F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: Blow for "buy more F-22s" camp - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-9624-start-45-sid-f7262b2b68f6fb4ae2d4498036064bf6.html
Printed on: 12 October 2008

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Blow for "buy more F-22s" camp



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
sferrin
PostPosted: Dec 27, 2007 - 06:55 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1011

Status: Offline
elp wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:
sferrin wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Raptor_One wrote:
If there is ever a conventional WWIII (i.e. no nukes, bio/chem warfare, etc.), then yes, we would certainly be able to ramp up production of aircraft like the F-22.


It'd be nice to have a crystal ball like yours. And if five years from now the F-15 and F-22 lines are shut down with tooling destroyed (see dumbasses Cheney and MacNamara) then what? Make due with F-35s? Great plan.


Actually, IMHO, that is not a bad plan. I think that the same amount on money spent on F-35s yield more combat capability and effectiveness than if it is spent on F-22s. By today's estimate the buy ratio is about 2.5:1 not counting R&D costs. That is you can get 2.5 F-35s for each Raptor. I seriously believe that 2.5 F-35s is more effective than 1 F-22 even in A2A.


Apparently the USAF (the guys who matter) don't agree with you. At one point they were willing to chop 500 F-35s for another 100 F-22s.


They were willing to chop about 500 F-35As for about 180 F-22s actually -- 20 x 9 years; 2010 through 2018.

That is not a bad thing too. ~380 F-22s + ~1200 F-35As is not a bad split. But when it comes down to it, between 1 F-22 and 2.5 F-35As, the 2.5 F-35As will be hurt the enemy more than the 1 F-22. And, this includes air superiority missions too. It is like saying that while the F-15 may have some advantages over the F-16, 2.5 F-16s will probably inflict more losses on the enemy than 1 F-15. There are two reasons the IMHO that the USAF wants the F-22. It wants to build up 5th generation fighter strength at the current rate (at least) way before the F-35 reaches FOC (circa 2015) and the only FOC 5th generation fighter in can add from now till then is the F-22. And, it wants a to able to fly a few squadrons of the silver bullet fighter in every theater in any emergency to deal with the most capable threats with near zero loss rates. 183 F-22s is not enough to go around with our global commitments. 380 will be.


When F-35 becomes a known quantity then we will know.... Laughing

With the cost climb in F-35, it is becoming a silver bullet fighter. After a big IADS is beat down, (USAF) doesn't need an F-35. It also doesn't need to over-invest in a lot of short range fighters, beyond home defense and some AEF needs. The AEF thing gets more interesting as we are having less foreign bases to fly from, not more. USAF, with it's limited funds, needs to invest in more long range platforms, not a bunch of short range, gold plated fuel guzzling/tanker dependent spuds.

Oh well. The problem is going to solve itself with USAF imploding because it's current "strategy" is to survive till the next annual budget.


I believe they call that living paycheck to paycheck. Could be worse though. They could have the Navy's problems.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Oct 12, 2008 - 4:27 PM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor






This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
   
 
swanee
PostPosted: Dec 27, 2007 - 07:20 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Jan 25, 2005
Posts: 531

Status: Offline
[quote="sferrin
What's that suppose to demonstrate? That you're retarded? That shot's only been dissected about 900 times as being the proverbial Golden BB and rules had to be broken to even get it.[/quote]


Keep drinking that kool-aid....


As far as the Navy goes, well they have a pretty good idea of how to plug in the gaps.

_________________
Life is too short for ugly sailboats, fat women and bad beer!
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Dec 27, 2007 - 07:40 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1011

Status: Offline
swanee wrote:
[quote="sferrin
What's that suppose to demonstrate? That you're retarded? That shot's only been dissected about 900 times as being the proverbial Golden BB and rules had to be broken to even get it.



Keep drinking that kool-aid....[/quote]

Really? Maybe you could explain how I am wrong about that shot.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Tinito_16
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 01:06 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: May 31, 2007
Posts: 244

Status: Offline
That shot's a can of worms. If there are no other pics like that then it only means one thing: the Rhino pilot got a little too close to the Raptor and probably got a good chewing when he landed.

_________________
"Like the coldest winter chill, heaven beside you...hell within" Alice In Chains
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 02:37 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1011

Status: Offline
Tinito_16 wrote:
That shot's a can of worms. If there are no other pics like that then it only means one thing: the Rhino pilot got a little too close to the Raptor and probably got a good chewing when he landed.


Dozer (an F-22 pilot who was at the base the incident in question occurred at) explained the whole thing in a post that's quoted on this site in another thread. In a nut shell it's pretty easy to get a cheap shot when one guy is willing to break the rules and the other isn't.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sprstdlyscottsmn
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 07:38 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 352

Status: Offline
Um, as for the F-35 being short ranged it has a higher fuel fraction than the F-22 and a more efficient, higher BPR engine. It will likely have MORE range than F-22 and nearly the same weapons load internally(it's weapons bay is actually larger and easily fits 6 MRMs vs the 6MRMs and 2 SRMs of the F-22) as well has having stealth that, while not on par with the F-22, is several orders of magnitude better than its potential foes. And for sensors...The CURRENT F-22 lags BEHIND the CURRENT F-35 in every way except radar antenna size(and thus number of aperatures/power/range) F-22 does not have integrated IRIST or 360deg IR scanning. The Lightning has a SINGLE tactical display in the cockpit and no HUD, because that is all it needs. It took lessons learned from previous programs (i.e. F-22) and USED them as a basis for improvement. It is said to have instantaneous and sustained turn rates comperable to the Viper (not bad) but one look at the size of the tailplanes makes me think that like the Su-27 and Super Hornet it can produce enough tail down force to exceed its AOA limits. The only question there is whether it is programed like the F-16 ( Nope, you cannot exceed those limits I dont care why you are asking), the Su-27 (You need to exceed those limits? Okay I guess, but you better pull pretty hard) or the F/A-18E (Limits... lets see.... limits... Oh yeah I remember those. Nah, do whatever you want to. In fact, I'll help you do it)

_________________
James,

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 08:38 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1011

Status: Offline
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Um, as for the F-35 being short ranged it has a higher fuel fraction than the F-22 and a more efficient, higher BPR engine. It will likely have MORE range than F-22 and nearly the same weapons load internally(it's weapons bay is actually larger and easily fits 6 MRMs vs the 6MRMs and 2 SRMs of the F-22) as well has having stealth that, while not on par with the F-22, is several orders of magnitude better than its potential foes. And for sensors...The CURRENT F-22 lags BEHIND the CURRENT F-35 in every way except radar antenna size(and thus number of aperatures/power/range) F-22 does not have integrated IRIST or 360deg IR scanning. The Lightning has a SINGLE tactical display in the cockpit and no HUD, because that is all it needs. It took lessons learned from previous programs (i.e. F-22) and USED them as a basis for improvement. It is said to have instantaneous and sustained turn rates comperable to the Viper (not bad) but one look at the size of the tailplanes makes me think that like the Su-27 and Super Hornet it can produce enough tail down force to exceed its AOA limits. The only question there is whether it is programed like the F-16 ( Nope, you cannot exceed those limits I dont care why you are asking), the Su-27 (You need to exceed those limits? Okay I guess, but you better pull pretty hard) or the F/A-18E (Limits... lets see.... limits... Oh yeah I remember those. Nah, do whatever you want to. In fact, I'll help you do it)


thing is I'm pretty sure none of them are going to be able to turn hard enough to throw off an AIM-9X, ASRAAM, AA-11, IRIS-T, Python 5, . . .
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Pilotasso
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 10:33 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Oct 29, 2006
Posts: 282

Status: Offline
Depends...if you stay away from the no escape zone then its possible. When thrust vectoring the missiles speed and range is dramaticaly reduced, and endgame manueverability is reduced accordingly or the missile will simply fall short.

Take note that while the laucher aircraft might indicate it has range to hit its oponent, if its outside the NEZ then a direction change by the target will easely place it outside of the new estimated max range. Thats because this calculation is made considering if the target maintains a constant course and speed in a given instant, of course it rarely happens.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
JaM1977
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 11:35 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jul 13, 2007
Posts: 18

Status: Offline
+ dont forget the PAK-FA. F-22 will stay king of the hill, but PAK-FA can be quite close to F-35 especially in A2A - we can expect that it will be something like Su-30MKx with STEALTH and AESA, but lighter (20t), capable of supercruise to 1.5Mach (Su-30 is able supercruise with new engines up to 1.3-1.4Mach)...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
elp
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 12:08 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2848

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
Um, as for the F-35 being short ranged it has a higher fuel fraction than the F-22 and a more efficient, higher BPR engine. It will likely have MORE range than F-22 and nearly the same weapons load internally(it's weapons bay is actually larger and easily fits 6 MRMs vs the 6MRMs and 2 SRMs of the F-22) as well has having stealth that, while not on par with the F-22, is several orders of magnitude better than its potential foes. And for sensors...The CURRENT F-22 lags BEHIND the CURRENT F-35 in every way except radar antenna size(and thus number of aperatures/power/range) F-22 does not have integrated IRIST or 360deg IR scanning. The Lightning has a SINGLE tactical display in the cockpit and no HUD, because that is all it needs. It took lessons learned from previous programs (i.e. F-22) and USED them as a basis for improvement. It is said to have instantaneous and sustained turn rates comperable to the Viper (not bad) but one look at the size of the tailplanes makes me think that like the Su-27 and Super Hornet it can produce enough tail down force to exceed its AOA limits. The only question there is whether it is programed like the F-16 ( Nope, you cannot exceed those limits I dont care why you are asking), the Su-27 (You need to exceed those limits? Okay I guess, but you better pull pretty hard) or the F/A-18E (Limits... lets see.... limits... Oh yeah I remember those. Nah, do whatever you want to. In fact, I'll help you do it)


Around 1% of the testing done on JSF. Laughing And lots of software. Show me in the coming years.... right now? The best it can hope for at the moment is...hope. When you are calculating range of the F-22 don't forget to figure in effective ground speed on a light super-cruise dash for a short time at around 65k plus ft. Big difference between that and the F-35 which again has to prove a lot of things.

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
Pilotasso
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 12:24 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Oct 29, 2006
Posts: 282

Status: Offline
JaM1977 wrote:
+ dont forget the PAK-FA. F-22 will stay king of the hill, but PAK-FA can be quite close to F-35 especially in A2A - we can expect that it will be something like Su-30MKx with STEALTH and AESA, but lighter (20t), capable of supercruise to 1.5Mach (Su-30 is able supercruise with new engines up to 1.3-1.4Mach)...


PAK-FA's capabilities are still much in the limbo. There isnt even a clear airframe design yet.
Russian perfomance claims are often in the realm of the fantastic or reached at the expense of unrealistic short hardware life cycle.


Last edited by Pilotasso on Dec 28, 2007 - 03:35 PM; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
mil_hobbyist
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 01:22 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Jul 30, 2006
Posts: 49

Status: Offline
elp wrote:
When you are calculating range of the F-22 don't forget to figure in effective ground speed on a light super-cruise dash for a short time at around 65k plus ft.


Indeed -- according to Bill Sweetman the plane can fly approximately 30 minutes of a 1 hr mission at supersonic speeds (approx. 250 mi. both ways). No other fighter (besides the mig-31) can do that.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
JaM1977
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 03:44 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jul 13, 2007
Posts: 18

Status: Offline
But we know what we can expect - Su-30 class aircraft with STEALTH capabilitty...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 07:33 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1011

Status: Offline
JaM1977 wrote:
But we know what we can expect - Su-30 class aircraft with STEALTH capabilitty...


Technically the Super Hornet has "STEALTH capability". Doesn't mean it's anywhere near being in the class of the F-22 or F-35. Seeing how Russia has yet to fly a stealth aircraft of ANY type I seriously doubt they're going to produce something in the league of even the F-35 on their first go, let alone an F-22.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
JaM1977
PostPosted: Dec 28, 2007 - 09:36 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jul 13, 2007
Posts: 18

Status: Offline
They got F-117 tech from Serbia... I would expect atleast that kinda STEALTH technology... I doubt it will be in F-35 STEALTH class, but who knows...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel