Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Scorpion82 wrote:

Neno wrote:

Thumper3181 wrote:

The canards are an integral part of the aircraft's flight control system. As such they provide stability and pitch control during flight. You cannot just disable them when they are inconvenient.

Why ?

Because the canards are an integral part of the Typhoon's aerodynamic concept. The aircraft is highly unstable in the subsonic regime and tends to violently pitch up all the time. The canards counter that pitch up moment and stabilize the aircraft. To pitch the aircraft the canards release and let the aircraft go before capturing it again and stabilize it. It's like deactivating the F-16's horizontal stabilizers.

For those who want to learn more about the Typhoon's aerodynamic concept:
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFull ... 035-01.pdf

Don't get me wrong, i know maybe they didn't think about this and so today EF2000 cannot fly if a malfuncion or battle damage block the canard, but other aircraft can (i red about F-15 flying and land without an half wing due to damage, not talking about A-10 or Raptor, and so on). So what i mean is that tehorically they could develop a software upgrade that can do that.

F-16.net Sponsor

Neno wrote:

Don't get me wrong, i know maybe they didn't think about this and so today EF2000 cannot fly if a malfuncion or battle damage block the canard, but other aircraft can (i red about F-15 flying and land without an half wing due to damage, not talking about A-10 or Raptor, and so on). So what i mean is that tehorically they could develop a software upgrade that can do that.

It makes no sense to compare the highly unstable Typhoon with a stable A-10, with the latter being designed with a high level of battle damage tolerance. It might be possible with TVC.To my understanding the Typhoon is to unstable to reject its canards. The Gripen and Rafale for example feature an analogue back up FCS mode, where the canards are decoupled and the aircraft can be flown back home. But these aircraft are reportedly more stable and have close coupled canards.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Here is what you are missing about the concept of 5th generation. It is not one single attribute or a set of attributes that make an aircraft 5th generation, rather it is a combination of factors of an aircraft that give it a real tactical advantage over it's contemporaries to the extent that it puts the aircraft in a totally different category in terms of lethality. The F-22 has stealth, tactically significant super cruise, huge internal fuel (potential energy) capacity, hyper agility and performance while carrying a useful payload, and an LPI radar. These features give it game changing advantages over 4th generation jets. The F-35 does not super cruise and it is not hyper agile. However due to it's ability to carry all of its fuel and weapons internally it to has real world tactical performance that will exceed any jet that has to carry extra fuel and its weapons externally. Not only that in many ways the F-35's avionics and sensor fusion are more capable than the F-22s. On the other hand the EF has none of these things.

As for EFs claims to LO I would suggest you compare the two pictures. They are both high res. One has true LO treatments and the other has a giant set of elephant ears, many rivets, and gaps between panels as well as a radar trap for an air intake.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Typhoon_f2_zj910_canard_arp.jpg

http://www.miyf27.com/images/DN-SD-07-15453hi.jpg

BTW what in terms of avionics or sensors does the EF have that the F-35 does not?

I am not laughing at EF, rather I am trying to inject a dose of reality. It is an excellent interceptor for the 1990s. A good interceptor for the 2000-2015 time frame. Most important it was a great jobs program.

You have to take into account that the European definition of jet fighter generations is different to that of the US. The difference starts with the 3rd generation, which is essentially skipped in the European context. The F-4 which is regarded as 3rd generation in the US is classed as 2nd generation in Europe. The teens are subsequently not 4th, but 3rd generation from a European point of view. The ECDs are seen as 4th generation, which would be the timely equivalent to the US 5th generation. The US has defined the 5th generation around the subsequent assets meaning the F-22 in the first place and now the F-35 as well. In the European context the Typhoon or Rafale or Gripen are seen as a generation above the teens and they characterise it with superior aerodynamics, flight controls, advanced airframe construction, MMI, integrated avionics, sensor fusion, passive sensors, LO treatments etc. The differences between the basic concepts are big enough to justify a separate generation label and that is what is done in Europe. In the light of the marketing battles these days the US classes those aircraft into the same generation as the teens, European manufacturers react in the way that they now talk about 5th generation or in most cases simply next generation.

A generation is not defined by the capabilities they acquire through upgrades but by the basic design concept and the capabilities/technologies employed in the basic variant of an aircraft type.

It were aircraft like the F-15A, F-16A or F/A-18A which defined the 4th generation in the US, not the F-15SE, F-16 blk 60 or F/A-18E/F SH! The differences in terms of technologies and capabilities between an F-15A and the basic T1 Typhoon are easily as big, not to say even bigger than those between the first F-4B and the F-15A. The F-4E wasn't much worse in comparison to the F-15A for example, yet no one came to the idea to call the F-4E 4th generation or the F-15A 3rd generation (from an US centric perspective). Interestingly the same measure isn't applied nowadays. Europe had contemporary fighters to the teens, first and foremost the Mirage 2000. And if you compare the M2k to the Rafale you'll easily find generation gaps in virtually every single area be it airframe, aerodynamics, flight controls, engines, cockpit, avionics, sensors etc. Certainly enough to justify a separate generation label.

The VLO airframe apart, is the F-22 really that special? It's suprcruise capability is certainly unmatched, but not offered by the F-35 either. It leverages from very specific requirements as does the aircraft's VLO design and the AESA LPI radar is certainly part of it.

European fighters go the way of reduced signatures combined with much more advanced and capable EW suites in comparison to what was standard back then for the teens. These aircraft feature equally advanced airframe construction methods, superior aerodynamics, comparable flight controls, MMI and integrated avionics like the F-22, including passive sensors, sensor fusion and net centric warfare capabilities as well as similar weapon systems.

Scorpion82 wrote:

velocity264c wrote:

You most likely mean you don't know the F-22 performance,

So smarty how about presenting us performance figures!?

Quote:

but one thing is still a fact, what kind of performance does the Typhoon do? I see barrel roles wide turns, and a change in direction its flying in and that's what people of Europe call maneuvering?

That is manoeuvring. What is if not changing direction of flight?

Quote:

I'm sure its not all of them. But when you see an f-22 maneuvering, if anyone ever pays attention and realizes its not using thrust vectoring for one and can already make very sharp turns and supersonic speeds and still maintain control is something to look out for.

How much supersonic manoeuvring do you see at airshows? Right, zilch! So what's your point? What is demonstrated at airshows is just a fraction of the envelope.

Quote:

And if the Typhoon is a 5th Gen fighter( well by these people who say it is) then to me the F-4 Phantom II, MiG-21 Fishbed are 4.5 en fighters

Feel free to believe in what you want, because that's what the majority of people does. Wink

1. Showing you the F-22 Maneuvering, wheres the Typhoons proof of super maneuverability.

2. Thats maneuvering your right, partially, I say that because its not "super"maneuverability which I should have said at 1st.

3. Air shows is a bad choice to be tight turns at airshows is all your going to see for now.

4. Typhoon is still a 4.5 Gen. 5th Gen no.

5. You obviously didn't watch video I posted, thats not an Airshow either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMitljiECKg

velocity264c wrote:

1. Showing you the F-22 Maneuvering, wheres the Typhoons proof of super maneuverability.

2. Thats maneuvering your right, partially, I say that because its not "super"maneuverability which I should have said at 1st.

First and foremost you have to define what super manoeuvrability is! So what is it? It's nothing else than the extension of the manoeuvring envelope into the post stall regime. In other words the area where the airflow becomes unstable over the wing and where the aircraft looses lift. Many aircraft are able to enter the post stall regime, but not many can stay and effectively manoeuvre there. The F-22 is able to do this thanks to TVC, like the Su-30MKI for example. The Typhoon can't due the lack of TVC and as the FCS is designed to not allow exceeding the soft coded threshold for carefree handling characteristics, with the required safety margin in mind. Super manoeuvrability is certainly useful in dogfighting situations where HOBS missiles are not part of the equation. Integrate TVC onto the Typhoon and the aircraft will be super manoeuvrable as well. That option exists whether it will become an operational reality at one point remains yet to be seen. It might be worth noting that super manoeuvrability is merely limited to the low speed envelope and not of relevance at higher subsonic, let alone transsonic or supersonic speeds.

Quote:

4. Typhoon is still a 4.5 Gen. 5th Gen no.

Within certain definitions it indeed is. For further details read my post above.

Quote:

5. You obviously didn't watch video I posted, thats not an Airshow either.

I have seen that video before, but what exactly do you want to tell me with it? That the F-22's aircombat performnce is unmatched is neither new, nor questioned by me.

Scorpion82 wrote:

velocity264c wrote:

1. Showing you the F-22 Maneuvering, wheres the Typhoons proof of super maneuverability.

2. Thats maneuvering your right, partially, I say that because its not "super"maneuverability which I should have said at 1st.

First and foremost you have to define what super manoeuvrability is! So what is it? It's nothing else than the extension of the manoeuvring envelope into the post stall regime. In other words the area where the airflow becomes unstable over the wing and where the aircraft looses lift. Many aircraft are able to enter the post stall regime, but not many can stay and effectively manoeuvre there. The F-22 is able to do this thanks to TVC, like the Su-30MKI for example. The Typhoon can't due the lack of TVC and as the FCS is designed to not allow exceeding the soft coded threshold for carefree handling characteristics, with the required safety margin in mind. Super manoeuvrability is certainly useful in dogfighting situations where HOBS missiles are not part of the equation. Integrate TVC onto the Typhoon and the aircraft will be super manoeuvrable as well. That option exists whether it will become an operational reality at one point remains yet to be seen. It might be worth noting that super manoeuvrability is merely limited to the low speed envelope and not of relevance at higher subsonic, let alone transsonic or supersonic speeds.

Quote:

4. Typhoon is still a 4.5 Gen. 5th Gen no.

Within certain definitions it indeed is. For further details read my post above.

Quote:

5. You obviously didn't watch video I posted, thats not an Airshow either.

I have seen that video before, but what exactly do you want to tell me with it? That the F-22's aircombat performnce is unmatched is neither new, nor questioned by me.

Certain things words can't explain, at least yet, the Typhoon will with no doubt do very great with TVC, but the Mirage 2000 does maneuver well without it, didn't say it will match up. Also how well can the Typhoon maneuver at a full load?

velocity264c wrote:

Certain things words can't explain, at least yet, the Typhoon will with no doubt do very great with TVC, but the Mirage 2000 does maneuver well without it, didn't say it will match up. Also how well can the Typhoon maneuver at a full load?

To get an impression on Typhoon's manoeuvring performance with a full load (swing role configuration) take a look at this video:
http://www.eurofighter.com/media/video- ... 056100ff08

Edit:
That video is more complete than the one above. Same demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4psRKtsy9c

This video doesn't showcase manoeuvrability, but takeoff and climb out performance with full AA load.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPDhfVmy8u4

OK folks, I think this has gone far enough. Since about page 33, the discussion has entirely been about the Typhoon, with little to no relevance to the original topic and no indication it will change direction anytime soon.

Either tie this in with the original topic (with the F-22) or the next exclusive post about the Typhoon I see after my post here will result in this topic split.

If some of you want to talk about the Typhoon exclusively, then start a thread in the "Modern Military Aircraft" forum where it belongs.

@S1a,
then split it from the point it "derailed". Maybe there is already another topic in the other military aircraft section you can merge it with?

cheers

i don't even know why we are talking about this. The Typhoon would get smoked. You can't shoot what you can't see. and WVR? Have you ever seen a raptor BFM? its ridiculous.

deadseal wrote:

i don't even know why we are talking about this. The Typhoon would get smoked. You can't shoot what you can't see. and WVR? Have you ever seen a raptor BFM? its ridiculous.

Well even WVR the F-22s Camoflauge would help its ability to be unseen until a certain distance.

deadseal wrote:

WVR? Have you ever seen a raptor BFM? its ridiculous.

We know most people here haven't. They have no idea. But I say let those who don't know how good the F-22 is at BFM to continue speculating. It's kinda fun (and funny).

Must say whilst the Typhoon is generally regarded as the lesser of two of the aicraft by most peoeple, when watching them both on the same day I noticed the Typhoon seemed more, how do I put it, sprightly than the Raptor when flown down at low level. Though Typhoons slow speed high AOA maneuvers were nowhere near sas impressive. Just my own personal feeling but it may in part be down to the Typhoons smaller size making it seem more sprightly and agile.
I think it would change to the raptors advantage though when higher up where i'd imagine the Raptors TVC and aerodynamics plus its general design/shaping (massive control surfaces) and power play more of a part. Go easy on me though as i'm no pro on these matters.

Although flight demos are just that, demos, it’s not unusual for countries to max perform their aircraft at airshows, even if it’s just certain elements of their flight envelope (but it’s usually a lot of it). Reason is simple: they want to sell them. Any of the Russian ones, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Eagle, Viper (especially the LM Demo), “Super” Hornet…you name it. They all want the most WOW factor out of their demos to woo potential buyers.

I've mentioned this before but I'll add this there: It’s a mistake to look at the F-22 demo and think it’s a full representation of its maneuvering capability. The F-22 Demo Team is not trying to sell this aircraft to anyone and they are well aware what certain people are looking at/for during their demo. Thus there was no requirement to max perform it.

Are there certain times during the demo that the F-22 is at its limits? Yes. But it’s so quick and transitory that the average person probably wouldn’t be able to spot it unless it was pointed out to them.

It’s nice to see that the current F-22 routine is mostly well received by those that see it. I think part of what makes it appealing is that most people know in the back of their minds that the demo is performed by a non-modified front line jet, by an operational pilot, that it has other capabilities and that you know something is being held back in the maneuvering side. After all, everybody that said they had their butts handed to them BFM-ing the F-22 can't all be BS-ing, right?

Point taken but it's unknown if the Typhoon displays are flown to maximun performance. It too may not be displaying to the maximun of its abilty. And for that matter we also don't know that the Raptor is not perfoming at its max at airshows either.

I don't doubt that all US fighters did get their asses handed to them in BFM with Raptors either, but the likes of Typhoon (and Rafale) are more agile than US teen fighters so it may not be quite the same. I heard the Rafales for example (which are similar to Typhoon in abilty) where no easy opponent for the Raptors when they met not to long ago and were said to be a much harder opponent to fight than 'teen' fighters are.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 versus Eurofighter Typhoon