOL.

Your spot on re Canada I was at The Abbotsford airshow when the first F-18 arrived from St. Louis and visited with the pilot. The two engine issue is why the F-16 lost out to the F-18. Their history was worse that the "16". They went with CF-104s and Voodoos, not much doubt which one dug holes more.....



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Because when the F-15E first came out, the F-100-229 that was in use caused problems. Within about 10-15 years of introduction, the Strike Eagle had developed small cracks in the backbone from vibration from the engines. If they were to go to the more powerful engines, they would be too powerful for the airframe and cause more problems.
edit on 6/16/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Thanks, that's one less dumb question I've got to ask. Of course, if it was workable, they'd have done it.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


It does make one wonder just who the F-15 SE is targetted to. Who'd by it. With the supercruise and generally higher power outputs of newer engines, one would think there wouldn't be much of a market for the SEs, unless, perhaps, some middle east countries like the Saudis where long distances and offensive scenarios weren't in play.
One would think any weakness that restrict using more powerful engines could have been addressed in the development period of the "SE". Does that make the "SE" a stop gap? A temperary solution? A sign that a second version of the 22 is "an option" for down the road.
I'm probably over-thinking this...



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
The result a good plane, not a great one. Much like the "Joint EF project' equally a good plane but not a great one.


Likely. The general consensus is that the F-35's electronic warfare suite is probably on par with if not better than the F-22s, though I don't know if it has the same set of tricks like LPI and whatnot for stealth management. The rest of the features of the aircraft have come under some fire, however.

These "short-comings" will result in a new F-22, sans the bugs, better skin, much more fully CPU'd that will now be sold to protect the 35s and counter the Pak and Js.


Actually, I very much doubt this with the current political environment. So many countries have said they're gonna buy the F-35 and have pledged money to it for various privileges that the F-35 will more than likely sell boatloads and boatloads. If it does that, LM has no need to create another aircraft as their purpose is not necessarily to defend other countries, but to make money from those other countries. There are some rumblings of countries switching their orders, but the fact is that it will simply be easier for the politicians to plop down money on the obvious option and not think about it anymore.


It does make one wonder just who the F-15 SE is targetted to. Who'd by it. With the supercruise and generally higher power outputs of newer engines, one would think there wouldn't be much of a market for the SEs, unless, perhaps, some middle east countries like the Saudis where long distances and offensive scenarios weren't in play.


I think it was hastily put together for some of the smaller countries trying to get the last hurrah of the 4th generation fighters. Perhaps their selection process started before 5th gen aircraft were available, or maybe their facilities are not set up to maintain aircraft with advanced RAM coatings and whatnot. There is certainly a market for it, but it's doing battle with options like the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, and this month's flavour of Flankers. And it's late to the party.


One would think any weakness that restrict using more powerful engines could have been addressed in the development period of the "SE".


There's a lot of challenge to this, and it's usually not obvious from the outside looking in. Redesigning military aircraft is incredibly difficult to do, much more so than starting from scratch because you have to accommodate the stuff that's already there. If the new engines have any different geometry, then it could be a very big challenge to modify the aircraft to accept it. Alternatively, there could be weird stuff about the airframe that introduces restrictions onto the engines (like the 737. Its gearboxes have to be moved from the bottom of the engine because the landing gear on the aircraft was too short to fit that without bouncing off the ground. It's why the underside of modern 737 engine pods looks squashed) that cause problems. The point here is that it's not cut and dried putting new engines into old aircraft.

Unless you're Russian.


Does that make the "SE" a stop gap? A temperary solution?


More like a quick pitch to make some sales. It's nonetheless a neat idea, and I think there is an American market for upgrading an F-15E like they did with the F-18E/F super hornets versus the F-18C/D. I don't believe that the SE is the answer, but I wouldn't be surprised if a more comprehensive airframe update would start turning some heads.


A sign that a second version of the 22 is "an option" for down the road.


Some clarification: The F-22 is not like the F-35 in that it will not be sold. It has not been approved for export, and thus cannot be offered to other countries (despite some of them really wanting it: Israel, Japan). The only demand for a new version of an F-22 could be from America itself, and that would only be to equip it with some capability that the F-22 does not already have. I don't believe we've progressed far enough down the technological line to warrant a new variant with whatever technology comes out, radar, weapon system, and whatnot.

Pr0



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


Yup, makes sense...The reason I have this swinish suspiscion goes back to Gates and his contradictory statements regarding the F-22.( I know it's illegal to export the raptor, yet that can change, Japanese, Israeli and Australian interest was apparent even with the "law" on the books)

First, Gates says the Raptor is "obsolete" , then maintains we won't export it. Uh, OK, if it's obsolete, why not export it? create jobs, decrease unit costs for the U.S.?? This "opinion" overlapped two administrations. As this view was shared on both sides of the "Isle", then the only agenda that makes sense is Corporate, not political.

The finger can only be pointed to LockMart. err, heed.

Sure the political/economics aren't there right now, but with say sufficient export pre-orders and pressure to avoid allies buying Paks or J's,(after all, we have the 22 as the "tip of the spear" for the 35s, our allies, esp. Japan and England do not),it's not an impossible scenario, especially with a change in administrations.

Maybe, not "front-burner", but a possible option. OK, I'm done over-thinking this.LOL Who knows?



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
In reverse order:

The politicians don't like the F-22. I don't know why they don't, I just know they don't. They want to get rid of it, and replace it with something else, probably F-35s.

As for the F-15SE, it's designed to give countries that might not necessarily be able to afford an F-35, a semi-stealthy platform that might be more survivable than their other F-15s or whatever they fly, based on the F-15E. The Strike Eagle is one of the better bomb trucks out there still. I've heard it's got a hell of a low level ride because of wing loading, but it's a hell of an aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join