Forum: F-22A Raptor

Call me old fashioned but I'll take a built in - always there gun, over a gun pod any day. At least the gun pod proposed for the F-35C is stealthy (didn't know that). And its not "wasting" a weapons station since the F-35 has internal weapons bays as well. Thanks Raptor_One and Elp for the feedback Very Happy

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

The F-35 is the perfect compliment to the F-22 - IF the US could get the F-22s it needs. The worst the government could do at this point is buy more F-35s to replace the F-15s. Even though the Air Force's version will have an integral gun, I have seen video of the F-35, and it does seem a little heavy. Congress needs to look at this and realize that somethings got to give when we've got 40 yr old a/c and we have exorbitant defense spending and yet our pilots still aren't safe.

I hope something good comes of this and that we can see the order up'ed to the level where it will provide enough additional F-22's to outfit at least several more squadrons than are currently planned. If we can get 300 or more of them, to go with a healthy number of F-35's, we'll be sitting pretty for years to come. But only buying 180 seems criminal and/or mental on the part of our decision makers.

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 915 Status: Offline

Fox1 wrote:

I hope something good comes of this and that we can see the order up'ed to the level where it will provide enough additional F-22's to outfit at least several more squadrons than are currently planned. If we can get 300 or more of them, to go with a healthy number of F-35's, we'll be sitting pretty for years to come. But only buying 180 seems criminal and/or mental on the part of our decision makers.

Politicians aren't generally known for their brilliance. Find a way to ensure more F-22s gets Joe Politician a million more votes and we'll get a thousand. If it doesn't bring them votes then "nah, not interested" and to hell with the consequences.

Elite Joined: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 664 Status: Offline

FlightDreamz wrote:

Call me old fashioned but I'll take a built in - always there gun, over a gun pod any day. At least the gun pod proposed for the F-35C is stealthy (didn't know that). And its not "wasting" a weapons station since the F-35 has internal weapons bays as well. Thanks Raptor_One and Elp for the feedback Very Happy

You got that right, gun pods are notorious for inaccuracy.

[quote="ACMIguy"][quote="FlightDreamz"]Call me old fashioned but ITrue, I've heard gun pods described as "spraying" ammunition (I guess thats why they're mostly used for air to ground gunnery). And I'm curious as to how they plan to reduce a gun pods radar signature. Just have to wait and see I guess...

Elite Joined: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 535 Status: Offline

Don't use gun pods when you facing a strong air-defense net that you need a perfect stealthy configuration to conquer it.

After destroying enemy's strong air-defense net, then you can use gun pods for slaughtering enemy's land targets (soldiers, vehicles, bases, ports, and so on.....) cheaply..........

Elite Joined: Oct 21, 2005 Posts: 744 Status: Offline

toan wrote:

Don't use gun pods when you facing a strong air-defense net that you need a perfect stealthy configuration to conquer it.

After destroying enemy's strong air-defense net, then you can use gun pods for slaughtering enemy's land targets (soldiers, vehicles, bases, ports, and so on.....) cheaply..........

You are correct!

You get:

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 621 Status: Offline

Thumper3181 wrote:

The F-22 will have A2A capabilities that the F-35 will not. Think back (if you are old enough) to the late 70s. The same questions where being raised about the F-15/16 combo. The hi lo concept has served us well the past 30 years. The F-35 has been designed to be second only to the F-22 in A2A. The same held true of the relationship between the F-16 and F-15 back then. There is no reason to change the formula. The only question is how many of each will be procured.

Well, even if Congress would approve a more F-22's. The numbers would still be relatively small. With something like 40 on the low side and possibly 60 aircraft on the high side. Regardless, the F-35 will have a prominent role in the air to air arena for the forseeable future............like it or not! Wink

Note: If, the US would export a number to say Japan its possible more could be procured past the amount currently being discussed. Very Happy

Elite Joined: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 664 Status: Offline

toan wrote:

Don't use gun pods when you facing a strong air-defense net that you need a perfect stealthy configuration to conquer it.

After destroying enemy's strong air-defense net, then you can use gun pods for slaughtering enemy's land targets (soldiers, vehicles, bases, ports, and so on.....) cheaply..........

CAS
That might work in a video game but not in real life where accuracy does count.
Something they call collateral damage I think Doh

Your forgetting the lessons learned from Vietnam and not having a gun for A/A. History seems to repeat itself again. Rolling Eyes

Tinito_16 wrote:

The F-35 is the perfect compliment to the F-22 - IF the US could get the F-22s it needs. The worst the government could do at this point is buy more F-35s to replace the F-15s. Even though the Air Force's version will have an integral gun, I have seen video of the F-35, and it does seem a little heavy. Congress needs to look at this and realize that somethings got to give when we've got 40 yr old a/c and we have exorbitant defense spending and yet our pilots still aren't safe.

You better believe that thing is heavy. Look at the weight distribution from the centerline as well... Not exactly too good for turning is it? The weight distribution is quite horrible for a single engined fighter. Do the high school physics calculation for forces required to turn an object about its center of mass. I don't care that this monster has tons of thrust... Its still going to take a lot of energy to change the direction of forward motion in that beast.

A small attack bomber that has enough energy to get out of its own way is one thing, but a fighter is something else all together.

If we had enough F-22's to go around the fleet then it'd be fine to gamble on this project; but there are not enough F-22's and I doubt there ever will be.

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 621 Status: Offline

Tinito_16 wrote:

The F-35 is the perfect compliment to the F-22 - IF the US could get the F-22s it needs. The worst the government could do at this point is buy more F-35s to replace the F-15s. Even though the Air Force's version will have an integral gun, I have seen video of the F-35, and it does seem a little heavy. Congress needs to look at this and realize that somethings got to give when we've got 40 yr old a/c and we have exorbitant defense spending and yet our pilots still aren't safe.

The F-35 is indeed the perfect compiment to the F-22! Hopefully, the USAF will get the F-22's needed to make the perfect Hi/Low Mix........time will tell? Exporting the F-22 would go a long ways to that end...........

Tinito_16 wrote:

I have seen video of the F-35, and it does seem a little heavy.

You're kidding, right? Based on seeing some 'video', you think the F-35 seems a little 'heavy'? Heavy compared to what? A 747 seems 'heavy' to me - it still does the job it was designed for.

fox100 wrote:

You better believe that thing is heavy. Look at the weight distribution from the centerline as well... Not exactly too good for turning is it? The weight distribution is quite horrible for a single engined fighter. Do the high school physics calculation for forces required to turn an object about its center of mass. I don't care that this monster has tons of thrust... Its still going to take a lot of energy to change the direction of forward motion in that beast.

First of all, the weight (mass) distribution 'from the centerline' (the mass moment of inertia in the roll axis) has next to nothing to do with 'turn' capability. It directly affects roll rate capability, yes, so it has an effect on how quickly you can bank into a turn - but the actual turn capability (the ability to 'change the direction of forward motion') is a function of lift and weight, (and drag and thrust, if you are talking about sustained turn capability). Even so, you cannot tell how much roll capability an aircraft has by looking at it. You don't really know the mass distribution, and you certainly don't know the aerodynamic effectiveness of the control surfaces, and you have no clue as the the aerodynamic roll damping (maybe your high school physics class was way more advanced than mine).
So, will the F-35 match the F-16 (for example) in terms of maximum roll rate? No. Does it need to? No. Dirty little secret here - those insanely high roll rates that the F-16 can generate are pretty much limited to moderate/high speeds at low load factors (i.e. low AOA). Is there anything more tactically useless than a really quick 360 roll at 1g? The simple fact is in the parts of the sky where roll capability really is tactically useful (slower speeds and/or high load factors (i.e. elevated AOAs)), for instance high-g reversing (scissors) - the F-35 will far exceed the F-16 capability.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ocr1BHQmgp4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PyKYw_p1Hrc

That was the F-22. Now, here's the F-35:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y0YUK-FeW4o&feature=related

The F-35 has its place. Just don't confuse it with the Raptor's.

Tinito_16 wrote:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ocr1BHQmgp4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PyKYw_p1Hrc

That was the F-22. Now, here's the F-35:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=y0YUK-FeW4o&feature=related

The F-35 has its place. Just don't confuse it with the Raptor's.

Okay - I guess I'm gonna need you to humor me here. What exactly was I supposed to 'get' from the videos? Was it the fact that a pre-production, risk-reduction test article aircraft, in its first handful of flights, with tons of flight restrictions and limitations, doesn't look as impressive as a full up demo for a fully tested production fighter aircraft, after 10 years and thousands of hours of developmental test flights? Okay - I will agree with that.
Want to see the best video you could put together using only footage from the first 20 flights of the F-22 (ship 4001)? Partial input rolls, low g turns, limited part of the envelope. It would be almost impossible to tell much difference.

Yes absolutely, F-35 will have its place, which will be different than the F-22's. But to think that you can look at some video and come to the conclusion that the F-35 'does seem a little heavy' is just ludicrous. First of all (as I tried to illustrate with the 747 reference) 'heavy' is relative. The F-35, like every other aircraft, was designed to meet a specific set of requirements. Weight is just one of many characteristics that falls out of the design that ultimately meets those requirements - it simply is what it is.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

More F-22s on the way