Forum: F-22A Raptor

Quote:

With respect, I believe politics are more complicated than that. Countries have vested interests not only in other countries, but in specific relations between countries as well. There are reasons that the US maintains a strong military presence in countries aside from the desire to protect those counties. The US military presence also signals that the US has a strong interest in the region and that they will balance the emergence of a regional competitor in the area. Therefore, the US military presence in Korea and in Japan isn't exclusively to protect these allies, it's a powerful message to China that the US is not handing over political influenece in that area. The US also gets something out of this: It gets to play a big role in a place far from its shores.

Exactly my point Mike. No country should have to rely on another country for its own self defense. We arent over there to 100% give them that. It is not more complicated than what I say at all, it just appears that way, but really relationships between countries are no more complicated than relationships between humans if you look at them that way. You shouldn't expect a human being to rely on another to protect themselves as well either, that is why we have laws to carry certain tools, OC10, Knives, Firearms where it permits.

Snypa, I can't see Japan using ANYTHING Russian, ever. It has not been apart of their culture. If we look at the history of Japanese fighter A/C we have the series of Mitsubishi and Kawakasi A/C, then the US built F-86, F-1, F-4, F-15, F-2. It seems that Japan is very confident in American weapory and since Japans opening in the 1850s it has been more interested in Western technology than others. The Eurofighter? Maybe... But I really see Japan trying to stick with US built fighters. There is also a sort of "anxiety" that the US bullies Japan around about stuff like that too.

-Aaron

F-16.net Sponsor

snypa777 asked:

Quote:

If Japan doesn`t take or isn`t allowed to have the F-22, what do you guys think of an alternative? Euro-canards? Hell, even SU-xxx?( probably never happen)...

This is how I see it: If they don't get the Raptor they will take an F-35 optimised for air to air combat (first option) or the Eurofighter Typhoon (second option) Rafale is better at A2G than the Eurofighter (as of now) but it isn't (and won't be) better at A2A and Gripen is too small for Japan's needs. Su-3X?... no way (the Russians are still holding some Japanese islands since the end of WW2, China has the Su....)

toan wrote:

The internal fuel of:

F-22A: 9,200~9.300 kg

F-35A: 8,200 kg+

F-35C: 8,800 kg+

Raptor has only 5~13% more fuel than JSF, but it has one more engine to feed, so it is very natural that Raptor's subsonic range won't be longer than JSF...........

The range of F-22 will become relatively impressive when it supercruises at the height of 40,000ft+ with the speed of 1.5~1.8 Mach+. JSF needs A/B to achieve this kind of speed, and the SFC of engine with A/B thrust is 2+ times more than the SFC of same enigine with military thrust.

My point exactly. I would predict that once you get the F-22 up high in the biz jet alts with super cruise pushing... that the range figures might not be public consumption for some time. Wink

TenguNoHi wrote:

Exactly my point Mike. No country should have to rely on another country for its own self defense. We arent over there to 100% give them that. It is not more complicated than what I say at all, it just appears that way, but really relationships between countries are no more complicated than relationships between humans if you look at them that way. You shouldn't expect a human being to rely on another to protect themselves as well either, that is why we have laws to carry certain tools, OC10, Knives, Firearms where it permits.

Snypa, I can't see Japan using ANYTHING Russian, ever. It has not been apart of their culture. If we look at the history of Japanese fighter A/C we have the series of Mitsubishi and Kawakasi A/C, then the US built F-86, F-1, F-4, F-15, F-2. It seems that Japan is very confident in American weapory and since Japans opening in the 1850s it has been more interested in Western technology than others. The Eurofighter? Maybe... But I really see Japan trying to stick with US built fighters. There is also a sort of "anxiety" that the US bullies Japan around about stuff like that too.

-Aaron

Japan has always been pressured to buy from the US ever since the end of WW2. I'm not sure how much this has to do with "choice" per se. Japan was ready to go ahead with an indigenious fighter of their own until they were more or less forced to develop an airframe based on the F-16. Then the US wouldn't release the FM software and the Japanese were forced to develop and certify this on their own which contributed to driving up the cost.

I think it's a slight oversimplification to equate the geopolitical climate of the East Asian Region by trying create an analogy that relationships between countries are no more complex then relationships between people. Japan's colonial attitude towards the entire region pre WW2 and leading through WW2 sticks in the minds of many. Imperial Japanese forces literally raped and pillaged their way through thousands of square kilometers. Additionally, the internment of Class A war criminals at Yaksukuni continues to inflame passions in China and Korea. This would be akin to interring top Nazi Leaders in Germany's version of Arlington and having the chancellor visit each year to pay respects to war dead.

An interesting aside, Japan and the U.S.S.R. never signed any declerations of peace at the end of WW2. Russo-Japanese hostility stretches back prior to WW2.

The F-22 can't achieve the touted 1,000 mile range while going supersonic. It cannot actually achieve supercruise while cruising. It can fly supersonically without afterburner, but it has to be at full mil power to do so.

LWF wrote:

The F-22 can't achieve the touted 1,000 mile range while going supersonic. It cannot actually achieve supercruise while cruising. It can fly supersonically without afterburner, but it has to be at full mil power to do so.

I've heard it publicly stated that the Raptor can do Mach 1.5 to 1.7 without burners. Are you saying that it has to use full mil power just to break the sound barrier, or just to get up to top speed without blower Confused

?

Quote:

The F-22 can't achieve the touted 1,000 mile range while going supersonic. It cannot actually achieve supercruise while cruising. It can fly supersonically without afterburner, but it has to be at full mil power to do so.

You're contradicting yourself here. Full military power is whithout afterburners and so therefore is supercruising while it's travelling at mach 1.82 ( Aerofax book on F22). The official statement is "greater than, or faster than mach 1.72 , while General Jumper stated " “Today I flew the Raptor at speeds exceeding (Mach 1.7) without afterburners,” General Jumper said." http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009594

Are you referring to the article about the fb22 that had the radius of 800 miles with a 100 mile supercruise at mach 1.5, the rest subsonic? http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2005/0105raptor.asp
Remember everything is still classified. We don't know what the raptor is doing at 80 or 90% power at altitude, where it goes into supercruise depending on conditions, altitude, weight etc. I would bet however the mach 1.5 figure from the above article isn't 100% military power though.

You're correct in that it won't be flying the whole mission at supercruise. I'd imagine those big engines use some fuel. JL Raleigh NC

elp wrote:

I have put a lot of thought into this even before this post. Many here know my contempt for most FMS deals.

But not why? I would be interested in your thoughts...

Perhaps I could have stated that better. It can achieve supersonic speeds without after burner but those speeds are not its most efficient ones for cruising. The true cruising speed (its most efficient) is subsonic.
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/doc/riccioni_paper.doc here's the paper I'm sourcing this from. This guy is highly anti-F-22, but he does his research and knows what he's saying.

No F-117 FMS sales
No B-2 FMS sales
No F-22 FMS sales

Stands to reason

No one ever said that supercruise is the ideal cruise speed, but if you want to get somewhere fast and have some fuel when you get there, it provides an option no one else has.

Why waste the money on F-22s? If anything, Japan should upgrade their planes even more.
F-15J to F-15S/MTD standard
F-1s and T-2s to a standard similar to the T-2 CCV
F-4EJs already have an upgrade.
F-2s (even though they're brand new) to a standard similar to the AFTI/F-16 (they had considered it, along with "Block 60"-style conformal fuel tanks).

Great argument for the crowd that believes in fighting parity type air battles.

Well why waste money on upgrades if you happen to have enough to buy new jets?
If Japan doesn't have money, than I don't know who has...
Besides why bother to upgrade F-1s and T-2s when they are to be replaced by the F-2?

Roscoe wrote:

elp wrote:

I have put a lot of thought into this even before this post. Many here know my contempt for most FMS deals.

But not why? I would be interested in your thoughts...

Hi Roscoe. Don't know if I want to go over it again Laughing

gets kinda old I guess. I could explain it at length again but don't want to sound like the wet blanket. I could site numerous examples but lets just look at some of the F-16 deals. Run a fine tooth comb over the Polish deal and tell me if deals similar to that ( on numerous other wep systems ) makes sense in an era where our budget is running on credit ( Walmart/China ) and all of the other odd ball financial irresponsibility going on. Get me talking on budgets / finance and it is going to get real ugly. Laughing

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Air Force plans to sell F-22As to allies