F-22 maneuverability

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

shawafb

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2004, 23:44
  • Location: Sumter, SC

Unread post19 Mar 2004, 00:00

I have a question for some of you experts regarding the maneuverability of the Raptor. I have heard stories saying that the thrust-vectoring makes the F-22 the most agile fighter in the world. I have also heard that it can't even outperform some modern fighters like the Viper in a close-in dogfight.

What have you all heard, and how would it perform against the Su-27, Su-35, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, etc.?
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2342
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post19 Mar 2004, 05:40

Salute

Local yokels flying the Raptor at Tyndall say it is indeed better in a knife fight than the Viper. Trying to talk with a troop or two now checking out in the beast.

Remember that flight control system 'laws' are way different than the F-16.

Stay tuned.

out,
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post19 Mar 2004, 15:04

Lets hope if the jet is used in harms way, it is never used in close. It's best ability is to:

-Position itself because of great situational awareness using great fuel economy at high speed / high altitude, so as to launch an attack at maximum advantage to its own team. Many times getting off BVR shots without being detected, let alone even being locked up. It can manuver, but unless it is a super-important-has-to-be-killed-immediately situation..... why whould anyone use such a platform where the enemy can also detect and take a shot at you too? ( WVR ) It is the same as the new air to ground weapons we have vs. small SAMs and AAA: "I can touch you, but you can't touch me"... and in the F-22's case add: "you can't detect me before it is too late.... if ever." In the first night of an important air op, the enemy, using legacy technology ( anything EF2000/Rafale and below ) has to come up or watch a lot of ground targets die. No choice. Except that they will come up, die, and those same ground targets will die anyway.

Let the enemy use the old rule book and die.
- ELP -
Offline

SwedgeII

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 338
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2004, 13:37

Unread post25 Mar 2004, 19:16

Yeah but somebody is going to make a NEW rule book that includes Air to Air drones, that are Small, stealthy, cheap and pull 20+G's. and will fly rings around any manned aircraft.
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post25 Mar 2004, 20:30

Well, when I take over :o It will be F-22, A-45 UCAV, and legacy F-16s. Just have to work out the first part of my plan.... :twisted:
- ELP -
Offline

Wildcat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 12:49

Unread post28 Mar 2004, 10:50

SwedgeII wrote:
Air to Air drones, that are Small, stealthy, cheap and pull 20+G's. and will fly rings around any manned aircraft.

Well, if your drone is stealthy so that the enemy can't detect it, and smaller than most of manned fighter aircraft, I wonder if the ability to pull more than 20G is really useful. Moreover, it would probably increase the cost of the drone much.
If we want drones to really act as "force multipliers", I think we have to make them as simple and as cheap as possible.
The most challenging thing about UCAVs, perhaps, is not technology, but succeeding in finding a new way to think about aerial warfare, without usual prejudices.
Offline

bmwf1kin

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2004, 17:06

Unread post28 Mar 2004, 12:51

If the X-31 prototype were sucessfull. It will certainly be the most maneuverable aircraft in the world, much more agile than F-22, rafale, typhoon, su-35.

Wondering when will they start production of X-31 :D
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2810
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post28 Mar 2004, 16:15

X-31 was very successful for the purpose it was designed - as an experimental aircraft. The X-31 was never destined for production but tested many technologies destined for other production aircraft.

IMO the US muddied up the whole naming convention affair when they designated the JSF prototypes as "X-planes"... and then followed that up with calling the production version of the X-35 the F-35. :evil:
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

Wildcat

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 289
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 12:49

Unread post29 Mar 2004, 15:44

I've never understood myself why they didn't call it F-24. It is very unclear to me...
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post28 Feb 2005, 07:36

The F-35 is the first American fighter originated from the project of X-plane directly. Since its code is "X-35" during the X-plane stage, it should be reasonable and convenient to call it "F-35" during the fighter stage.
Offline

Roscoe

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1329
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
  • Location: Las Vegas

Unread post28 Feb 2005, 15:39

Only if it had been called XF-35 would it have made sense. I think someone in leadership made the same (mistaken) assumption you did at the award announcement press conference and DOD backed him up. It was quite frankly an aberration of the nomenclature process. That said, given the few number iof aircraft being developed these days, it really isn't a big deal...
Roscoe
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
Offline

Sniper69

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 262
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 02:35
  • Location: New Hampshire

Unread post28 Feb 2005, 18:45

I think it was posted someplace else on this site that someone either observed or knew someone that observed the Raptor doing backflips while maintaining forward momentum. That should give you a good idea about how manuverable it is :devil:
Offline

allenperos

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 631
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 13:33

Unread post28 Feb 2005, 18:56

True story Sniper69, with vectored thrust and nose-up stabilators, this is highly possible, remember the nozzles pitch up 20 degrees and can vary through-out the maneuver and so can the horizontal stabs, I will be looking for this at the next airshow soon near me, in-fact I can figure it out mathematically. Will keep you posted sniper69. AP
F-16B, CC 80-0623 ERAU ROTC
MD-11, 90, 80, Cognizant Aerospace Technical Writer - Powerplant RR, GE, and P&W
Offline

EriktheF16462

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2004, 18:24

Unread post02 Mar 2005, 18:49

There is a video floating around on the net of it doing it. I saw it, don't remember where but it did not appear to be doctored at all.
F16 462 AD USAF. Crew dog for 3 and Even a pointy head for a few months.
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post02 Mar 2005, 20:49

How agile would the F-22 be if it didn't have the thrust-vectoring nozzels? Surely not as agile as the Viper right?
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron