Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 10/30/2001 5:08:17 AM EST
Does anyone know the current status of the F22? Is it in service? TIA
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 5:14:24 AM EST
Not in service, but it is being tested. Personally, I hate the F-22 idea. It's $200 million a piece to replace planes that cost $40 million. And it's been discovered that Russia(and probably china) has already modified their radar to see the stealth planes. So why spend a ton of money on a plane that is not advantageous to current planes. As far as killing radars in 3rd world countires, we already have f117's and b2's that seem to work fine in iventory. The B-2's are used sparingly and not to full effect now because they cost a billion bucks, the f-22's will suffer the same fate. They need to work on making it cheaper before it would be useful, since projections say it could even reach $500 million each before production.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 6:15:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 6:20:25 AM EST
Maybe so, but one lucky shot and if a F-22 is downed, you get the results of shooting down 5? 10? F-15's.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 6:25:24 AM EST
The stealthiness part of the jet is not its only contribution to the science of the fighter plane. In fact it is but only 1/10th of it. The radar is new, the flight system is new, the computer program is new, the engines are brand new(the first 35,000lb static thrust, better fuel economy 2/3 more range for same fuel as P&WF100/110, the Avionics suit is brand new, the Thrust vectoring is new) The aircraft is a very novel fighter / air interdiction plane. I don't think it is the boon dogle everyone seems to think. AOA up to 60 degrees which is 45 degress more then the f-16. The Radar is very survivable. Stealthiness is more then just what a radar can see. It has more to do with emissions and not tripping peoples RWR SET. And this is where the F-22 excels. Not to mention that I don't know if the Russians or anyone else can see our bomber?? It is not what you shoot at it its how you interpret the very little you get back. It has never been invisible, but I bet that its almost impossible to lock up on. Ben
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 6:27:51 AM EST
I'll see if I cant find anything on Russian Radar Sets that can detect stealth. Ben
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 6:42:51 AM EST
That's my point, can't you put supercruise, and updated avionics/radar into a current non super-expensive composite airplane? Also, is the F22 fairweather only like the f117, and the B-2? If they get struck by lightning, they explode, unlike metal bodied planes. That's also one of the problems with the boeing sst. Composites don't take lightning strikes, and who wants to get into a plane that will explode if struck by lightning(which happens more often in airplanes). The F-22 also has to carry less ordinance, since it carries it internally. And what is its range(I'm sure classified) compared to a normal aircraft capable of carrying drop tanks? The F22 is an interesting concept, but how will it work in a real war? Thrust vectoring for superioir manuverability in dogfights. Once again, great vs. russia or china, but useless against anyone else. In the end, my biggest concern is obviously just the price. It might be worth more, but so what. I've seen $500,000 racing trucks do incredible off road while driving on impossible inclines, and they are worth every cent. But the HMMWVs should not be replaced by them because we can have a bunch of HMMWVs for a lot less money. Super-high tech is great, but if its a choice between 500 F-15s, or 100 F-22s, what do you want in the air above your army? The unmanned aircraft are the future. They can pull high-G's without the pilot feeling the effects. They are cheap and disposable. They can carry more fuel, and be more effieciently designed without the need for a cockpit and support systems for the human onboard. We just need to make a few better ones than we currently use. But they are new, so it'll be a few years then they will take over the skies. In the end, if you can make a possibly reusable(i.e. if it makes it back in tact) weapon for the cost of a cruise missle, who care's if its shot down.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 6:50:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: I'll see if I cant find anything on Russian Radar Sets that can detect stealth. Ben
View Quote
That story was all over the news during the Kosovo thing. I'll have to search for it. But we were worried that Russia might have supplied melosovic(sp?) with some of the newer stuff.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 7:19:31 AM EST
Here is one place I found it. Going with first site, getting pissed seeing clinton's name all over the place when I do these searches. News Warfare : The Czech defense ministry said Apr. 1 that it was trying to trace dozens of surplus Czech-made Tamara anti-aircraft radar systems, Reuters reported, amid rumors that some may have fallen into Yugoslav hands. Tamara is said to be capable of detecting US "stealth" aircraft. Reuters was following up a report by Germany's ZDF television, which quoted a British security analyst who cited U.S. intelligence sources as saying that a Tamara system which the former Czechoslovakia sold to Russia prior to 1990 had been passed on to Yugoslavia. This from [url]http://www.defense-aerospace.com/data/features/data/fe28/index.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 7:20:23 AM EST
I think, if I remember correctly, (don't quote me on this) that its not new radar we have to worry about, it is old obsolete radar from WWII that can actually see stealth planes or a detuned radar (sees more noise). Also stealth by definition is not invisibility, but making the radar cross-section smaller (ie the F-22 radar cross-section is only the size of a sparrow). This is one of the reasons the XB-70 Valkyrie was abandoned, it had the radar signature of 3 B-52's because of it's huge air intakes. [USA]
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 7:23:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 7:47:57 AM EST
One of the big reasons for adopting new designs is that the old aircraft simply wear out. You can put many new parts into an old car, but at the end of the day it is still a rustbucket. The F-15 airframe is 1970's technology. Here we are 35 years later. US air supremacy to a large degree rests upon the cutting edge of high end fighter aircraft. It would only take several dozen of these aircraft to dominate any future airwar and enable those A-10's and F-16's to do their air to ground thing. I was just a submariner, so I don't claim any real knowledge of this stuff.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:18:25 AM EST
Okay heres the scoop on Stealth Technology. Surviellance Radar D/E(L Band) 23cm wavelength 1250-1380 Mhz can see stealth aircraft fine. These are just Surveillance radars. They hand off to Sam Radar in a manner I will explain later. Tracking Radar I/J (X Band) High Precision (due to shorter wavelength, I guess) 3cm wavelength 9230-9404 MHZ. These are the radars that can't see planes with US stealth Characteristics. The Surveillance Radar follows the target and when it is in range of a particular Sam sight it is handed off to the Tracking Radar of that Particular SAM. The Tracking Radar Cannot See the Stealth Aircraft enough to lock onto it with any length of time enough to get valuable information to the fire control system. I still think we need stealth aircraft because russia is giving their sams and radars away on the cheap. Were talking any money is better then no money kind of a deal. Furthermore the Russians are fielding their own SU-37 Which is a fith generation design with Stealth Characteristics and Forward Swept Wings, Thrust Vectoring, And this fighter plane when units are recieved say in the next 7-9 years will start making its way into Third WOrld Countries hands. Giving the Third World Nations a 5th generation fighter attack aircraft against 4th Gen of Americans if we don't have the F-22 & JSF. Stealth works but it is not full proof. Training amounts to more. I hold the view that we should have both. Part of the reason the Price for the F-22 keeps going up is because the Congress has seen fit to drop from an initial purchase of 750 planes to less than at this point 300. In the long run their will be over 1000. As the service saw over 3000 F-16's produced worlwide But they are 20million a pop. Gunman Stated Several things which need to be answered . The Supercruise is indeed very needed, because it combines with the stealth technologies to produce a weapons platform that can Egress into an Area Fast (giving the SAMS less time to not only Track the Aircraft but lock onto it, presuming stealth by itself doesn't work(which we know that it does) Its all about time, The enemy may need 3 seconds today to lock onto you, the response is to only operate in an area that is always some number of seconds less then what is needed. If you understand me. Say the radar requires a steady lock of two seconds before the fire-control system starts. The whole idea is to keep that radar from ever seeing you longer then .5 second.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:30:00 AM EST
Gunman, what is the range The Engines for the F-22 are manufacted by both P&W / General Electric (I think; The rest I am sure of) These engines of which the F-22 has two are 35,000 lbs static thrust as compared to the F100 at 20,000. And the F110 at 28,000 for the F-16/15. So the new engines have fewer parts then either the F100 / F110 and have 2/3 more range then an F-15 w/o conformal fuel tanks. for the same amount of fuel. Is able to cruise at Supersonic speed(up to Mach 1.5 w/o Afterburner as compared to 400 knots or about mach .8 at 36,000 feet of the F-16/15. The engines arn't the problem. The thrust vectoring allows the F-22 to operate at angles of attack up to 60 degrees versus 25 degrees for the f-16. And the SU-37 has thrust vectoring as well. The Synthetic Aperture Radar will allow such a tight single target track that the radar will not be radiating much energy at all to other aircraft. A bonus, because that makes it less likely that even in a dogfight the F-22 will trip the RWR of either a MiG-29 or Su-27. The Synthetic Aperture Radar in Single Target track only uses the amount of energy needed to track the target currently locked. But it also has more conventional modes of operation but there again multiple target track without spewing ELECTRONIC HIGH POWER EMF all over the place as do current FIRE-CONTROL RADARS say the APG-66 and 77. The ANTENNA ARRAY of the F-22 FireControl Radar doesn't move. Instead only tiny sensors and only those needed are used in the dish. The whole system is cryogenically cooled. It is both AIR-TO-AIR and AIR-TO-GROUND The aircraft is totally state of the art and sets the standard for Fighter Design. Period. Ben
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:46:15 AM EST
Here is one radar that can see the stealth bomber. 1R13 EWR , Russian. part of their Early Warning System. Benjamin
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:47:14 AM EST
Two questions. First, I recall the thrust vectoring for the F-22 being pitch only. Is this correct? Also, I recall the Su-37 having separate yaw and pitch control for each engine, giving it yaw, pitch, and roll control. So, should we not have similar technology installed on the F-22. The other question goes to the human factor. Using 60 degree thrust vectoring in a turn might get you positioned to take a shot on the enemy, but won't the ridiculous G forces mean you won't be conscious to take the shot?
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:53:57 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:54:47 AM EST
Originally Posted By gunman0: Super-high tech is great, but if its a choice between 500 F-15s, or 100 F-22s, what do you want in the air above your army?
View Quote
Think of all the P-51's or Even Sopwith Camels we could buy. Yep, technology sucks, alright.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 8:57:09 AM EST
The F22 uses Two Pratt and Whitney F119 Turbofans. The JSF is slated to first use the F119 Turbofan, and Rolls-Royce and GE are partnered on the F120 Turbofan to supplement the F119. I worked on the F120 for a while. It an awesome piece of work!!!! I miss my old job![:(]
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 9:30:52 AM EST
Gunman, The post stall flight envolope was fully mapped by the X-29 and X-35??? These two xperimental aircraft lived their lifes AT HIGH AOA. That is where all the data came from. They had sensors all over those planes (where talking every couple of inches) so that they could develop complete models of Post stall airflow. If you look at the SU-37 those forward swept wings are straight off clones of the X-29 right down to connecting the wing into the fuselage. Look to be exact copies. Hahaha.
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 10:11:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2001 11:49:15 AM EST
Recent tests showed an F-22 passed between a F16 and a F15 without being detected. Since the kill ratio of those tow US fighters dramatically exceed anything else, I'll place my money on the F22. Yes, some of these newer engines and avionics can be retro-fitted into the F16 & F15. And that may be fine to supplement the F-22 and F-35 in low intensity conflict areas, or for homeland defense. The point is that there are limits to older generation aircraft so you won't get the same level of performance. Regards, Talyn
Top Top