Forum: F-22A Raptor

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 - 09:20 PM Posts: 134

Thumper3181 wrote:

As far as I ‘m concerned most of you are missing Firefox’s points. The main one is that is it wise to put all of ones eggs in a single basket in this case stealth and not consider any other technology. Not once did I see him say that stealth was useless.

The problem is that the technologies that he has suggested have either proven to not be worth the additional cost in the past, or in some cases, are more or less worthless for combat to begin with. An example of the latter would be FSW, which he brought up several times and exemplified with a picture of the X-29. FireFox137, tell us why the USAF should embrace FSW on our aircraft instead of throwing out an arbitrary collection of features and capabilities that we could never combine into an aircraft that we could afford in any case (the F-22 costs enough and is already too good according to other critics).

Thumper3181 wrote:

That said what happens in 10 years? History has taught us that whenever a new weapon comes out that revolutionizes warfare a counter to it is quickly developed. Do any of you seriously believe that stealth will at least be compromised in the next 10 – 15 years? Maybe there won’t be a 100 percent effective counter but our AC will not be able to hide behind the cloak of stealth forever.

That's why the F-22 is a potent WVR fighter and why we're still developing increasingly sophisticated EW capabilities that work synergistically with stealth. The F-22 achieves a reasonable (and quite deadly) combination of stealth and maneuverability (the best the industry can accomplish at this time) at the cost of the kind of top speed that FireFox137 desires (although it does seem to dominate the supersonic regime in every way other than top speed).

The F-22 is used as an expensive guarantee (as close as we can get it) of our continued domination of the air, which allows the USAF to specify which capabilities they believe they need the most in a smaller strike fighter such as the F-35. It's even possible to argue that the F-35 is really all we need for all practical purposes, but the USAF is being more careful than that, insisting in the strongest possible terms that they need the F-22 for its high performance interception and supersonic strike capabilities, as well. The F-35 is a compromise made for cost and numbers, which are still important no matter how capable your aircraft are.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Robert Cook I agree with you that Supercruise is a way of minimizing the threat. Speed is life. It is one of the reasons why I like the Raptor so much.

It certainly helps, and I for one don't blame FireFox137 for wanting even more of it, but the F-22's capability is the best that can be done at this time while balancing other capabilities. FSW certainly wouldn't help in this regard, which is one example of why I think we're having trouble fathoming exactly what he's getting at, and questioning his knowledge as he lambastes the F-35. If the F-35 is less capable in this regard, well, so is every other fighter, and what a strike fighter needs the most over current fighters is stealth and range (while maintaining good maneuverability to be prudent). Payload is important, but is useless without lots and lots of fuel. Speed is more expensive, and we need as many F-35s as we can get, so there you go.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Also I wonder if the AF is going to go with the Growler as well. Why reinvent the wheel?

That's a good question, and I presume that the most practical reason would be not having to support an additional aircraft type in an eternally strained logistics and support system. That's why they retired the EF-111A, and why the USN is retiring the EA-6B. Hopefully the EW equipment will have as much commonality as possible between these two platforms, which has pretty much always been the case in the past.

FireFox137 wrote:

But you cannot tell me that 20-30 years later we could not draw up aircraft that had those speeds and altitudes while be safer and more controllable. Case in point the Starfighter was blisteringly fast and had a doozy of of a ceiling but she was point and shoot bird. You can't tell me that 30 years later the USoA couldn't draw up a safer plane with that performance and also as importantly much better manuevering.

Physics is still physics, and the Starfighter was more or less a manned missile that sacrificed much for what it was good at. I'm sure that the Raptor, fully loaded for combat, could exceed its raw performance in most respects, although probably not in all, but that's impressive enough given the Raptor's other specifications.

FireFox137 wrote:

2) Someone said my hypothetical version of an ATF with 2.5 Mach cruising ability is not needed because she'd carry a lot of fuel and not be any good at A2A stuff. Well, pardon me, but how *much* fuel does a Raptor carry internally???

Not enough at 20649 lb. It should have a much larger capacity, in my opinion, but apparently had to sacrifice it for the performance that it does have. By the way, having full fighter performance straight from the runway exceeding that of other modern fighters while carrying 20649 lb of fuel is actually rather impressive, but not enough for what you want, in my opinion.

FireFox137 wrote:

For that matter how much fuel does a F-35 carry? No one's crying that they are flying gas stations that can't out turn a KC-135.

The CTOL F-35A, as currently specified, carries 18498 lb of JP-8 internally. It is designed to out-turn even the F-16 when carrying equivalent fuel and ordnance loads, but taken on its own and going just by the numbers, the F-35 is a bit heavy on fuel (sort of like the Flanker and its derivatives, I guess). Its actual performance remains to be seen as the first real F-35 development aircraft has yet to fly (planned for later this year), but I don't think that much more can be accomplished even with the technology we have today. Maybe what you should be complaining about is that the physical aspects of aerospace technology have not advanced at a satisfactory pace over the past several decades.

FireFox137 wrote:

3) Someone said that the F-117 is basically an aluminum bird. BINGO! She's got a low RCS. Why not build a bsically titanium (or some other nifty metal) low RCS birds with the high altitude high mach cruise ability???

Titanium is hard to work with and still really expensive. The F-22's structure already has to use an inordinate amount of it (40% by weight) to handle the flight loads that it expects to encounter as well as the heat that builds up in the aft fuselage during sustained supersonic flight. As far as I know, the selection of bulk structural materials used has little or nothing to do with stealth, but an optimized balance between strength, volume, resistance to battle damage, and cost. The resins used in the composites that make up most of the F-22's skin and leading edges are designed to withstand temperatures that the aircraft is expected to encounter within its flight envelope.

Obviously, I'm not disagreeing with the point you make about being able to use, for the most part, any material you want, but this also shows that the F-22 was deliberately not designed to cruise at really, really fast speeds for reasons other than stealth.

FireFox137 wrote:

There's been a lot of double talk in reading through everyone's posts. One person knocks my idea as being dumb because of fuel considerations and then someone praises the JSF for her large fuel loads. Excuse me, but, huh?

The F-35 has a lot of fuel for its size because of its range requirements, but even more fuel would be needed to make the speed you want practical, and would take away from the maneuverability of the fighter. The Foxbat and Foxhound both carry enormous amounts of fuel and can go very fast, but are not very agile, to say the least. You can't have the best of absolutely everything in one affordable package, although the F-22 comes pretty close in practical terms, and the F-35 is a very practical compromise design based on empirical data from combat experience.

FireFox137 wrote:

5) Someone says that high speed and high altitude stealthy supercrusies are defeatible. But then why the F-22? Hm? Wouldn't it be better to have an aircraft that can outrun a Raptor at all altitudes, and not only that but to be able to hit cielings that the F-22 can't touch? Then someone say's missiles can defeat such high cruisers so they are not needed. Then why is the Raptor one of those such cruisers?

It's a matter of achieving, within reasonable cost (arguable enough regarding the Raptor as it is), a blend of capabilities that are each sufficiently superior to the enemy's capabilities (not putting all of our eggs in one basket), and combine to create the most lethal, survivable air superiority fighter in history. About the only argument that you could make is that the F-22 should be at least as stealthy and a whole lot faster, severely trading off maneuverability as a necessary consequence. You just can't have everything you want--our technology is not advanced enough for that yet.

FireFox137 wrote:

Also, as I recall the SR was fired upon multiple times and never even scratched, so why wouldn't a more nimble and smaller aircraft with a smaller RCS and smaller IR be such a sitting duck?

It probably could have been shot down had it operated in areas that had the assets to do so.

FireFox137 wrote:

6) Someone says that my take on the ATF would not be manuverable. In the same breath someone says manuvering ain't needed that much anymore with our look-and-shoot missiles. Hello!

Maneuverability is becoming less important within visual range, although I guarantee that critics would be going crazy if the Raptor could not at least match its adversaries in this capability. The ATF needs to be superior in every respect in order to hedge against the unknown future. In any case, the comments about WVR maneuverability being less important were in reference to the JSF, which is not tasked with guaranteeing control of the skies.

That said, maneuverability is still important in the BVR realm, as the Raptor must be able to position itself to gain tactical advantage or be able to escape when necessary. While it does not have the level of speed you desire, it is superior to other fighters in this respect, and is designed to handily outmaneuver them in the supersonic regime.

FireFox137 wrote:

Also it would be possible and was possible to design the high speed cruiser that I envision the ATF should have been along with awesome manuvering abilties along with look and shoot missiles to boot.

Designing and engineering the F-22 was difficult and risky enough, so I disagree that your idea was feasible (maybe it would have been possible given unlimited funding, but that's moot). If you can do better, then you should have been working on such projects, but I would suggest starting an innovative design from scratch instead of using the F-16XL as a baseline. Rolling Eyes

FireFox137 wrote:

7) Most flyboys have pretty good educations, and they are very competently trained in their equipment. However, most of them... they are not full fledged scientists who know all that *some* people know about what is and what is not possible with airframes and engines amongst other topics as well.

They know how the real airplanes perform comparatively during flight, and one of the things that all F-22 pilots have stressed is that it lives up to its claims under real world conditions, which seems to be a novel, even shocking concept for them. Additionally, most of the anecdotal information we have so far has come from test pilots, most of whom are in fact engineers, and some of whom were also fighter pilots.

FireFox137 wrote:

F-16XL....... with a revised wing, new PW or GE engine (with vectoring), new intake, new JSF state of the art gizmos would stomp the JSF all day long as well as most of the Soviets stuff.

Could you be more specific?

FireFox137 wrote:

10) I appreciate the photos of the god awful ugly -16 with the humps on her. But compare one turkey of a bird to another? Don't see your point in all due respect.

I was just showing everyone that the F-35 is a more efficient design given the USAF's current range and payload requirements for their tactical strike fighters. The F-16XL accomplished much less, and so far you haven't described the revised wing that was going to make it cheaper and more capable than the F-35.

FireFox137 wrote:

12) Personally, I don't treat my posts with too much thought when I am writing since this is just one of many "stupid" websites.

I don't either, since this is just a hobby for me, but based on your attitude here, you must have a lot of time on your hands to waste....

F-16.net Sponsor

[quote="RobertCook"]

Thumper3181 wrote:

FireFox137 wrote:

F-16XL....... with a revised wing, new PW or GE engine (with vectoring), new intake, new JSF state of the art gizmos would stomp the JSF all day long as well as most of the Soviets stuff.

Could you be more specific?

FireFox137 wrote:

10) I appreciate the photos of the god awful ugly -16 with the humps on her. But compare one turkey of a bird to another? Don't see your point in all due respect.

I was just showing everyone that the F-35 is a more efficient design given the USAF's current range and payload requirements for their tactical strike fighters. The F-16XL accomplished much less, and so far you haven't described the revised wing that was going to make it cheaper and more capable than the F-35.

FireFox137 wrote:

12) Personally, I don't treat my posts with too much thought when I am writing since this is just one of many "stupid" websites.

I don't either, since this is just a hobby for me, but based on your attitude here, you must have a lot of time on your hands to waste....

I'll keep it quick since I am pressed for time.....

1) I don't have a hard on for the XL - Just looking at the US *needs* vs cost benefit. She's long dead and burried... No need to go into my $0.02 on that subject from so long ago.

Don't be ***so*** certain about the scientific and engineering capability within the US!!!! On that, I cannot emphasize that one enough if tried.

On that same topic there was no need to trade all out blistering speed and take anything away from what the -22 is today (in terms of range, payload, A2A, etc etc... w/o costing as much as a Spirit per copy pr even double that of the Raptor) You must remember this, and that is that are some blindingly brilliant and creative people in this country and not everything is published in Pop Sci, or is given to the current crop of flyboys in Colorado. That's why I can still sleep at night without getting an ulcer from what is commonly seen by most people. A little bit of higher up intervention now and then too has gone a long way towards our national safety.

Yeah, I suppose I do have time on my hands. When I'm not reading the blogs, I'm usually doodling on my blackboards or on my PC's.

Good day all!

Quote:

The problem is that the technologies that he has suggested have either proven to not be worth the additional cost in the past, or in some cases, are more or less worthless for combat to begin with.

Where I was going was not so much to have all of these capabilities in a single plane but to have two or three types of plane with different characteristics. Why do we have three very different types of bomber? We should do the same with fighters.

Quote:

The F-22 is used as an expensive guarantee

And for those part I agree. It's a good guarantee. The only way to improve upon it is to adopt a mix of AC that have different strengths.

Quote:

Hopefully the EW equipment will have as much commonality as possible between these two platforms, which has pretty much always been the case in the past.

The way things are now I think more than anything the budget is going to decide this one. Unless the AF can come up with something really cheap they are going to get the Growler too.

I am a big Raptor fan. I do not think we are planing on buying enough of them right now. I just am not so sure about the rest of the mix. That is the subject of a different thread. Hint (F-35 vs upgraded F-15 and UCAVs).

Quote:

Yeah, I suppose I do have time on my hands. When I'm not reading the blogs, I'm usually doodling on my blackboards or on my PC's.

Out of a severe case of curiosity what is it you doodle on those blackboards and PCs?

EBJet
I went to the URL you supplied. Interesting article. It never once mentioned anything about redesign of the B2 for low altitude penetration. It is all about the things they did early in the design process to mitigate the crappy low altitude characteristics of a flying wing.

Thumper3181 wrote:

I went to the URL you supplied. Interesting article. It never once mentioned anything about redesign of the B2 for low altitude penetration. It is all about the things they did early in the design process to mitigate the crappy low altitude characteristics of a flying wing.

Thumper, the very first paragraph under the Introduction discussed the wing redesign to provide good flight characteristics at high speed and low altitude.

I would also suggest that you read the March 27, 2006 Aviation Week, page 56 for an in depth history of the wing redesign.

Sorry Loflyn I reread the PDF including the paragraph you point out and it still says nothing about a redisign. They say that early on they realised that they would have to do certain things to make a flying wing a suitable low level bomber, but nothing about redesign.

Going from the B1-A to the B1-B was a real redesign. The A was built as a high speed high altitude bomber and was redesigned to be a high subsonic low level bomber.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 vs newer F-15 & F-16 airframes - And the real price