Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Quote:

The maiden flight was back in 91.

Calhoun, I think he was talking about the FA-22. The YF-22 flew back in 91, but I think many consider them to be substantially different aircraft.

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

The russians could never come up with a decent catapult system.

I'm sure they could,

but they don't need to have a catapult. Their SuXX are fitted with such tremendously powerful engines that they don't need no catapult. They can take off just using full military power setting, and climb at a very low speed.

ACSheva

Quote:

Apparently, you don't know much about the Raptor. The maiden flight was back in 91

Apparently you don't know much about raptor. The YF 22 had its maiden flight in '91. The F 22, in 1997. Here is a link to an article of codeone, the LM company's magazine (the best manufacturer magazine in my opinion): http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1997/articles/jan_97/jan1a_97.html

Actually, I do know quite a bit about the F/A-22, as I've been working them for a couple of years now as an avionics specialist.

Quote:

Actually, I do know quite a bit about the F/A-22, as I've been working them for a couple of years now as an avionics specialist.

OK, in this case perhaps you can enlighten us when the F-22 (not the YF 22) flew for the first time?

The first non YF (4001) arrived in a C-5 in early 97, so it must have been mid to late 97 before they actually got it out of the compound. And if you're curious when the first true F/A-22 flew, that would be early 2003 when they finally installed the gun on ac4002.

If you want to see an F-22 demo, go to the Edwards display after the annual Air Force ball. Edwards, the only place you'll see an F-117 doing rolls in a demo...

sheva, "you're sure they could" huh? What, did you go ask a few russian engineers? You must not of read the rest of the earlier post. Those catapults is what makes the US navy the worlds strongest, cause an aircraft can take off loaded down with weapons.

Hey slideshow

Here is my reasoning behind saying

Quote:

those russians could build a catapult system.

First as we know the Russians are known for some fantastic engineering accomplishments (k36seat-and the worlds most safest space vehicle souyz). Now, if you just take youre time to think about it you would know that if a country can build a first manned space vehicle than they also could build a decent catatpult system. Now why they didnt build one I dont exactly know, but my guess is that probably they dont need one. Their planes are capable of taking off freely. Common sense.

and

Quote:

Those catapults is what makes the US navy the worlds strongest

just the catapults huh?
the French also have catapults, are they also the strongest Navy?

Shev

ACSheva wrote:

Quote:

The russians could never come up with a decent catapult system.

I'm sure they could,

but they don't need to have a catapult. Their SuXX are fitted with such tremendously powerful engines that they don't need no catapult. They can take off just using full military power setting, and climb at a very low speed.

ACSheva

Wow theres a bit of guardhouse lawyering. If there planes are so powerful and dont need a decent catapult then why would they be planed for the proposed Ul'yanovsk Class of carriers (cancalled), a 75000 ton carrier as apose to the 67500 ton Kuznetstov class. Truth of the matter is that Kuznetstov was not equiped for the purpose of getting a conventional carrier in the water as soon as possible. And those Russian planes take off with half the warload or fuel at full augmentation, otherwise they go into the drink. The Climb rate on a SU-33 is lower then that of a Hornet and they only take off without burner if they arent loaded.

ACSheva wrote:

and

Quote:

Those catapults is what makes the US navy the worlds strongest

just the catapults huh?
the French also have catapults, are they also the strongest Navy?

Shev

There is a world of differnce between a 40000 ton carrier and a 97000 ton Nimitz class carrier. Even our Kitty Hawk Class (conventional) are 80000 tonners. You might want to think about what a differnce in deck space and aircraft complement that can be. Simply the number of aircraft on the deck limit the capabilities of both the French/Russian/British/insert country here's Carrier wings. Without a sufficent number of aircraft to Guard the Fleet, refuel your aircraft, and monitor the battlespace (something the Russians cant do as they dont have an equivelant to the E-2) you cant even dream of being the massively effective 911 answer that is an American CBG.

No, he was right. The maiden flight of what became the F/A-22 was 1997. The YF-22 prototype (which is really quite different from its operational sister) first flew in 1990.

The 12:1 Navy, post-TOPGUN Vietnam kill ratio is quite true. That's basically over a 2 1/2 year stretch from mid-69 to the end of air combat ops in Nam. The Navy's kill ratio for the entire war tells a different story of course. As far as our overall performance in Vietnam goes, it was tactics forced on us by politicians that got our planes shot down, NOT our pilots' "inferior capabilities". Blame LBJ, Robert McNamara, and the "Bomber Generals", not our pilots or aircraft.

I like what someone up there said about 2 or 3 Raptors being the same amount in $$$ as the entire defense budget for some countries. Even more than that, however, just 2 or 3 Raptors is more than the GNP of many countries that we could possibly face in combat!

Folks, think about this for a moment. If you don't have the money to spend, you end up with inferior equipment. If you don't have the money to train your pilots, you wind up behind the curve compared to the Americans, who not only train our own pilots, but several allied countries as well! We also have the most sophisticated command and control (AWACS) and (here's another real kicker) AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE!!! Giving credit where credit is due, it's the maintainers that keep the birds in the air. Some countries resort to little more than jerry rigging and duct tape! If you don't have the money to keep your birds maintained, then they will be a multi-ton paperweight when it comes time to fight.

Oh yeah, and to some of these "experts" shooting from the hip (and you know who you are) it's very evident to me the different levels of experience with the subject that I see on this thread. If you don't know, that's ok. That's one reason why people who do know are here, so we can swap "war stories" and so you can learn. If you are going to post, however, I'd suggest doing a little more research before posting some of these exaggerated claims. Read some books on the subject, talk to pilots and maintainers (on this site, I'd especially recommend talking to Gums), even watch Discovery Wings. Please don't base your "aviation expertise" off of watching Top Gun and Iron Eagle. Rolling Eyes

You wind up sounding more like Cliff Clavin, rather than someone with an aviation background.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

TC, well spoken.

I see another topic rising from your wise words: Viper Maintenance Statistics

Quote:

The 22 is just an entire leap forward in terms of capability. Is it "invincible"? I don't think so, but neither has any country fielded a fighter that has the capabilities that the raptor does, regardless of how much you might want that to not be true.

The Air Force has been given the impression that the F-22 is Invincible. In the end it will come down to the one thing that ALWAYS matters in aircombat. WHICH side has the better trained and more flexible pilots.
And what is the scenario of the war they are going to be fighting in.

OK, most people agree that this topic has been beat to death now, so I'll lock this one. Feel free to start up a new one with a similar subject if you feel like it.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

General Jumper on Raptor vs. Russian technology