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

reply to post by Zaphod58


OK, I guess I misunderstood "redunancy". I had thought the F-22 was loaded with it.

reply to post by nwtrucker


It has some redundancy, but military aircraft are built to be as bare, and as streamlined as possible. It doesn't have any more redundancy in it than it absolutely needs to have. There are some systems on the aircraft that can be made to do things they weren't really meant to, but it's not like a civilian plane that has four systems to do the same thing, with three backups.

reply to post by Zaphod58


OK, I've got it now. One more dumb thought put to rest

I assume you've read that "career-ending" report by the F-22 driver that criticized the AF for stressing supercruise instead of longer legs, etc. That as tankers can't keep up with a raptor on supercruise, the Raptor is restricted to the tankers speed.(unless he's meeting the tanker somewhere well in advance of him) As any fighter can keep up with it's tanker and you don't use SC in ACM, is it overrated? ( Other than forcing the opposition to burn more fuel to intercept?)

Likewise TV. Overrated considering developmental cost? Other than at extreme altitude and high alpha?

reply to post by nwtrucker


Yes and no to both. Supercruise will be handy in a situation like force protection. If an AWACS comes under attack, the F-22 can come off a tanker, and supercruise to the area, and get there ahead of other fighters, and have more fuel to loiter than an F-15 that makes the same supersonic dash. So it all depends on the situation you're talking about. Normally, you aren't going to use it much, but it can definitely be useful.

Same with thrust vectoring. Theoretically the F-22 won't get into many WVR fights (it's going to happen, but they'll try to minimize them), so thrust vectoring isn't really necessary, but when they do get into a WVR fight, it will come in handy to an extent.

Originally posted by nwtrucker
Just a dumb truck driver making a fool of himself.LMAO

I think we've all seen a lot dumber people on ATS than you. The fact that you're taking our posts into account prior to making another one is a pretty large step over some of the ATS community. Keep posting.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It has some redundancy, but military aircraft are built to be as bare, and as streamlined as possible. ...but it's not like a civilian plane that has four systems to do the same thing, with three backups.

For an elevator, your factor of safety is about 10. That is, it can hold 10 times more weight without breaking than its stated maximum. For civilian aircraft, I have been told that they have a factor of safety of about 1.25 to 1.75. That's a lot smaller. I'm pretty sure we can imagine where that will go on a military aircraft.

Theoretically the F-22 won't get into many WVR fights, so thrust vectoring isn't really necessary, but when they do get into a WVR fight, it will come in handy to an extent.

But it does make for some great airshow material and Youtube vids.

reply to post by Darkpr0

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by nwtrucker

 

Yes and no to both. Supercruise will be handy in a situation like force protection. If an AWACS comes under attack, the F-22 can come off a tanker, and supercruise to the area, and get there ahead of other fighters, and have more fuel to loiter than an F-15 that makes the same supersonic dash. So it all depends on the situation you're talking about. Normally, you aren't going to use it much, but it can definitely be useful.

Same with thrust vectoring. Theoretically the F-22 won't get into many WVR fights (it's going to happen, but they'll try to minimize them), so thrust vectoring isn't really necessary, but when they do get into a WVR fight, it will come in handy to an extent.

I've yet to do the calculations myself but claims have been made that TVC reduces the need for control surface deflection during trimmed flight (reduce drag) as the nozzles can be trimmed themselves, and also by mitigating the loss of pitch control authority at high altitude.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
For an elevator, your factor of safety is about 10. That is, it can hold 10 times more weight without breaking than its stated maximum. For civilian aircraft, I have been told that they have a factor of safety of about 1.25 to 1.75. That's a lot smaller. I'm pretty sure we can imagine where that will go on a military aircraft.

From what I've heard, with the F-22 the wing strength is really good, until you get to the outer wing section. It uses a lot of titanium and composites. I'm not sure if they ever changed it (I don't think they did), but I believe they removed the four external tanks requirement, and lowered the weight rating for the outboard stations. The only way they can do it now is to put a 330 tank out there, but that would require certain changes they apparently didn't want to make.

reply to post by Pants3204


Certain configurations of engine nozzles also give you reverse thrust (see the AFTi F-15 that NASA flew), which significantly reduces your landing area.

reply to post by Pants3204


I couldn't place Pineside-laketop Az. googled it. The closest I've been is Slow Low. U.S. 60 isn't ideal trucking, I can imagine what 260 is like.

You are a bit "remote" . Kind of reminds me of the North Idaho communities or Central Alaska....

Like everywhere else, a little more populated these days?

reply to post by nwtrucker


Follow the 260 south from Show Low a couple miles and you'll end up in Pinetop-Lakeside.

Haha yes, and unlike Show Low we're predominantly a tourist town. Busy in the winter because of skiers, and busy in the summer because some folks prefer our mild seventies to the 100+ of Phoenix/Tucson.

reply to post by Pants3204


Yep, the "high" side of Az is about the only part worth living IMO.LOL. It's been about 20 year since I blew through Slow Low.

Living in Washington State on the coast, 75 or so is about as hot as it gets...my comfort zone.

You ex-AF?

reply to post by nwtrucker


Nah, I'm currently a student.

My ambition is to eventually handle these aircraft in one way or another though, whether it be AF or at a contractor.

reply to post by Zaphod58


The huge advantage the F/A-22 will have is the EM Field that hides the Raptors Heat Signature. The aircraft is near impossible to target on Radar and with this ability to avoid a Heat seaker lockup...the only possible way the Eurofighter will have to down it is in close line of sight Dog Fighting.

Then again...the Raptor is no slouch there either.

Split Infinity

reply to post by pronto


I'm not surprised. These guys are in it 'to the death', and that's like, when they're just 'playing', the F-22 is a 'stealth' aircraft, but stealth works best in a MASSIVE EW environment. I would expect the Typhoon to shoot down an F-22. and vice versa. It's why they call it 'air combat' I guess. I know I'd love to see it. When they say the Typhoon has 'care free handling' that's an understatement, in close, guns only, the guy who shoots first is going to win. The Typhoon is a MASTER of in close guns only! Have a great day!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ThePeaceMaker

 

The F-117, the B-2, and the F-22 all have systems that you aren't going to ever hear about, that make them stealthier than their normal RCS, when they're flying from point A to point B. The B-2 that was locked on by a Rapier was flying into an airshow, and didn't have anything turned on.

And had its metal landing gear down, perhaps?

Stealth is low-cross section, not invisible. No such thing there is outside the Romulan Empire.

Close enough, with high enough power, a 'low observability' craft will be observed. In practice they operate in a certain way in a hostile environment knowing their performance and capabilities and limitations.

If they can be detected at 15 miles and targeted at 8 miles by a SAM site, e.g. but the bomb or missile directed at the SAM site already was dropped 10 miles out and the craft turns away, the aircraft wins.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
The huge advantage the F/A-22 will have is the EM Field that hides the Raptors Heat Signature. The aircraft is near impossible to target on Radar and with this ability to avoid a Heat seaker lockup

No such animal, sad to say.

One often uses something like panther piss for that sort of thing.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


The F-22 in WVR has just as much chance of losing as just about any other aircraft out there. In fact in informal BCM with the Luftwaffe, the Typhoon held its own quite nicely against the Raptor.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Just finished an extraordinary thread on F-16.net. It's "the F-35 will never match the Eurofighter". An enlightening read.

A couple of points I picked up that I'd like to comment on:

Darkpr0, What I get is the F-35 is a deep strike fighter. An SU, any variation will not be capable of surviving advanced and still improving SAMs and AA in a deep strike role.

Also, a deep strike platform needs it's own "stealth' to avoid those same defenses itself. A Raptor isn't capable of protecting a 35 or an SU from surface defenses directly. Yes. the 22 can be used in an attack role, maybe even more capacity with externals due to it's bigger wings-at the cost of it's stealth. But then that's the job of the 35.

I guess it comes down to just what the required capablities your gov't wants.LOL. Does Canada need that kind of platform, other than NATO roles. The 35 apparently, matches both the F-16 and F-18's capablities and exceeds them despite the "downgrades". The amount of the "exceeds" dropped with the downgrades.

An SU will not survive Russian top-tier missles, just ask the Russians.LOL.

1v1 is highly unlikely/rare as the F-35 is intended to be used more in a Red Flag/mutiple packages.

Actual "bench thrust" is 55k for the F-135 engine. In the airframe, 50K. (Which is what I heard from an LM employee) Engine rebuilds are more frequent and fuel burn gets way higher, though.

As "bean-counters" are the buyers, the performance is based on 44K. The plane is capable of exceeding the G rates CTR and ITRs as well. Also, the "Block6"? engine will be ready when the production hits high numbers... end of the decade. Apparently, 20-25% better thrust and fuel economy!!(Please note the high production number date,(est.) do you think the Pak is any further along than the 35?...

Anyway a great read...

It looks more and more that the direction of the 35 fits perfectly with U.S. assets. The 22s, great tanker support, etc. The question is is the 35 as well protected or applicable for alled use?

OK, Japan could use em against China and would probably need them to be effective. Britian has the EFs, not that they're deep strike capable as a 22. Canada? Australia? Good question.....

Originally posted by nwtrucker
Darkpr0, What I get is the F-35 is a deep strike fighter. An SU, any variation will not be capable of surviving advanced and still improving SAMs and AA in a deep strike role.

There are a fair few decent arguments that an F-35 will not survive those improved SAM sites either, as the Russians have been putting a great deal of effort into radar systems that are capable of tracking stealth aircraft better than the usual wavelengths. The actual status of these projects is debatable but the fact is that they have put their minds to it, and they do have a tendency to get results.

Also, a deep strike platform needs it's own "stealth' to avoid those same defenses itself. A Raptor isn't capable of protecting a 35 or an SU from surface defenses directly. Yes. the 22 can be used in an attack role, maybe even more capacity with externals due to it's bigger wings-at the cost of it's stealth. But then that's the job of the 35.

There are simply far better deep strike platforms than the F-35. If you have something deep behind enemy lines that needs to be turned into a crater it's hard to go wrong with a B-2 strike or a B-1B (if appropriate). The F-35 as a stealth bomb truck has some significant limitations in its stealth being less effective than the F-22's (ie it will be more easily engaged, and you do not want to lose your ordinance before getting to the target), and its payload (Better hit the target the first time). I guess I just don't see the F-35 as an appropriate substitute for the dedicated bomber assets the USAF has to take care of targets that are difficult to get at. I see it even less appropriate to depend on for Canada's (and others') ability to take on those missions.

Does Canada need that kind of platform, other than NATO roles.

This has been the subject of considerable debate.

It looks more and more that the direction of the 35 fits perfectly with U.S. assets. The 22s, great tanker support, etc. The question is is the 35 as well protected or applicable for alled use?

It is generally accepted that the F-35 has inferior stealth and A2A capability compared with the F-22, but superior A2G application on a readily disposable platform.

OK, Japan could use em against China and would probably need them to be effective. Britian has the EFs, not that they're deep strike capable as a 22. Canada? Australia? Good question.....

This has probably become obvious by now, but I don't personally believe that Canada has a place in deep strike missions when the US is so much better equipped to do it (Also, putting Canadian aircraft in high risk missions when we can barely afford the aircraft we have is just a bad plan). I just haven't seen good enough evidence in Canada's recent history to put as much emphasis on stealth as the politicians seem to. That is, I don't believe that stealth is so important to our mission profiles that it justifies hobbling range and payload with the F-35 when other readily available options have these in spades.