Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Quote:

Sorry, but those arguments dont hold any water, and invariably, you still need to replace 3 platforms which are aging too much.

Even if I accepted your argument (which I don't) it seems to me we could have come up with something better than all it excels at is CAS.

I will let you in on a secret. The AF has tried to kill the A-10 many many times. First right before GW1 and then before Afghanistan. They wanted (because the AF is full of fighter pilots) F-16s to do the job. Well they found out it really is not much of a replacement for the A-10.

The army (legal issues aside) would take the AH-64 over the JSF any day. Reason is the helicopter can do so many things the JSF cannot and survice doing it. They also cost only around $3M as opposed to JSF $60M.

Even in CAS there is a better more cost effective substitute for the JSF.

Quote:

How many F-16s have insurgents shot down so far? How many AH-64Ds? UH-60s?

How much more CAS do army helicopters do in place of the F-16. If you are a grunt who would you rather have supporting you? someone in an AC designed specifically for CAS with a pilot who all he trains for is CAS or some F-16 zoomie who does CAS as an after thought?

F-16.net Sponsor

I would have to say.... since fixed-wing aircraft did the bombing of Zarqawi, and that PGMs from said platforms are the preferred form of support, then fixed-wing aircraft do the majority of work.

Even so, we dont need just a CAS platform, but a precision strike one as well.

Quote:

The army (legal issues aside) would take the AH-64 over the JSF any day. Reason is the helicopter can do so many things the JSF cannot and survice doing it. They also cost only around $3M as opposed to JSF $60M.

Duh! NO REALLY???? I only brought it up since you mentioned helicopters being more survivable and better CAS platforms.

Quote:

I will let you in on a secret. The AF has tried to kill the A-10 many many times. First right before GW1 and then before Afghanistan. They wanted (because the AF is full of fighter pilots) F-16s to do the job. Well they found out it really is not much of a replacement for the A-10.

Hey, I like the A-10... but you cant be naive and think it will: A. last forever, and B. be replaced with something comparable.

In the end, the JSF with its plethora of advanced sensors, communications, stealth, etc. It can provide adequate air support using a variety of guided weapons. More so in situations where stealth is not required.

The A-10 will be in until 2028 (I believe) so we don't have to worry about that gettin retried too soon. By the time it's retired there may be a paradigm shift in something: the way CAS is done, what you're doing CAS for, etc. We may also have a true replacement for the A-10 by then, no offense to any other aircraft, but nothing can do it like the Hog. Maybe they can put the GAU-8 in a UCAV. We can't predict the future of these things, we can only prepare for some things and hope they pan out. A change in tactics can also bring about change in effectiveness.

The A-10 has been "promised funding" until 2028, you can read into that any way you want. We (the A-10 depot) are in the process of a major upgrade to the A-10 that turns it into an A-10C. It gives the aircraft some much needed capabilities.

2028 still isnt lasting forever. And there has already been a major shift in CAS.

The F-35 can perform the same CAS role the F-16 fills. It can fire the Maverick, the Brimstone, and the JCM. It can strafe ground targets with a 25mm gun, and so on...

But these days, most CAS is performed from 30K feet using Electro-optical sensors (FLIR) and GPS systems.

skrip00 wrote:

Thumper3181 wrote:

Today Skipr the F-22 is cleared to carry 1000lb JDAMs (the very same ones the F-117 used and 250 Lb SDBs.

What IDS class target cannot be effectively addressed by these two weapons?

Today, the F-22 is cleared and is flying with more weapons than the JSF. That is a fact.

Skipr you are clutching at straws. You can get the same penetration from a 1000lb bomb launched at M 1.5 and FL60 as you can from a 2000 pounder dropped from a JSF.

Quote:

Nor does it have provisions for a FLIR/Laser Designation system, and even downlinking of target imagery to friendly units. Nor does it have an SAR for precision target mapping.

Again you failed to read what I said. The only reason why Raptor would not have it is $$$$$. It's bolt on stuff.

And the "bolt-on stuff" aint as easy as you say.

The F-22A's design is pretty much set. Making changes like adding EOTS, etc. would result in the creation of a new F-22 version (F-22B), which, without any structual changes, still has a limited internal bombload.

In the end, the F-22A has one job, and a job it can moonlight every now and then. 1. Air-superiority. 2. Interdiction of fixed enemy assets.

The F-35 fills all the strike roles that the F-22A was never designed to fill.

Skipper is clutching at straws here with the beloved (cough!) F-35. If by moonlighting he mean taking over for the F-117, then that's a hell of a 2nd job it was allegedly not designed to do.

Truth is the F-35 is a 2nd rate plane compared to the F-22 in all aspects. Truth is that the F-35 only costs less than the F-22 because the F-35 is essentially a lesser capable single engined spin off of F-22 technologies.
Its engine, airframe, radar... all derivatives of the technologies pioneered by the F-22.

Now I've read from another AF general that the F-35 *will* suffer structural heat damage to the airframe if it's fuel levels drop too low because of all the weight shedding that the F-35 has done has left it a relatively weak (mechanically speaking) airframe. Couple that with F-35's landing on carriers when already the aircraft will be low on fuel as a matter of need.... Suppose said F-35 misses the carriers wires altogether and now the pilot needs to go around... Now he's got to be worried about "melting" the rear end on the F-35 because there's not enough fuel to soak up engine heat.

This F-35 is shaping into a real turkey.

FireFox137 wrote:

Now I've read from another AF general that the F-35 *will* suffer structural heat damage to the airframe if it's fuel levels drop too low because of all the weight shedding that the F-35 has done has left it a relatively weak (mechanically speaking) airframe. Couple that with F-35's landing on carriers when already the aircraft will be low on fuel as a matter of need.... Suppose said F-35 misses the carriers wires altogether and now the pilot needs to go around... Now he's got to be worried about "melting" the rear end on the F-35 because there's not enough fuel to soak up engine heat.

This F-35 is shaping into a real turkey.

So maybe we can adjust the combat radius of the plane by subtracting a thousand pounds or so of fuel. Toan? What do you get?

FireFox137 wrote:

Skipper is clutching at straws here with the beloved (cough!) F-35. If by moonlighting he mean taking over for the F-117, then that's a hell of a 2nd job it was allegedly not designed to do.

Wow... a real *tough* job there! Just drop two bombs on some well-established target... boohoo.

Quote:

Truth is the F-35 is a 2nd rate plane compared to the F-22 in all aspects. Truth is that the F-35 only costs less than the F-22 because the F-35 is essentially a lesser capable single engined spin off of F-22 technologies.
Its engine, airframe, radar... all derivatives of the technologies pioneered by the F-22.

Oh my god!!! You must bring this damning evidence to the American people quickly! They must know the truth that has been hidden in front of their eyes for so long! How could they pull this fast one on us??

Also, no. The F-22A still has no FLIR, no EOTS, no SAR, no capacity for larger more useful weapons in its internal bays. So it isnt a worthy replacement for the F-35 in a strike role.

Good try again.

Quote:

Now I've read from another AF general that the F-35 *will* suffer structural heat damage to the airframe if it's fuel levels drop too low because of all the weight shedding that the F-35 has done has left it a relatively weak (mechanically speaking) airframe. Couple that with F-35's landing on carriers when already the aircraft will be low on fuel as a matter of need.... Suppose said F-35 misses the carriers wires altogether and now the pilot needs to go around... Now he's got to be worried about "melting" the rear end on the F-35 because there's not enough fuel to soak up engine heat.

Oh really? One of your "pals" in the aviation community I guess?

Wow... that "weight shedding". Geez. Do you even know what changed and with which variant?

First, the F-35B is the only variant which had exceeded weight requirements. (Not the F-35A or F-35C).

Secondly, they saved weight by re-engineering the wing-fuselage mating joint so that assembly is easier, weight is saved, and structual integrity improved or within design specs. In addition to this, the F-35B's internal bays were made smaller, and engine thrust increased. Weight issues solved. The F-35A and F-35C benefit from these immensly without much adverse consequence.

Third, if an aircraft has burned all its fuel off to the point where there is no heat dissapation (which makes no sense), then wouldnt the pilot have to worry about crashing due to his engine stopping rather than his plane breaking on landing from heat damage resulting of an engine which has run out of fuel?

FireFox137 wrote:

Now I've read from another AF general that the F-35 *will* suffer structural heat damage to the airframe if it's fuel levels drop too low because of all the weight shedding that the F-35 has done has left it a relatively weak (mechanically speaking) airframe.

Just wrong. Just flat out wrong. Circulated fuel is used, (just like on the F-16 and F-22 (and I can only assume on non-LM fighters as well)) to assist cooling of 'subsystems' - not structure. Nobody cools aircraft structure with circulated fuel. Bang Head

Subsystems are smart enough to know to shut themselves down if they start to get too warm, so you get subsystem shedding if cooling flow is inadequate. F-22 had issues with adequate cooling flow at low fuel states, and they have been resolved. Assuming that F-35 actually has the same issues, there is no reason to think they won't be worked through as well.

And don't go saying "But a general said it". The list of engineering issues that generals have misunderstood and mispoke about in the past is long and distinquished.

Thumper3181 wrote:

The AF has tried to kill the A-10 many many times. First right before GW1 and then before Afghanistan. They wanted (because the AF is full of fighter pilots) F-16s to do the job. Well they found out it really is not much of a replacement for the A-10.

Actually they were just trying to reduce airframe types and started with the A-10 because they believed the days of low-level armor hunting was over.

The army (legal issues aside) would take the AH-64 over the JSF any day. Reason is the helicopter can do so many things the JSF cannot and survice doing it. They also cost only around $3M as opposed to JSF $60M.

Not sure where your getting your figures, but you may want to re-check them. Current "D" models are coming off the line at just shy of $14 Million.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Quote:

Sorry, but those arguments dont hold any water, and invariably, you still need to replace 3 platforms which are aging too much.

Even if I accepted your argument (which I don't) it seems to me we could have come up with something better than all it excels at is CAS.

I will let you in on a secret. The AF has tried to kill the A-10 many many times. First right before GW1 and then before Afghanistan. They wanted (because the AF is full of fighter pilots) F-16s to do the job. Well they found out it really is not much of a replacement for the A-10.

The army (legal issues aside) would take the AH-64 over the JSF any day. Reason is the helicopter can do so many things the JSF cannot and survice doing it. They also cost only around $3M as opposed to JSF $60M.

Even in CAS there is a better more cost effective substitute for the JSF.

Quote:

How many F-16s have insurgents shot down so far? How many AH-64Ds? UH-60s?

How much more CAS do army helicopters do in place of the F-16. If you are a grunt who would you rather have supporting you? someone in an AC designed specifically for CAS with a pilot who all he trains for is CAS or some F-16 zoomie who does CAS as an after thought?

Here is what the AF originally had planned to take over for the A-10 Thunderbolts: a supersonically capable A-7. It was scrapped in favor of the F-16 which was found to not be capable of replacing the A-10... I don't imagine that the F-35 will be found to do much better in CAS than the F-16. A-10 was a winner through and through for its mission. The F-35 with all that fuel crammed into that airframe... one hit from any AAA will send it to the earth really quick. It's too bad the tooling for the A-10 was not kept in shape for new build aircraft.

To be honest, the AF made the proper decision with the "super" A-7 since adding another airframe into the force-mix would have added additional costs for training, spares, ect ect.... But then again there is no tooling for new build A-10s which is a real shame. So then again, maybe they should have replaced the A-10 with the super A-7.

This is also what the F-35 JSF is just with a little bit a RCS tosseded into the mix: a lightly armed supersonic capable ground attack plane. (except the A-7 was also as tough as nails - can't say the same for the F-35).

Raptor_claw wrote:

Circulated fuel is used, (just like on the F-16 and F-22 (and I can only assume on non-LM fighters as well)) to assist cooling of 'subsystems' - not structure.

ummm, no.

F-35 subsystems (avionics etc) are cooled by the PAO CLL & HLL system(s), which is then (partially) cooled via PAO/fuel heat exchanger. I don't know exactly what the F-22 does but I'm pretty sure it is similar to the F-35 in that regard.

You are correct in stating fuel is not used to cool the airframe on F-16/22/35.

habu2 wrote:

Raptor_claw wrote:

Circulated fuel is used, (just like on the F-16 and F-22 (and I can only assume on non-LM fighters as well)) to assist cooling of 'subsystems' - not structure.

ummm, no.

F-35 subsystems (avionics etc) are cooled by the PAO CLL & HLL system(s), which is then (partially) cooled via PAO/fuel heat exchanger...

You can't say "ummm, no" and then turn around and agree with me. I did only say "to assist cooling..." - pretty much exactly what you described. I was simply addressing the cooling-vs-fuel state topic, I felt no need to get into additional detail.

habu2 wrote:

Raptor_claw wrote:

Circulated fuel is used, (just like on the F-16 and F-22 (and I can only assume on non-LM fighters as well)) to assist cooling of 'subsystems' - not structure.

ummm, no.

F-35 subsystems (avionics etc) are cooled by the PAO CLL & HLL system(s), which is then (partially) cooled via PAO/fuel heat exchanger. I don't know exactly what the F-22 does but I'm pretty sure it is similar to the F-35 in that regard.

You are correct in stating fuel is not used to cool the airframe on F-16/22/35.

Fuel is used to cool the F-35 rear structure. That's a fact, and its something worth noting when even the generals start making comments about their concerns on that issue. More information to come out in time on this. Now couple that with the fact that the F-35 is supposed to be an LO aircraft, and she's 'dumping' hot fuel into her outter skins to serve as an heat evaporator, and now I've got to wonder about her being LO at all since to play the LO game you've got to be reduced in all things visible (i.e. heat). Sure the rear nozzel has some IR reduction capability, but the general airframe is serving to dump heat into the atmosphere. With the Russians IR seekers sensitive enough to detect a supercruising F-22 due to atmospheric heating, then the F-35 is already playing that game at subsonic speeds. Sure with some what, 16,000 pounds(?) of fuel on full stomach there's enough fuel to soak up heat without heating the skins too much, what about when she's down to 1/4 tanks inside enemy airspace and trying to get out of Dodge City in one piece after unloading her 2 a2g munutions? She's going to be going fast as possible (i.e. subsonic for an F-35 for going to AB she will run out gas and will also be shouting to world, "Here I am!" with her exhaust) and heating up the skins because that big 45,000 pound thrust engine runs incredibly hot and so there's more heat being generating by the big jet engine and less fuel to absorb/radiate the heat away. I'm no longer convinced that the F-35 is a true LO aircraft. Begging the question, what's it good for? Can't dump kinetic energy into either the a2g or a2a weapons as the F-22 can. Doesn't have as good as an all aspect radar RCS as the F-22. It'll never be good for the BVR scenario in which you've got to get all the energy you can muster into your AAMs... not with some 8 tons of fuel and the aerodynamics of an F-4 (which is only logical to assume because with all that thrust in an F-16 sized package that can't supercruside it's simply got to have poor aerdynamics) with one engine and intakes that are designed for LO and weight shedding rather than speed. All things being equal in a big war, when all players bring out there electronic goodies, the F-35 is going to duke it out with super Sukhois? No way. If the F-35 turns out to be worth anything it'll be because of sheer numbers of a somewhat LO aircraft overwhelming a particular target space. I can't imagine why the export countries clamoring for the F-35 since the export bird will not even have the same LO as the US beast. Why go with a plane that can't supercruise and is on par with a Eurocanard in LO measurements? This is why the Aussies were asking questions themselves as to the logic of going with the export version F-35 when there are other more capable airframes out there. And keep in mind that the price-per-copy is still not set in stone... i.e. prices are likely to rise even more closer to the F-22 when it's production numbers rise and F-35 numbers drop which is as certain as death and taxes are.

Remember that F-35 engine runs VERY hot which is why its the most powerful jet-fighter-engine yet, and when sitting on the deck after a mission, that's when cooling the critical components of the airframe becomes even more difficult because you've lost all your airspeed and now you've got to dump all that excess heat out somehow.... I bet anything that even after engine shutdown the F-35 will still be circulating fuel much like some automobiles run their rad fans when the key is off to help dump heat out of the engine bay.

The F-35 is still in its infancy... Has not even flown yet and people are calling it the best thing in aerial warfare since the ME-262 and it's already well known to not have performance any better than the legacy birds flying today. I for one can't wait to see what takes place during the next year+ of actual true and blue F-35s flying.

FireFox137 wrote:

Fuel is used to cool the F-35 rear structure. That's a fact...

Once again - No, it is not. It just isn't.

Just a typical example of how willing you are to completely ignore reality in your misguided vendetta against the F-35.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Does the US need the F-22 or the F-35 or Both?