Forum: F-22A Raptor

SpudmanWP wrote:

Neno wrote:

2)Hmm.. What else?.. develope a blended wing of AIM120 and AIM9 so that F-22 can carry 8 + 4..

Already on the way (looking for info)

Cool !!
Please , don't forget us when you'll find it ! Such news would change my day even if my favourite football squad just loose a match ! Cheers

SpudmanWP wrote:

strykerxo wrote:

Better yet, one B-2 solid state ABL.
range: 6500
weapon load: unlimited
sensor: multi-spectrum
crew: 0

Miller time Cheers

Would that be one bay for the ABL and the other bay for the reactor needed to power it Smile

The first time i read about ABL i got the same idea! Wink

so i'm pretty sure some other in USAF did.. So maybe one day we'll really see something kike that.

F-16.net Sponsor

I’m going to do my own simulation with Lock-on, X-plane and FSX. Bet I could twist it to say what I want.

[quote="Neno"]

SpudmanWP wrote:

strykerxo wrote:

Better yet, one B-2 solid state ABL.
range: 6500
weapon load: unlimited
sensor: multi-spectrum
crew: 0

Miller time Cheers

Would that be one bay for the ABL and the other bay for the reactor needed to power it Smile

The first time i read about ABL i got the same idea! Wink

so i'm pretty sure some other in USAF did.. So maybe one day we'll really see something kike that.

Estimated cost: Eleventy Billion Dollars.

strykerxo wrote:

Let's not forget the Flux-capacitor and the Klingon cloaking device.

and the 22's will be 5000 miles away, so they will have to use thier warp drive

That would be the Russian "plasma stealth" you're talking about. Laughing

Heres some more info from the RAND report. Claiming the F-35 is inferior in terms of "acceleration", "climb", and "sustained turn capability".

Thanks for image, FD. That hypothetical F-16AT variant, with perhaps a GE-132 (or why not stop there, drop in an F-119), would have an interesting position in that graphic?? Estimated at about 48 lbs/sq. ft. WingLoading? Although the drag could brake down on the sustained turns, the rate of climb would be impressive.. perhaps north of 70,000 ft./min?

FlightDreamz wrote:

Heres some more info from the RAND report. Claiming the F-35 is inferior in terms of "acceleration", "climb", and "sustained turn capability".

A few observations regarding this particular Rand slide.

First, thrust loading is usually defined as identical to the thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W), not the reciprical of it. Makes me wonder what kind of a background these particular Rand analysts really come from.

The thrust loading and wing loading that the slide claims for the Su-35 and MiG-29M are based on growth engines that do not yet exist in production, as well as reductions in empty weight from composite components which have not yet been demonstrated. Thrust loading and wing loading for the PAK-FA (which hasn't even flown yet) is even more speculative.

Finally, fighter performance is the product of an amalgam of properties, including:
- Thrust loading
- Wing loading
- Aerodynamic peformance; and
- Control systems

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the Su-35 and MiG-29 could hardly hope to compete with the F-35. Particularly in terms of their external stores arrangement, they are bleeding off performance precisely in those maneuvers where it is needed most.

I would argue that it is premature to declare the F-35A inferior to these or any other aircraft that are still in development. Especially given the advantages that the F-35 will have in sensor fusion and low observable technology, it will very quickly establish itself as a game changer - even if it does not have quite the same maneuvering performance as the F-22.

Still.... it is the old maxim; fight a boxer and box a fighter. It wouldn't be a historical moment the day came quantity beat quality.

Guess the Rand Corporation didn’t read F-35 comments by the pilot.
1. interdiction mission ready
2. fuel and weapons
3. take-off
4. climbing
5. turning
and still pulling away from the clean F-16, that had to engage AB to keep up.

The F-22 razzle-dazzle air-show act can be done with a full load. I recall the same things being said about the F-22, and then we saw the full up demo. Now the F-22 talk has turned to well it doesn’t flip around the sky like the Su-35. There is some aerodynamic and FCS magic that is not being accounted for in these studies. Doh

tmofarrvl wrote:

FlightDreamz wrote:

Heres some more info from the RAND report. Claiming the F-35 is inferior in terms of "acceleration", "climb", and "sustained turn capability".

A few observations regarding this particular Rand slide.

First, thrust loading is usually defined as identical to the thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W), not the reciprical of it. Makes me wonder what kind of a background these particular Rand analysts really come from.

The thrust loading and wing loading that the slide claims for the Su-35 and MiG-29M are based on growth engines that do not yet exist in production, as well as reductions in empty weight from composite components which have not yet been demonstrated. Thrust loading and wing loading for the PAK-FA (which hasn't even flown yet) is even more speculative.

Finally, fighter performance is the product of an amalgam of properties, including:
- Thrust loading
- Wing loading
- Aerodynamic peformance; and
- Control systems

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the Su-35 and MiG-29 could hardly hope to compete with the F-35. Particularly in terms of their external stores arrangement, they are bleeding off performance precisely in those maneuvers where it is needed most.

I would argue that it is premature to declare the F-35A inferior to these or any other aircraft that are still in development. Especially given the advantages that the F-35 will have in sensor fusion and low observable technology, it will very quickly establish itself as a game changer - even if it does not have quite the same maneuvering performance as the F-22.

Plus the data as the slide clearly shows was obtained from Janes and earlier in the presentation, Air Power Australia.

Organisations not exactly known for accuracy in their figures...

So, we have:

1. Conclusion A based on incorrect facts and speculative assumptions. (SU-30/35's "performance").

2. Conclusion B based on incorrect facts and speculative assumptions (F-35's performance).

3. An exercise which was NOT designed to assess the particular fighting qualities of ANY of the participants.

Yes, what a quality piece of research and what a telling indictment on the capability of the F-35...

Conan wrote:

tmofarrvl wrote:

FlightDreamz wrote:

Heres some more info from the RAND report. Claiming the F-35 is inferior in terms of "acceleration", "climb", and "sustained turn capability".

A few observations regarding this particular Rand slide.

First, thrust loading is usually defined as identical to the thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W), not the reciprical of it. Makes me wonder what kind of a background these particular Rand analysts really come from.

The thrust loading and wing loading that the slide claims for the Su-35 and MiG-29M are based on growth engines that do not yet exist in production, as well as reductions in empty weight from composite components which have not yet been demonstrated. Thrust loading and wing loading for the PAK-FA (which hasn't even flown yet) is even more speculative.

Finally, fighter performance is the product of an amalgam of properties, including:
- Thrust loading
- Wing loading
- Aerodynamic peformance; and
- Control systems

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the Su-35 and MiG-29 could hardly hope to compete with the F-35. Particularly in terms of their external stores arrangement, they are bleeding off performance precisely in those maneuvers where it is needed most.

I would argue that it is premature to declare the F-35A inferior to these or any other aircraft that are still in development. Especially given the advantages that the F-35 will have in sensor fusion and low observable technology, it will very quickly establish itself as a game changer - even if it does not have quite the same maneuvering performance as the F-22.

Plus the data as the slide clearly shows was obtained from Janes and earlier in the presentation, Air Power Australia.

Organisations not exactly known for accuracy in their figures...

So, we have:

1. Conclusion A based on incorrect facts and speculative assumptions. (SU-30/35's "performance").

2. Conclusion B based on incorrect facts and speculative assumptions (F-35's performance).

3. An exercise which was NOT designed to assess the particular fighting qualities of ANY of the participants.

Yes, what a quality piece of research and what a telling indictment on the capability of the F-35...

Air Power Australia should be taken with a salt mine when it comes to the F-22/F-35 debate.

Have to agree with Geogen and Sferrin (among others) I don't think the "experts" are taking the advantage of internal stores into account. And Air Power Australia is definitely biased in their viewpoints (the F-111 Aardvark is a maintenance NIGHTMARE, no matter what upgrades you put on it, its still an old airframe).

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Rand Report