Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

[So their peeping at classified F-35 designs is inconsequential? I'd say, from looking at the J-20 and the some of the airframe features on it that have been apparently stolen from F-35/F-22 that the Chinese are about a decade ahead of the Russians. Not because of engineering, but espionage. Sure, the J-20's not a Raptor (in ANY respect, except maybe unrefueled range), but that doesn't mean it isn't stealthy.

And while a rather advanced copy of the Flanker (aka J-11) is the Hi component of their force, the Lo end is the indigenous (and mostly non-ripped off) J-10. I'm not going to go bonkers like APA and say we're all doomed, but the Chinese do have a decent force which is getting better. I'd even surmise that their industrial capacity far surpasses Russia's right now, since as we speak the Chinese are building two Charles de Gaulle-sized carriers.

Probably just flares, but perhaps an active cooling system?

What sort of active EW countermeasure could be activated against a -9x launch? I'm thinking he was talking about the F-22 needing to maneuver in non-afterburner and not deploying flares in order for an F-15 to have any chance of a -9x hit. If that's truly the case then the USAF absolutely needs to invest in an upgraded IIR seeker (possibly qwip or equivalent, eg perhaps an NCADE type improved seeker) as such a capability should exist to lock-on IR-reduced skins.

IR signature reduction was a major consideration on the F-22, which is why they went with 2D thrust vectoring, as it was easier to manage RF/IR signature reduction. The shape of the rear of the aircraft is also a factor, in helping to obscure the nozzles. Then factor in the cooling of the exhaust, and the use of the fuel as a heat sink, paints/materials, etc... As far as supercruising affecting the NEZ, you are mistaken. If the missile is fired at anything other than a head on aspect, then it has to expend more energy catching up. This means that to ensure a high pK, the launch aircraft must be closer.

It's not the missile that I was referring to. It was the launch aircraft, which must try to get into a good firing position, against a highly agile target, that's difficult to lock weapons on.

Please excuse that I took a few days to get back to you, I can only get here intermittently. And, since I suck at putting multiple quotes in order, let me just blather about both of your comments here, please.


In the first instance, the F-22 has 2-D thrust vectoring because in the late '80s no one knew how to do build a successful 3-D system, and Lockheed sure didn't want the cost of developing a way to do so as part of their bid. I'm not convinced that the AF of those days put that high a priority on IR stealth in a fighter (I'm not convinced they do so today). Because of where the nozzles have to be to have thrust vectoring, you automatically give up the ability to use a number of techniques. Again compare the YF-22 and YF-23, wherein the latter was especially concerned with this. On the -22, we've all seen those dramatic pics where tons of flame erupt aft. It's even more impressive when you see that vectored. That's a pretty hefty plume and is probably even visible from the front. Modern IRSTs should be able to pick that up from a significant distance, as well as emissions form the leading edges. Contrast that with the YF-23 (I'm starting another YF-22/23 debate, just illustrating a concept). Exhausts are further forward, special IR suppressant material is used just aft and the aft control surfaces are positioned to shroud that area, especially from below. Have you ever seen a picture of the YF-23, except from almost directly aft and in almost the same plane where the flame is visible at all?



Of course the geometry of the intercept affects the no-escape zone, but I fear you are misunderstanding my contention. I said that radar stealth won't affect the no-escape zone much, not that supercruising won't. The no-escape zone is simply the area where the target can not escape the missile through aerodynamic methods, i.e. you can't outrun it and you can't outmaneuver it. The no-escape zone naturally assumes track is being held, or the whole exercise is meaningless.

I understood you were referring to getting in position to launch. What I'm getting at is that when the Raptor chooses to dogfight, it gives up many of the advantages that makes it what it is. It puts itself in an arena where it can be locked up by a weapon that will outmaneuver it.

It's that cliche about bringing a rifle to a knife fight in a telephone booth. It ignores the obvious question: If you've got a rifle, why get in the phone booth to begin with?

IMO if the AF wanted 3D TVC nozzles badly enough on the F-22, they would have found a way to do so. It's likely they didn't think the extra complexity and, more importantly, the less stealthy circular nozzle, was worth it. I understand that the rectangular nozzles on the Raptor engines result in.less thrust output, if true, a price they were willing to pay for superior LO. As far as maneuverability/agility, the F-22 does just fine from what we know

Don't forget, we're talking late '80s here. Do you think they wanted to pay what it would cost to invent it? Remember also, the YF-23 didn't use thrust vectoring at all and it also exceeded USAF's maneuverability requirement.

I understood you were referring to getting in position to launch. What I'm getting at is that when the Raptor chooses to dogfight, it gives up many of the advantages that makes it what it is. It puts itself in an arena where it can be locked up by a weapon that will outmaneuver it.