America's Future Interceptor

Originally posted by Dima
wait i just found a site, wit a pic on it, it says that the MiG has the highest thrust-to-weight ratio www.africaninspace.com...

lol, come on, it doesn't even give statistics, also no date, so if its a couple years old then they didn't compare it to the raptor, because it said "production" aircraft. bad site

Also I believe the Raptor can supercruise at very near mach 2, but its top speed is 2.4 - 2.6 mach.

Originally posted by Dima
i think u could apply the same thing to the F/A-22 because, its all based around stealth, so it is not meant to be fast, RAM decreases the , i guess i could say physical characteristics of the aircraft, maneuverability and such(of course, maneuverability isn't that much of a big deal, because the strucuture was designed to be very maneuverable), but i have extremely high doubts that it can go past Mach2.3

...and why wouldn't they, because consumer countries always look at the specs of the aircraft, and if they don't meet the requirements, then they don't accept it

Dima, let me point something out for you.

You have said over and over that stealth has negative effects on the performance of an aircraft, It's becoming a mantra for you, yet you have yet to give a single reason to back up your opinion.

So please tell us why an aircraft that incorporates stealth technologies is necessarily detrimental to the manouverability or top speed of that aircraft. Explain for us how incorporating RAM decreases the physical characteristics. Give us some specifics.

While this was somewhat true for first generation stealth, such as the F-117, it is no longer the case today. The F-22 is a very stealthy AC, yet it has excellent performance, supercruise, etc., and is highly agile. Stealth is much more than just low RCS. There are visual, aural, thermal and electronic footprints to consider also.

I'm just a dumb retired aerospace mfg. engineer, so I guess I am need of an update in my education. Please enlighten me.

As far as publishing performance specs, the F-22 is not built for export, period. If in the future, the decision is made to offer it to the UK or the RAAF, they'll be given the full specs so that they know what they are being offered. Until then, there is no reason to publish the data.

The only people who know the true capabilities of US aircraft are the air forces that fly them.

The F-22 Raptor is a very fast aircraft that has super cruise capability. This means that it cruises above Mach I without afterburner - the first and possibly the only air breathing fighter that will ever do this. I worked on building parts of the first two flight engines in the early 90's. It will be a long time before anyone knows how fast this fighter really is. The problem is the world changed during its nearly 20+ year development. You would be shocked at the technology that had to be invented just to get this plane in the air! Updated versions of the current inventory of war planes (including the JSF) are still leaps and bounds ahead of anything our perceived enemies have or will have. You will also see far more capable unmanned fighing platforms deployed - The JSF will be the last manned air breathing fighter aircraft produced by the U.S.

In addition, (pure speculation), I think it is a safe bet that there are other types of aircraft operating in secret that put our current "Public" weapons platforms on par with the first flight at kitty hawk

The US fleet really doesn't need the F-14 any more. With the vastly improved fleet defense networks currently deployed, nothing anybody has in the air has a chance of getting close enough to a carrier to do any damage. And the things are pigs, as other posters have said so why keep them around.

ENGINEER is right, the F-22 was not a sub-optimal design as far as performance goes. The F-117 is sub-optimized due to the lack of computational ability available at the time, plus it was based on the mathematical stealth model based on facets (flat diamond and triangular shaped panels reflecting radar away from the transmitter). After the F-117 was built, we learned to make smooth stealth shapes as a direct result of the advent of inexpensive, massive computational horespower to model the effects of radar interaction with shapes and materials.

[edit on 1-12-2004 by CaptAvatar]

here's one site, but i mostly hear it from people a t my school that talk about this, they say stuff like, "oh, the F/A-22 is awesome, and then the other guy says, no its not, costs$150 million, and its slow, what kinda plane is that, their kinda stupid"

anyways, i found a site that talks about stealth

here it is: www.allsands.com...

i hope no ones pissed off at me yet, i'm trying to act come, taking deep breaths

Dima, It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you make blanket statements about stealth, and then back them up with something your school friends told you (who obviously know nothing about it), and a link to a website with some a couple comments about the pros and cons.

I will address the "cons" mentioned on your link, maybe you will learn something, maybe not.

1. Increased Weight. While it's true that radar absorbing coatings are heavier than regular paint, new application techniques have largely made this a non-issue. Rather than painting the aircraft and then applying the camoflage design, computerized spray systems today apply the entire scheme in a single coat, eliminating the multiple layers of a traditional paint job. Composites in the airframe and skins are not heavier than their metal counterparts, just more difficult to build.

Avionics: This is also largely a non-issue, because all fighter AC need ECM and avionics systems anyway. Integrated systems like the F-22 uses have fewer components, more computing power, and are more powerful, versatile, and upgradable than systems of the past. They are also much easier to service, which translates to more hours available for missions and fewer hours in the depot.

2. Inefficient lift. Again this was the case with first generation faceted designs, but it is not an issue with the current level of technology. Better software and more powerful computing allow a smooth and efficient airframe,wing, and control surfaces. We can accomplish this without suffering on RCS. The Raptor is a very efficient design, or it wouldn't have the performance that it has.

3. Aerodynamically Unstable: Dynamically unstable designs are the norm today, because they are much more manouverable than a design that is dynamically stable. FBW systems solve the problem of keeping the AC under control, so lack of dynamic stability is not a drawback for a fighter, it's an improvement.

Conclusion: The Raptor is 3,000 lbs heavier in empty weight than the plane it replaces, yet it has a max take-off weight 10,000 lbs heavier, and a better T/W ratio. This means it can carry more fuel and weapons, more efficiently than it's predecessor. I wouldn't say it is paying a weight penalty. The wing and fuselage is very efficient as evidenced by it's ability to supercruise. You can hardly say it has insuficient lift, if it has a max takeoff weight 10,000 more than the F-15C, which is the same size. Manouverability is excellent, and a dynamically unstable design would have been built regardless of the stealth characteristics, simply because they are superior in A2A situations.

So next time your friends tell you how crappy the F-22 is, you can tell them that the F-22 is not an F-117. It is the most advanced, most capable, and most deadly A2A machine in the world today. And yes, it's also the most expensive. But it's not yours and your friends money, it's ours, and we think it's worth it.

We should replace them with SU 33 Foresters........ sell all our General electric shcizot to the isralies

Originally posted by Dima
wow, thisis my best behaviour on any post, i hope u guys can work with me to keep it that way, anywyas, american mad man, i believe it was u that said it has a vrey large thrust-to-weight ratio, well, the MiG-29 has a very good one too, so would that mean that the MiG is able to go to Mach 2.8, no, first of alll, the structure of the aircraft, couldn't withsatnd such friction and heat, it wasn't made for it

Read Intelgurls post. Basically, the Raptor is a mach 2+ aircraft. It has a higher wieght to thrust ratio then the SR-71 blackbird. The only thing that will limit it's speed is how the air is taken into the engine (again, as Intelgurl said). Another limiting factor might be it's RAM, and how it copes with the heat build up. However, I don't know for sure if this is even a factor, so I won't comment on it. All I know is that the structure of the aircraft can DEFINATLY withstand Mach 2 speeds and it's engines can get it there.

i think u could apply the same thing to the F/A-22 because, its all based around stealth, so it is not meant to be fast, RAM decreases the , i guess i could say physical characteristics of the aircraft, maneuverability and such(of course, maneuverability isn't that much of a big deal, because the strucuture was designed to be very maneuverable), but i have extremely high doubts that it can go past Mach2.3

RAM has NO effect on the manueverability what so ever. The SHAPE of the plane (to be stealthy) does have an effect, but through the wonders of modern computing power, the US has overcome this problem. The Raptor is perhaps the most manueverable aircraft in use.

just to reply to u're message, america doesn't need to give out the exact specs, well, i could just as easily say that about any country that designs aircraft, and why wouldn't they, because consumer countries always look at the specs of the aircraft, and if they don't meet the requirements, then they don't accept it

I don't dissagree with that. The one thing I would mention is this - Russia is MUCH more dependent on foriegn AC sales then the US is. Thus, they must "play their aircraft up" more then the US needs to.

and u were talking about the Strike Eagle, its an upgraded version of the Eagle, so its irrelevant, it has itn own stats

Do you honestly believe that any F-15 can't reach Mach 2?

And the mentioned F-15 was NOT the Strike Eagle but the STREAK EAGLE...there is a difference y'know...

The F-15 can reach speeds of Mach 2.5

All of this is very interesting and you bring up some common misconceptions regarding old statistics being used against new technologies - so this is a good thing to discuss.

i think u could apply the same thing to the F/A-22 because, its all based around stealth, so it is not meant to be fast, RAM decreases the , i guess i could say physical characteristics of the aircraft, maneuverability and such(of course, maneuverability isn't that much of a big deal, because the strucuture was designed to be very maneuverable), but i have extremely high doubts that it can go past Mach2.3

Your statement; "its all based around stealth, so it is not meant to be fast" is fundementally incorrect as you are taking 1970's stealth studies in Radar Absorbant Materials and Radar Asorbant Structure and trying to apply them to a 1980-90's technology designed stealth airframe - Studies in stealth RAM and RAS have progressed exponentially since the F-117 and even the B-2 were conceived.

RAS has been dramatically improved since the days of "Have BLUE" and its gem-like facetted structure. The structural design technology used in developing both the F-22 and the YF-23 gives these aircraft stealthiness AND the aerodynamic sleekness that enables supersonic speeds and beyond. Even drawing board near-hypersonic/stealth LSR concepts incorporate similar airframe airflow management.

Nearly all future manned strike platform concepts by US aerospace industries are supersonic and incorporate stealth technologies. Supersonic stealth ability is not a far-off future concept, it is here, it is now, the US, Russia, Great Britain and France all have this knowledge.

The next hurdle for the aerospace industry is mixing stealth with hypersonics... Thoughts about how that would be accomplished would make for an interesting thread.

Your statement; "i have extremely high doubts that it can go past Mach2.3" indicates that you no longer hold to your original statement of "...don't say the F/A-22, because it would be very bad, first of all, it can't even reach Mach2..."
I therefore appreciate your pliability and open mindedness concerning the speed capabilities of the F-22.

Also, RAS is no longer a detriment to manueverability - YES, the F-22 is not as stable aerodynamically speaking as say an F-16... but fly-by-wire really takes care of that quite well.
Additionally, technology advances in RAM have enabled good heat absorption and/or heat disipation with the introduction of advanced oxide embedded ceramics, alloys and metal oxide embedded carbon fibers.

Sub-Discussion: F-15 Streak Eagle

and u were talking about the Strike Eagle, its an upgraded version of the Eagle, so its irrelevant, it has itn own stats

I contend that the stats on the Streak Eagle are still relevant - here's why...

The "modifications" of the Streak Eagle were:

1.They put it on a diet, took 815 kilograms (1,800 pounds) off of a production F-15A,
2. They flew it with no more fuel than was safely required to perform one specific flight exercise,
3. They stripped it of all paint and insignias so that it was bare aluminum skin.
F-15 Origins & Variants
4. The Streak Eagle retained the 2 Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 25,000 lbs thrust turbofans used in the F-15A.

Basically, the changes to an F-15A were rudimentary - the stats on this a/c are certainly different from an F-15E but anyone can see that the potential of even the heavier F-15E would have to be significantly more than the published 65,000 feet (19,812 meters) ceiling and the Mach 2 plus top speed.

I used this to demonstrate the difference between published and actual performance data - therefore bringing the Streak Eagle up as an example in that context certainly is relevant.

That context going back to what I took as your implied assertion that the publicized data on the F-22 represents the maximum capability of the aircraft - whereby I brought up the fact that the USAF and it's contractors do not publish maximum capabilities of their current inventory combat aircraft, and I consequently used the F-15/F-15 Streak Eagle as an example.



[edit on 2-12-2004 by intelgurl]

American Mad Man, u said

I don't dissagree with that. The one thing I would mention is this - Russia is MUCH more dependent on foriegn AC sales then the US is. Thus, they must "play their aircraft up" more then the US needs to.

um, this is irrelevant, because no matter what nation, they will always try to up their aircraft so that they will attract more buyers, this just doesn't make sense, because u can't rely on the"pride" of u're aircraft to win sales, its all about the stats

*Applauds* Intelgurl, you're back! YAY!

Ok anyways, back to the subject.

I do believe that the F-22(Not F/A-22 because the Attack part has been eliminated, and now the F-22 is only an Air Superiority Fighter) can in fact reach speeds of over mach 2 for the reason that it's thrust/wieght ratio is higher than that of the SR-71 BlackBird's T/W ratio, as some other members have already stated.

The Stealth since the early 1980's and late 1970's has dramatically changed. Back then, it had been a new(also known) concept that was being worked on extensively. So the F-117 Stealth Fighter was not as manueverable as it should be.

I have done some research, and although there is no YF-25, it was still a concept. The YF-25 was to replace the F-14 and F/A-18 aircraft. The YF-25 was a more advanced variant of the YF-23, yet not concieved by Northrop. Concieved by a company called EASA(Believed to not even exist). I believe there was also a YF-24, however, I could not find any information, so it may just be a little dream.

The YF-23 would not fit the role as a Naval Fighter-Interceptor for it would be way too pricey, and would surely run amuck in the R&D budget.

I do not know much in the Stealth area, but I do know that it has been further advanced since it first started, and that it is becoming easier to produce, and much easier to incoperate into new aircraft. The hard part, is now figuring out how to make an Aircraft Cloak.

Does the F-22 Raptor use Laminar Flow?

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
*Applauds* Intelgurl, you're back! YAY!

It's good to be back...
Actually I'm back for the holidays then back out to Nellis.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by intelgurl]

Originally posted by Dima
um, this is irrelevant, because no matter what nation, they will always try to up their aircraft so that they will attract more buyers...

I would consider his statement is very relevant - the F-22 is not for sale to any other nation on the planet... same situation as the B-2. There are no buyers to attract - only stringent national security regs to adhere to...



[edit on 2-12-2004 by intelgurl]

SS
(Not F/A-22 because the Attack part has been eliminated, and now the F-22 is only an Air Superiority Fighter)

Links? Why did they take the "A" away?

Originally posted by Dima
just the F/A-18, wow, i hate the F/A-18, why is it soo good, i keep hearing people talknig about how good it is, why?, i don't think it could come anywhere near the capability of the F-14, awesome interceptor, probably my momst favuorite american aircraft

I think a lot of people underestimate just how good the F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet is. It has better radar (AGP-79) than any other aircraft in the world (yes, including the F-22 with it's AGP-77), it can be launched from a carrier, it has decent range and max take off weight and can carry a large range of missiles and bombs. The Super Hornet is a lot better plane than the regular F/A 18 Hornet and is 25% bigger. It's only major drawback is it's price tag.



[edit on 2-12-2004 by Trent]

Trent, why don't you guys buy a few?

Seriously, it would fill the gap when your F-111's retire. The JSF can't really replace the F-111 on long range strike, but the Super Hornet could do it pretty well.

Yeah i agree. The things i can see stopping us from doing this would be the price tag but seeing as though we were considering the Typhoon at one point in time our budget probably could allow it. The other problem is the fact that it's probably hard for military guys to sell political guys the idea of buying F/A 18 Super Hornets since it doesn't have a new and flashy name like the JSF or Typhoon do. The Su-34 would also be a good choice because of it's affordability, but there is no way our government would buy a Russian plane...




[edit on 2-12-2004 by Trent]

Originally posted by intelgurl

Originally posted by Dima
um, this is irrelevant, because no matter what nation, they will always try to up their aircraft so that they will attract more buyers...

I would consider his statement is very relevant - the F-22 is not for sale to any other nation on the planet... same situation as the B-2. There are no buyers to attract - only stringent national security regs to adhere to...



[edit on 2-12-2004 by intelgurl]

That whole logic thing always gets in the way

(sigh)

Yes, the F/A-18E-G isn't as high mach capable as the F-14 and it doesn�t have Aim-54(small chance one would down a Flanker or whatnot) but it is far cheaper to operate and far more reliable... Now days you would be lucky to have more then 4 F-14s out of a squadron of 12 up in the air or ready to fly at any given time. It's airframe is fatigued, leaky and downright living on borrowed time.

In 2006 all Super Hornets coming off of the production line will be equipped with AESA radar and the older ones will be retrofitted with one.
In 2008 GE is planning on realizing a far better F414 engine with more then quadruple the service life of the current one and have the ability to generate ~ 27,500Lbs of thrust due to stronger-fewer parts...

Hell, here�s how I see it. If the pilots transitioning from the F-14s into F/A-18E-F say they'd rather go into combat in a Super Hornet ANYDAY rather then an F-14 then I'm sold.

From what I know, who I know, and what I've read to be happening and planned If I had joined the Navy I would have been much happier to fly the Super Bug then the ol' Tomcat.