Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

While I don't have as many facts as everyone else here I do find Firefox more convincing than roscoe. Sorry Rosco, your signature block isn't really that impressive.

What is with the ad-hominem arguments lately? Uncalled for.

While I don't have as many facts as everyone else here I do find Firefox more convincing than roscoe. Sorry Rosco, your signature block isn't really that impressive. Like someone said noone is going to win this but something I remember at Nellis back in the 80's was the cute little demonstrations they had between different types of A/C. I saw many contests via the ACMI building. Every scenario was manipulated to ensure a specific outcome and in some cases failed to prove what they wanted it to prove. Example: When the F-18 came along for tests against various A/C at Nellis they were shot down quickly by F-5's, F-16's, F-4's and F-15's and rarely got to return engage before the session ended. Also they set up bleachers at the 1000ft marker of the runway to show dignitaries that yes the F-16 can take off quicker than the F-4, BUT what those dignitaries didn't know is the A/C configurations. OK now jumping to Desert Storm another fact is several F-16 flights were aborted because SAM suppressing A/C couldn't or didn't make it to the fight with these F-16's, now all that advanced technology the F-16 supposedly has over an F-4G DIDN'T allow it to continue it's mission, So I believe in that If there is no need for Stealth why does the gov't keep bating people into thinking we need it when Jamming proves more leathal and less costly? So in my opinion an A/C (non F-16) with the same capabilities as an F-4G is all we need now and in the future. An A-10 did more to affect the outcome of DS than any stealth A/C. This reply is non stealth so it should be hit quickly by engineering fodder.

What exactly is LOAN?

Ok, some pics didn't make it...... (Point being, just because some of us are not too thrilled the F-22 don't mean we're stupid nimrods that don't know a artists rendering from true blue capability)

So how, exactly, do you think we are 'inhibiting our future airframes capabilities' by including stealth characteristics? And please, no page-long diatribes - just a couple, specific examples...

Ok, JSF will be my example.

1) No supercruise capaability. Supercruise was left out allegedly for the skins and coatings on her.

2) Lack of manuevering (I know that remains to be "seen" but with the stuff we were drawing up 15-20 years ago, the JSF is an absolute turkey)

3) She's a fat cat: plain and simple in order to hide all her tons of fuel and small weapons load inside her frame. Fat and areodynamic and mortal enemies.

4) She ain't as stealthy as could have been.

5) A modernized and revamped F-16XL would have wipped the living daylights out of her in all of her missions. If "they" can make a somewhat stealthy F-18, then "they" (and trust me on this) could have made a much much stealthier F-16"F" complete with supercruise, long legs, awesome A2A, and would have also had the capability to carry conformally mounted SDB's and maybe even with a little fancy work on the "racks" would have been able to carry conformally mounted JDAMS and still supercruised. Of course it would have required a new rear end and air intakes and a few new bulkheads here and there (and some new skins), but it was highly acheivable.

Also, B-2 bomber. ...

ATF could have been a much much faster crusing bird as well if it weren't for the overwhelming cries for and RCS lower than the F-117. Aerodynamically, you can look at her and know that she won't hit Mach 3, and can't cruise at 2.5 Mach for significant periods of time due the the materials selections.

I'd gladly trade a slightly higher RCS for a fighter/bomber aircraft that had the 75% the capabilty of a SR-71. Imagine a force of a few hundred fighters that could cruise around 80K at 2.5 loaded up with the longer ranged AMRAAMS, complete the fancy dancy radar set that's "maybe' got an active cancelation mode. Sure she wouldn't be so "plastic" and not quite as stealthy, but I am VERY certain that stealth is fading into the realm of being not as fantastic as it once was 20- even- 10 years ago. Imagine such a beast crusing around at even lower mach numbers and hence reducing its IR signature with the abilty to launch her AAMs and bug out at SR-71 type speeds. It was do-able.

Stealth is defeatible and the other guys already have systems which can do that. Are they out there in quantity? I don't know. Are they out there? You bet on it.

I'll take you up on that bridge for sale,since you obviously have zero clue what the GLAS system does for the ride of the B-2 at low altitude and high speed...In fact,it does wonders at ALL altitudes,especially behind the tanker..I'd be more than happy to follow that Bone wherever it goes at low level,but the Bone is a wee bit faster,so I don't think I'd be keeping up for long..I won't need to stop at a gas station though You keep commenting on the wingspan being the determining factor in the B-2's ride,which shows me that you don't know near as much about flying airplanes as you think you do.

And no,GLAS itself is not classified,but the way it works on the B-2 most certainly is,so we won't be going into THAT little world.

The cow's ear however,is not for sale...

I thought we were discussing F-22, but okay, I'll bite...

Just wrong. Supercruise has nothing to do with skins or coatings. Supercruise and stealth are in no way mutually exclusive, F-22 should be proof of that, eh?
Again, just wrong. The JSF is designed to meet or exceed F-16 numbers for all meaningful maneuverability criteria. And if you start looking at real, go-to-war loadings (i.e. F-16 Cat-III, at least initially), F-35 is way, way ahead.
A) 'Small weapons load'?? That is just blatantly wrong. B) 'Fat'??? I must be looking at a different airplane than you. She ain't 'fat'.
True, but she is as stealthy as she is supposed to be. And she is way stealthier than any other fighter flying today (with one notable exception, of course).

This actually made me chuckle. Granted it has been a long while, but as I recall the supercruise capability of the original XL was somewhat limited. Start throwing more external stuff (even conformal) and it would likely go away altogether. "awesome A2A"? Not likely, if you mean anything that has to do with maneuverability. The closer you get to a delta wing the further you are from something that can maneuver agressively over any kind of envelope. By the time you spent the time and money to make all the changes you suggest (a few new bulkheads, etc) you basically have nothing of the original left, and would have been better off starting a new design from scratch. Even if you did all that, and it worked, you are still left with absolutely nothing for the Navy or Marines (not to mention the Brits and their money). You would still have to invest more money for the other services.

Not sure exactly what point you were trying to make with all this. Perhaps you were bemoaning the fact that the F-22 doesn't do TF? If that was your point, why do you suppose that is? It's because the AF has not invested $0.10 in adding that capability. The fact that it "doesn't" don't mean that it "can't". All it will require is for the AF to define the requirement and to send $$$ for the design, implementation, testing, and retrofit for the necessary mods. There is nothing inherent in the F-22 design that precludes it from being used in that capacity. Surprisingly, since LM has not been asked to add that 'feature' nor given money to do it, it just hasn't been done.

Again (and I do grow weary of saying this) - this is wrong. The design trade is not top speed vs stealth. The trade is top speed vs a whole slew of other considerations, including (but not limited to): maneuverability (especially lower speed handling and departure resistance), engine design (type/size/cost,cost and cost), structural material (not related to stealth), payload (fuel vs weapons), etc, etc. The additional cost (in both $$$ and other penalties) to designing to a speed above a certain 'knee' in the curve is just not worth it, stealth or no stealth.


What you describe is not a fighter at all, but a relatively large and unmanueverable high speed/high altitude bomber with ATA missile capability. I am having trouble understanding how to justify using the fuel to haul an AIM-120 up to 80K, just so it can fly 10 or 12 miles (straight down) before getting to the altitude where its likely target will be. (But then again, I have always lacked imagination.)


Stealth is defeatable, true. But guess what, so is speed and altitude. It is (almost) always easier to build 'counter' weapons than to build the original weapons. It's cheaper to improve radar networks to detect stealth than to build stealthy aircraft. It's also cheaper (much) to build an anti-aircraft missile that can fly higher and faster, with smarter onboard sensors and processers to better defeat countermeasures, etc. It's the cost of having an offensive capability.

I'm surprised FireFox hasn't brought up the "MiG-31" from Clint Eastwood's Firefox film. That thing went like... Mach 5 at low altitude. Awesome! Why the hell don't we have something like that? Fire rearward missile... must think in Russian...

I'm surprised FireFox hasn't brought up the "MiG-31" from Clint Eastwood's Firefox film. That thing went like... Mach 5 at low altitude. Awesome! Why the hell don't we have something like that? Fire rearward missile... must think in Russian...