Eurofighters at Langley AFB for joint training with the F-22s

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


OK, I think I've got it. Yet, doesn't any platform lose energy in high alpha maneuvers? If that's the case, then it's energy recovery that's the issue. I saw similar comments from the Germans with their EFs. The EFs are downright small compared to the Raptor and was touted as being more maneuverable from inception.

I guess my question is would this be the case against smaller planes like the EF and Raffy and not say an SU or even an Eagle? I would have thought that T/W wise the Raptor could recover faster from energy loss than the others. Of course with thrust vectoring, the 22 can achieve much higher angles than an EF, perhaps it's the higher angle that caused it rather than poor recovery.

In other words, if at equal high alpha, perhaps it's much closer, but if the Raptor is at a higher angle then of course it would take more to recover....bah, I don't know what I'm talking about...sorry.




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


Everything does, but like you said it's about how fast you can recover. The Hornet, and the Typhoon both recover quickly, where the F-22 seems to have a lag time between dropping the nose, and accelerating and getting the energy back. The higher thrust of the -119 doesn't seem to recover as quickly for some reason. I don't know if there's a spool up lag, or if it is so heavy that it takes a bit to accerlate.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


OK. Last dumb question for the day. On F-16.net, there was a thread addressing the possiblity of 22s operating off of carriers. There was a whole bunch of technical comments well above my ken, but no one mentioned how fast a 22 rotates after brakes release.

The early air show announcers would brag on getting airborne in under 1000 feet which is pretty damn fast. Now a Nimitz class carrier is about 1000 ft long. I was thinking about the Doolittle raid and the B-25s. Put the bow into the wind, flank speed added and the combination would give 50 knots plus.

A Raptor on the stern should be able to get up before reaching the end of the , cough, cough, "runway". The problem is getting them down. The "slow fly-by"/high alpha is impressive and perhaps there some way to put her down without busting stuff. failing that, tankered to a real air field.

Possible?
edit on 16-2-2013 by nwtrucker because: spelling error



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


It has a tail hook, so theoretically, but no. If you look at the Tomcat, and the Hornet landing gear, they're huge, and they're heavy as hell. Even at a low speed, high alpha, you're slamming the aircraft into the deck, and slamming on the brakes to get stopped. That means big beefy landing gear, and huge brakes. The F-22 landing gear, and airframe isn't stressed for that.

There's no real point to doing that though. Just send some tankers out with them, and you can get them anywhere a carrier could get them, and get them there much faster.
edit on 2/16/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


OK, That makes sense. Now the F-35 and the reductions of performance levels demanded by the Gov't.

Do I have this right? All it means is the development/upgrades are delayed. That, given funding or demands from, say, a Canada, that the platform will get to those performance levels and even higher, sooner or later?

In any circumstance is a country like Canada better off buying a Grippen or a Raffy instead? I see those options as a step backwards as the ultimate end result of the 35 will far, far exceed the result of any fourth or four and a half gen, fighter.

Is that correct?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
In any circumstance is a country like Canada better off buying a Grippen or a Raffy instead? I see those options as a step backwards as the ultimate end result of the 35 will far, far exceed the result of any fourth or four and a half gen, fighter.


Canada is, perhaps, a bad example as thus far in the procurement process the decisions made have been on political terms, not technical ones. The Gov't more or less said "we're getting the F-35 because it is the only aircraft capable of doing what we want to do," yet no one has yet been able to wring out of them the list of requirements. That, and the analysis of expected costs was found to be very faulty and, as a result, the F-35 purchase is under some fire. In all likelihood we will still buy the F-35, but the politicians are making the motions of looking at other options.

That being said, I would say that there are a great many plusses to getting a Gripen, Rafale, or Eurofighter instead of F-35's. Personally, I would consider it a great moral accomplishment for the government if they ate their words and ponied up for any of the above three. If they went and bought some Su-35s I would vote Conservative for the rest of my life in gratitude. All of these aircraft are knowns. That is, they have been flying for some time or are based on proven methods and, as such, the performance they offer is well-understood. You know what you're gonna get. The F-35, being in the state of development that it is, still has a lot of unknowns. Program objectives can get altered, delayed, or canned entirely between now and service, potentially changing what this aircraft can and cannot do. There may be other surprises in store (F-22 Oxy system, anyone?) that are yet unknown, but that older aircraft may have worked out. Ultimately, the F-35 offers a final product which may be superior to current options, but it does so at the cost of more risk. Risk can be a very scary thing for small militaries like Canada which do not have the resources to fill gaps which might occur from unexpected surprises.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


Darkpr0, I see your point. Risks of not fully developed technology vs the higher potential/lifespan of newer technology.

I disagree re buying SUs. The Russian development of the Pak-50 is pretty damning evidence that the current SUs are, or shortly will be, not capable of matching 5th gen technology. To a maybe a lesser degree the same applies to the EF, Rafale and Grippen.

The U.S. doesn't have a history of exporting turkeys that I know of.

I'd think the smartest move by Canada is slow the order rate/timing allowing later blocks with the inevitable upgrades and fixes already incorporated.

I'm guessing that LM will get the same treatment as the big banks and auto manufacturers did in the U.S. I.E. too big to be allowed to "fail". The bucks will be forthecoming for the full development of all three versions, if not this administration then the next....

As it stands, the threads I've seen on F-16.net have covered the pros and cons amazingly well. The consensus is even at the lowered bar, the intial version still exceeds the current CF-18s.

I was at the Abbotsford air show when the first F-18 flew into Canada from St.Louis. I visited with the pilot for a while about the plane, it's avionics etc. (Ican't believe how fast the time flies).

I'm honestly convinced that the F-35, in the long run is probably the right choice. It's not a given though...LOL



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
I disagree re buying SUs. The Russian development of the Pak-50 is pretty damning evidence that the current SUs are, or shortly will be, not capable of matching 5th gen technology. To a maybe a lesser degree the same applies to the EF, Rafale and Grippen.


The biggest advantage of the PAK-FA airframe is its stealth and electronic setup versus any of the Flanker series. The good news for Canada is that we have the stealth spearhead of the American Air Force in most scenarios. For those tasks that absolutely require stealth the F-22 and B-2 forces are simply better than whatever it is we eventually buy. Canada's role in Afghanistan and Libya (and, presumably, future actions) were limited to strike and patrol AFAIK. For those purposes, a Flanker or any other modern 4++ Gen would suffice very nicely. If anything, having an aircraft designed to operate from conditions just like Canada would be an asset. A huge ordinance capacity doesn't hurt either. PAK-FA offers these things as well, but with the added premium demanded by stealth and more advanced electronics.

Note: Wikipedia claims that the Su-35BM and PAK-FA actually have a very similar cost. I think this is crap. The Russians are a very savvy lot, but if they can make a full 5th-Gen as cheap as an upgraded Flanker I'll eat my shirt. I wholly expect that price to swell to at least 80-90 million a pop.



I'd think the smartest move by Canada is slow the order rate/timing allowing later blocks with the inevitable upgrades and fixes already incorporated.


The current serviceability of the CF-18 and the requirements for both homeland security as part of NORAD and our own commitments to NATO and UN are putting significant pressure on the air force. We simply do not have enough working airplanes to reliably conduct all the operations we need them for. Delaying the procurement of a replacement is only going to increase this pressure, and the system is not going to work better under that added strain. This is part of why I am so big on getting an aircraft whose capabilities are predictable: if things don't work the way we want them to, it will be very difficult to fill the resulting gaps.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


I see your point again, if U.S. becomes the spearhead with stealth with the F-22s-basically why the F-35 can be cut back for now- stealth becomes redundant in any NATO action involving Canada.

Then why not a SHornet or even the F-15 SE variant. Clearly superior engines and avionics/radar. Easily intigrated with U.S. forces, training wise and tacitcally.

The European assessments of the SU gave it a slight edge over the F-15. The SE variant, I'd guess would swing it back this way.

My understanding is the Indians have to ship the engines of their SU-30MKI back to Russia for repairs. Something that happens a lot more than with U.S. power plants. Amazing hours out of the F-18 powerplants.

Don't get me wrong, the SU is a beautiful bird, long legs, fast.

I guess it would frost me off seeing Canadian dollars funding the Pak-50. Something I'm not convinced will ever see production due to the mind warping costs of developing 5th gen. The Russians are finding that out now.LOL.
Even their watered down version.....



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by Darkpr0
 

Then why not a SHornet or even the F-15 SE variant. Clearly superior engines and avionics/radar.


In my mind the Super Hornet, 15SE, and Su-35BM are roughly equivalent in their capability. The reason I have been so big on the Su-35 in particular is because it is built and spec'd with the Russian environment in mind: it needs reliability in cold, crappy weather, and it needs to be able to withstand scungy, worn-out runways. It's a clone of what the aircraft will have to deal with up here. These are brutally tough aircraft and, if the CF-18 fleet is to be believed, we need aircraft that can tough out crappy conditions for a good, long time. The F-15SE and Super Hornet are both based on reliable platforms themselves but (and, yes, this is a gross overgeneralization. So sue me) American engineering tends to be extremely good in its element, but once conditions are no longer in the space defined by the designers, they tend to become problematic. Stealth coatings, advanced electronics, they are not going to be well taken care of up here. We don't have the logistical support to deal with things like that. IMO, the F-15SE and Super Hornet were designed by America and for America, where those things aren't going to be a problem, and so they don't have to take that into account. The Russians designers do, because they need systems which can be run and maintained from remote and potentially sub-par operations.

I do realize that there may be some logistic difficulties integrating Russian aircraft into a largely American system here, but I see similar woes with many of the other aircraft I would like to see in our service, and the Russians have shown themselves to be quite accommodating to those who are on the fence about purchasing their wares.



I guess it would frost me off seeing Canadian dollars funding the Pak-50. Something I'm not convinced will ever see production due to the mind warping costs of developing 5th gen. The Russians are finding that out now.


PAK-FA is already in pre-production at a pretty fair rate. I think you will see it in service before too long. The Russians have some things on their side when attacking this problem. Stealth is far better understood now than when the F-22 was in its design stages, and PAK-FA was never intended to be as super-stealthy as the Raptor to begin with. They made some canny sacrifices in some areas and are getting away with a substantially cheaper plane that can still compete. The program cost alone is a tiny fraction of what the F-22's was. Add this to some very interesting developments, such as the movable LERX and L-Band radars in the wing slats, and you have a very good aircraft for a stunning price. I think the current price estimates are quite low, but even if the price blows up by 30 or 40 million dollars per, it's still an absolute steal of an airplane.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


This one is a harder question. The answer is yes and no. You'll get some of it back as production matures. At some point, someone will come along, look at it, and say "Why don't we get rid of this widget, and move this doohikie over here." And the people that have been there from the start will go "Because......" and you lose 150 pounds. That gets you half a G, and a quarter second off the acceleration through transonic time.

As the production matures, and as they solve problems they'll find ways to get some of that back, but right now I don't see them getting all of it back. I think LRIP 8 or 10 we'll see it close, but it's already so overweight, and they've already removed systems that are sort of important to save weight, I don't see how they'll get rid of anymore. In fact it'll probably gain weight again some, as they put some of those sort of important systems back.

Out of all the aircraft mentioned prior to this, in my opinion, Canada's best options are the Super Bug, the Rafael, the Typhoon, or sticking with the Lightning. The Gripen is a good aircraft, but you're going to run into questions about production (can they build them fast enough to meet your needs), and engineering support. With the F-16 and other American aircraft sold overseas, the bases operating them have either a Tech Rep assigned, or have access to a Tech Rep from the company. The Gripen is, to date, in such relatively small numbers, the question is can they supply the same.

Right now, as much as I like some of the Su family, they're the last thing I would buy. They are having huge production problems. I haven't heard any with the T-50, but that also hasn't really hit big production numbers yet. The Su-34 on the other hand, has had such bad production problems that it's scary. They first entered service with the Russian Airforce in 2006, and as of December 2012, I believe there were 22 operational (it's hard to tell with Russian aircraft sometimes though). Of those, the first two are grounded, and the rest have problems from not being able to navigate, to not being able to use their radar.

Some of these problems are software (Sukhoi is blaming the maintenance people) but many of them are manufacturing. They can take two boards (the same boards) from different aircraft, and parts are placed in totally different places on both of them (sometimes on the complete wrong side of the board), and the soldering is far below standards. Sukhoi took pretty much the same line as Boeing took with the 787, and said "every new plane is going to have teething problems."



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Has there been issues with the CF-18s in Canada? I hadn't read/heard that.

Is there a real difference between an Alaska enviornment/north of 60 and Canada? Some pretty decent and unused fields up north from the cold war days if my understanding is correct.

Anchorage is fairly warm, but Fairbanks is as cold as most northern Canadian locales. (personal experience,LOL).

Seeing the Raptor first flew over 15 years ago and using that as a measuring stick to operational status, either the Russians cut some serious corners or it's gonna be a while...years.....if the money doesn't dry up in further/inevitable economic downturns.

There's about a 20 year gap between the Raptor's early years and the Pak-50. That's a lot of technology, time-wise that the U.S. has had to develope even more "goodies". Allowing the U.S. spends far more on R&D, it's a safe bet that the "upgrades" will be availiable for U.S. 5th gens by then. There'd better be, that is.LOL.

I just don't see enough advantages to go the SU/Pak route, just my opinion though.

There's no doubt that the gab has closed to a large extent. I suspect there's more to the 22/35 than is generally known and that the gap is still significant. Whether the cost factor/bang for the buck justifies it is still up in the air.

It'll be fun watching it all play out.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


The CF-18 has the same problem every other F-18 has (other than it's crap), short legs. The combat radius of a regular Hornet is less than 300 nautical miles IIRC, and the Super Hornet really isn't a lot better, for being 33% bigger. I think the Rhino is just under 400 miles for the combat radius.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nwtrucker
Has there been issues with the CF-18s in Canada? I hadn't read/heard that.


There have been no high-profile issues with the aircraft itself, the problem is that the infrastructure around them is not very good. Federal funding for the military is a pinprick compared to the US budgets, and it shows. If you've seen a CF-18 recently at an airshow you'll notice that they are ugly as all hell. They actually have the look of an old, worn out aircraft. There are score marks everywhere. Really disappointing to see.

The biggest thing I know of that we face is that Canada does not have very much available to arm these aircraft. Canada has some stores of AIM-7, 9, 120, and some GBU and JDAM, but the criticism I have heard is that we do not have enough of these to properly arm the aircraft. I don't have numbers, but it is something that keeps reaching my ears. The joke that we'll be tying guys to the wings with handguns is pretty familiar up here. Spare parts have also come up as being difficult to acquire, and if an aircraft is forced to land in a remote area you can imagine the nightmares involved in getting the parts to it.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
So I guess Darkpr0, has a point the SU's have much better legs. than an F-18, super or not.

If it's funding that's more the problem than the CF-18, then I don't see it any different with any plane they decide to go with.

Of course if Obama has his way, we'll have the same funding issues that Canada has.LOL.

OK, I've changed my mind. it doesn't make much difference which way Canada goes, at least from a Canadian viewpoint.

Does the downgrade of the F-35 put more pressure on the F-22s?

If I wanted to sabotage the USAF, I couldn't dream up a better scenario. If it's good, cut it. If it's so so, and there's gonna be lots of em, downgrade it. We can wait for the legacy units fall out of the sky.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


The Air Force is doing a good job of sabotaging itself already. It doesn't need any help. It's been going on since at least the 1980s or so. If you look at a timeline of CSAFs, every once in awhile, as a sop to the other commands, a non-ACC CSAF is appointed. It doesn't happen often though. Almost every single CSAF since the late 1980s/early 1990s has come up through fighters, which makes them the priority. Everything else gets back burnered.

The F-35 won't be bought in nearly the numbers they say they want. There are a couple of projects that you won't hear about for awhile in the works that will be brought into the light eventually I'm willing to bet, that are going to help backstop the F-22 (whether they see the light of day or not).



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


As far as the Pak-50 goes, there's a thread on F-16.net that links with "F-22ski just got later and more expensive" Dated May 2012.

Most of the data is from Indian sources, who have paid 3 billion,(so far) for the basic airframe development costs. Avionics not included.

Terminal structural cracks from low G maneuvering, with the less powerful SU engines, has added further delays with "mass production" dates pushed back to 2019. Add another five years, if they follow F-22 develoment time, to combat ready status.

Costs are now around 100-120 million per without avionic costs yet factored in. The delays also will increase the cost.

Apparently there's problems with the engine development as well.

That's why I feel the jury is still out on whether this even gets fully finished as advertised.

An interesting read, both the article and the thread....



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


Russian engines have always been problematic at best. I've spoken to several transport pilots from Russia that were excited as hell to be getting Western engines, because their engines were atrocious at best. One of them told me that before taking off, they sat on the end of the runway at full power, brakes locked, for 2 minutes. If none of the engines failed, they released brakes, and took off.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Gawd, that's funny.

I'm gonna propose, potentially, a really dumb thought. So don't laugh...LOL.

We've all seen the pictures of the "first" Univac, it's size,complexity, etc and how it all got smaller, more efficient as time went on and the Raptor has been described as a "computor with wings" many of it's features also "firsts" computing-wise, censor-fusion, fully intigrated avionics, not to mention the features that haven't been mentioned, does it not stand to reason that these "features" will also improve, get smaller, lighter?

Would that not make room for more add ons without a weight increase? Perhaps even lighten the airframe?

Here's the "dumb part". Until those refinements happen, how about an F-22 "Lite". Pull a bunch/some of that computing power out. Keep the data-links for BVR work, supplied by the "heavies" and now have a lighter, somewhat stripped down version that now won't have problems spooling up after high-alpha maneuvers.

Better T/W ratio, general maneuverabilty and, now, a level better than the rest, WVR as well as BVR. Say two light-weights in a flight of eight that goes in and finishes anything that survived the BVR engagement. The remaining heavies still supplying the data via links to the "Lites"?

Just a dumb truck driver making a fool of himself.LMAO
edit on 18-2-2013 by nwtrucker because: spelling errors



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


It's not a bad idea, but you can't lose the computing power. It needs every bit of computer power to keep it stable, and flying.

Block 0 was basic software, which consisted of something like 1.7M lines of code.
Block 1 consisted of 750K lines of code, and enhanced communications, introduced radar, navigation, and identification. (there were two sub blocks to this 1.1 and 1.2)
Block 2 consisted of 1.4M lines of code, and completed integration of the above systems.
Block 3 consists of 1.8M lines of code and completes weapons integration (there is a sub block to this code 3.1 which allows multiple targeting with SDBs).

One of the best descriptions I've ever read of military equipment was in a sci-fi book, but it nailed it right on the head. Military equipment is designed with zero margin for error. It has the bare minimum to do the job, and nothing more. If you tried to get a military aircraft accepted by a civilian organization, they'd be horrified.





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join