Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/28/2004 12:13:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 12:13:37 PM EST by KA3B]
MARIETTA, Ga., Oct. 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --

Lockheed Martin rolled Raptor 4041 out of its final production assembly facility today, marking a milestone in the F/A-22 program. Aircraft 4041 is the initial F/A-22 for the Air Force's first operational, combat-ready squadron of Raptors.

Once complete with post-production preparations and flights, aircraft 4041 will be accepted by the Air Force and delivered to the 1st Fighter Wing's 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Va., for use as a combat dedicated aircraft.

Previously delivered F/A-22s are now being flown by Air Force pilots at Edwards, Nellis and Tyndall Air Force Bases for pilot training, tactics and testing to support the growing fleet.

More than a year ago, parts from nearly 1,000 suppliers and sub-assembly facilities across 43 states began arriving at the Marietta plant as ship 4041 began its journey through the final assembly process. The production of an F/A-22 represents a tremendous effort, culminating in a transformational and revolutionary aircraft.

"All of this work is for one reason, to maintain America's air dominance role for decades to come," aid Rob Weiss, deputy vice president for F/A-22 Business Development.

The Raptor's combination of stealth, integrated avionics, maneuverability and supercruise (supersonic flight without afterburner) gives the F/A-22 "first-look, first-shot, first-kill" capability against any potential enemy aircraft and anti-access surface-to-air threats. The F/A-22 is esigned to provide not just air superiority but to shorten wars and save lives.

Raptor 4041 will arrive at Langley in early 2005. The squadron will enter initial operational capability later in the year.
"As we roll out the first combat dedicated F/A-22 Raptor, we know its lethality, technological advances and superior performance will be placed in the hands of the best airmen and warriors on the planet," Weiss said, as he addressed 1st Fighter Wing representatives and Lockheed Martin roduction line employees. "May its presence alone provide deterrence ... but if deterrence
fails, we know it will provide a level of air dominance never seen in history."

The 1st Fighter Wing has a long history serving as a leader in air superiority and stands ready for the arrival of the first F/A-22 Raptor. The 7th Fighter Squadron is the oldest fighter squadron in the United States Air Force. As one of three squadrons of the 1st Fighter Wing, the squadron is
tasked to perform air superiority missions. The 27th Fighter Squadron is also the first squadron at Langley to receive the F/A-22.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/10-27-2004/0002313599&EDATE=
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 12:23:09 PM EST
I'm so stoked that I live almost directly under Langley's approach path. F-15's on landing approach fly about 200-250 feet from my home all day long.

I'll be able to get some great pics of the first F-22 flights.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 12:32:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 12:33:49 PM EST by DOW]
I'll tell ya - I don't care what air superiority fighters cost nowadays - you have to have the best. You control the air, you control the battlefield. How many billion? That's nice - make a few more.

P.S. - While you're at it, bolt a nice $900 toilet seat on there, just for shits and giggles. Thanks.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 12:33:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By DOW:
I'll tell ya - I don't care what air superiority fighters cost nowadays - you have to have the best. You control the air, you control the battlefield. How many billion? That's nice - make a few more.



I wish there was a checkbox on your tax return so you could specify where your tax money went. Mine would be aircraft and cruise missles. Just doing my part!
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 12:44:56 PM EST
That plane kicks so much ass, it makes the F-16 look like a VW bug.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 12:46:58 PM EST
My former SSGT was one of the guys rolling it out.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 12:50:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 12:53:10 PM EST by Armed_Scientist]
We really need to bump up the number of copies we are buying of that plane. A fleet of 500 or 600 seems more apropriate for the current global climate.

That being said, the F/A-22 is the perfect example of how not to run a military development program....in development for two decades and still two years from IOC. The YF-45 and 47 UCAVs are going to supplant the F-22 by the time the order is filled, going from concept to production in less then one half the incubation time of the Raptor.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:02:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By DOW:
I'll tell ya - I don't care what air superiority fighters cost nowadays - you have to have the best. You control the air, you control the battlefield. How many billion? That's nice - make a few more.

P.S. - While you're at it, bolt a nice $900 toilet seat on there, just for shits and giggles. Thanks.



.......and a $300 hammer in the tool kit......
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:04:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By quijanos:

Originally Posted By DOW:
I'll tell ya - I don't care what air superiority fighters cost nowadays - you have to have the best. You control the air, you control the battlefield. How many billion? That's nice - make a few more.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/275px-F22_Raptor_large.jpg
P.S. - While you're at it, bolt a nice $900 toilet seat on there, just for shits and giggles. Thanks.



.......and a $300 hammer in the tool kit......



Gotta pay for those 'Black' programs…

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:13:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By DOW:
I'll tell ya - I don't care what air superiority fighters cost nowadays - you have to have the best. You control the air, you control the battlefield. How many billion? That's nice - make a few more.




When was the last time in history that our guys on the ground REALLY had to worry about enemy aircraft? WWII? You couldn't be more right.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:36:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By ElevenHotel:

Originally Posted By DOW:
I'll tell ya - I don't care what air superiority fighters cost nowadays - you have to have the best. You control the air, you control the battlefield. How many billion? That's nice - make a few more.




When was the last time in history that our guys on the ground REALLY had to worry about enemy aircraft? WWII? You couldn't be more right.



More importantly, when was the last time in history that our enemies were actually willing to put their air force into action in a conflict?

If we were still flying F-4 Phantoms things would be differant.

Double the order Congress!
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:44:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mauser101:

Originally Posted By ElevenHotel:

Originally Posted By DOW:
I'll tell ya - I don't care what air superiority fighters cost nowadays - you have to have the best. You control the air, you control the battlefield. How many billion? That's nice - make a few more.




When was the last time in history that our guys on the ground REALLY had to worry about enemy aircraft? WWII? You couldn't be more right.



More importantly, when was the last time in history that our enemies were actually willing to put their air force into action in a conflict?

If we were still flying F-4 Phantoms things would be differant.

Double the order Congress!



Hear, hear!

Great idea.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:54:22 PM EST
Those things are simply awesome.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:40:18 PM EST

Double the order Congress!


THAT'S RIGHT!.......It's ONLY money!.........PRINT MORE!......Pass that debt to the kids! We won't be around when that bill comes due! SCREW THEM! We want our stuff NOW!!!
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:41:52 PM EST
outstanding! thank God for President Bush and a republican controlled Congress!
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:44:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:44:47 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:17:14 PM EST
Current unit cost is $258 million.

bmvjethead, I lived in the same trailer park when I was stationed at Langley - just outside the NASA west gate, just south of the racetrack. I think it was just off Armistead Ave, but that was a while ago.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:18:54 PM EST
O FUCK YES!

This will change the way aerial combat is fought.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:21:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 4:23:27 PM EST by DOW]

Originally Posted By AeroE:
Current unit cost is $258 million.

bmvjethead, I lived in the same trailer park when I was stationed at Langley - just outside the NASA west gate, just south of the racetrack. I think it was just off Armistead Ave, but that was a while ago.




Damn bmvjethead, he outed you just like that!
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:23:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By alloy6061:

Double the order Congress!


THAT'S RIGHT!.......It's ONLY money!.........PRINT MORE!......Pass that debt to the kids! We won't be around when that bill comes due! SCREW THEM! We want our stuff NOW!!!



Those planes and systems like them are worth every penny. It's these weapons that will insure that your grandchildren still have an America and not become a slave in a global community.
The defense of our nation comes first. How about we cut some pork spending or useless social programs to pay for it.
We could cancel XM8 program and stop illegal immigration to start.
Triple the order and fund the next generation now.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:26:10 PM EST
those are some bad birds
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:27:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By alloy6061:

Double the order Congress!


THAT'S RIGHT!.......It's ONLY money!.........PRINT MORE!......Pass that debt to the kids! We won't be around when that bill comes due! SCREW THEM! We want our stuff NOW!!!



We'll just take it out of YOUR check! Planerench out.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:29:33 PM EST
And I'm sure that President Kerry will make sure that F-22 funding continues -- NOT.

Sorry for diverting the thread.

It's a great aircraft, although the YF-23 was more attractive.

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:29:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By GC456:
That plane kicks so much ass, it makes the F-16 look like a VW bug.



+INFINITY
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:36:40 PM EST
There is only one way to get that per unit cost down....

Order more!!!!
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:38:34 PM EST
I almost forgot - "operational" is a wee stretch until the airplane successfully completes Op/Eval, and it ain't close (well, it is close to completing the watered down version). In the mean time, the taxpayer will have bought over 60 airplanes that can't go to war until the bugs are sorted out in the flight test fleet and the hangar queens get modified.

They won't be carrying JASSM's - those dogs are grounded, apparently indifnitely.

Just to be balanced, I think the F-16 (wait, that's not right) C-130 is a hell of an airplane. So was the Connie. The F-104 is a good air interdiction fighter. And the SR-71 is incomparable. So there.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:38:41 PM EST
BTW: I'm tired of this do it for the children shit. If you want to learn provide a place, if not there is a pile of dirt he can help Manual move out back.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:48:01 PM EST
The special on the History Channel on the new JSF was saying that by 2060 the US will have only one plane due to the high cost of each unit. The USAF will get in the mornings, the Navy in the evenings and the Marines wont get to use it.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 4:55:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By DOW:

Originally Posted By AeroE:
Current unit cost is $258 million.

bmvjethead, I lived in the same trailer park when I was stationed at Langley - just outside the NASA west gate, just south of the racetrack. I think it was just off Armistead Ave, but that was a while ago.




Damn bmvjethead, he outed you just like that!





I don't live in a trailer park.

My house is only one step outta the trailer park though, but that's an important step.

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 5:01:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By alloy6061:

Double the order Congress!


THAT'S RIGHT!.......It's ONLY money!.........PRINT MORE!......Pass that debt to the kids! We won't be around when that bill comes due! SCREW THEM! We want our stuff NOW!!!



We'll just take it out of YOUR check! Planerench out.

Check? What makes you think aluminum-boy works?
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 5:02:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 6:05:03 PM EST by cmjohnson]
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 5:53:33 PM EST
An F-15 with ATF engines (F-22 engines) will not "go" Mach 3; there are a variety of reasons far more important than materials, one being the inlet design and another the basic airframe drag. The general airframe loads at Mach 3 are mostly trivial and won't size much, if anything, in the basic ariframe. The two dominant design load conditions are steady state pull-ups at around M-1.05 at 20000 feet (generates large bending moments), and rolling pullouts at around 8000 feet and M=0.90 (generates high shears due to the large dynamic pressure).

Besides, no one would want to fly Mach 3 - the damn airplane is useless unless you load it down with bombs and missiles, at which point it's a 550 kt airplane.

Unfortunately, I can't find mach-altitude charts for either airplane on the net - this would help you understand the relationship between mach number and dynamic pressure at various weights and configurations.

Three factors screw up our advanced airplane programs - politicians that don't have the best interest of the Nation at heart, Executives that are only interested in their compensation packages and can't tell the truth to the customer, and government employees that don't know nearly as much about the design and construction of complicated aircraft as they want to think. A fourth is inefficient funding profiles that drag the development phases out over unreasonably and inefficiently long periods.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 6:31:21 PM EST
Cool. My company has some parts in it. Small parts but still.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 6:55:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By Planerench:

Originally Posted By alloy6061:

Double the order Congress!


THAT'S RIGHT!.......It's ONLY money!.........PRINT MORE!......Pass that debt to the kids! We won't be around when that bill comes due! SCREW THEM! We want our stuff NOW!!!



We'll just take it out of YOUR check! Planerench out.

Check? What makes you think aluminum-boy works?



I was implying the source of HIS check and the source of the check written for more F-22s is the same.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 7:26:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 7:29:03 PM EST by geno_14K]
Concerning the F-15 being equipped with more powerful engines in an effort to push it faster: I asked this specific question of MD engineers in 1981 and was told it was not designed for that areodynamic loading. One guy specualted the airframe life would be very short indeed.

The F-22 has the POTENTIAL of living up to the claims made for it. Currently it is suffering from a host of technical problems which limit its utility. One of the most serious is the effects of lightning on its fly-by-wire control system. The EMP produced my lightning causes the computers flying the plane to loose control and the pilot has to leave the aircraft. This is because the aircraft is intrinsically unstable and only its flight computers make stable flight possible. Present USAF policy is for aircraft to return to base when lightning strikes are noted in the area. In effect they are grounded by adverse weather.

Geno
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 7:54:21 PM EST
geno_14k, the airplane has been re-engined at least twice since '81 (not including non-production birds), but not for more speed, it's for hauling bigger loads. Going faster is just not important; I know the lay public believes these airplanes scoot around at supersonic speeds all the time, but it just ain't so. You just didn't ask the right folks at MDC!

Supercruise of the F-22 and F-23 will likely change this since low supersonic speeds will be possible without afterburner.

Lightning is bad for the F-22's burnt string-and-glue structure (carbon/epoxy skins), not the fly-by-wire avionics; in that case, there would be very few fighters or large airplanes flying. The F-22 suffers from complexity and 'til recently, piss poor software with a propensity to just lock up.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 8:00:30 PM EST
Hopefully they will test in the gulf
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 8:49:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2004 1:12:41 PM EST by geno_14K]
AeroE:

You addressed the issue on re-engineing more fully than I. My statement was simplistic. I spoke the MD engineers during the flight tests of an F-15C equipped with prototype hardware for the in-design F-15E. Specifically, the engineers stated a new hull and engines being built for the F-15E but not for increased speed but for carrying increased weapons & fuel load. I asked about increased speed and they said it was a non-issue. Their opinion was there was very little need for it and the current airframe couldn't handle it. The F-15C used in the developement could not equal the weight lifting of the eventually produced F-15E, as it was merely a "mule" used as a technology demonstrator/validation airframe.

I was told by members of the 2FS that the lightning issue for the F-22 specifically relates to the EMP noise and its effect on the fly-by-wire-control system. This is ancedotal evidence and I have nothing to show for its accuracy.

Geno
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 3:45:06 AM EST



Don't bet on that. If the rules of engagement are guns only, no missiles, and VISUAL engagement only, the F-16 is likely to be able to hold its own given that it's being piloted by someone who knows his business.

I say this because the F-16's performance is limited by the physical endurance of the pilot. The software that controls it limits maneuvers to 9 Gs, plus a little. An F-22 pilot is subject to the same human endurance limitations, so even if the airframe is capable of greater maneuverability than the F-16, it's an advantage that can't be exploited by a conscious pilot.



Pull'n' geez ain't everthang. The Lightning II can change it's vector--I'm not talking exclusively about vectored thrust--in ways that are impossible for the Falcon. The Lightning II can be--is--a new-age stall fighter. It will turn inside the Falcon at low speed, punishing the pilot very little. The Falcon pilot will either black-out in his futile 9-g turn, or he can hopelessly attempt to slow turn with the Lightning II.


The F-22's first advantage is its virtual invisibility to ordinary radar systems. You can't shoot something down with a radar guided missile if you can't get a lock on it. Its second advantage is its super-cruise ability, which isn't due to revolutionary aerodynamic principles, but instead is due to the fact that it packs two engines in the 40,000 pounds of thrust class!


A third advantage is super-agility. Super-cruise will only get the Lightning II to the engagement area sooner.

Also, it can fly far into enemy airspace, waylay targets on the way--even intercept low-altitude cruise missiles--disrupt or destroy enemy micro-electronics, loiter, wait for the Falcon(s,) and destroy it(them) with its gun if it pleases.



snip...

I don't put down the F-22. Some of its capabilities are MINDBLOWING, judging by what has just been hinted at officially. But aerodynamically speaking, it's not the quantum leap forward that some would have you believe. It's tough to make huge advances in that field when human factors are the limiting factors and existing planes are already limited by them.




The aerodynamic quantum leap the Lightning II does have is with its control surfaces...control surfaces are "aerodynamics" too. The term "aerodynamics" has been mis-used so often that the general public thinks it just means low drag. I'd guess that the Lightning II doesn't have less drag force than the F-15, but if their frontal areas are compared--the Lightning II has a cavernous fuselage...it even has internal weapons bays--the Lightning II's "aerodynamics" are highly advanced. That's probably what the propaganda is talking about.

I strongly suspect that the Lightning II's advanced "aerodynamics" which allows it to transgress enemy airspace (assuming bizarre attitudes--not altitudes--so as to present a low RCS, like flying straight ahead while banked) contributes to its super-dog fighting ability. It's my minimally informed opinion, with immeasurable bias too, that the Falcon has little chance vs the Lightning II in any air-to-air scenario.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 3:45:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2004 3:46:36 AM EST by injun-ear]
Deleted double-post.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 4:14:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By injun-ear:



Don't bet on that. If the rules of engagement are guns only, no missiles, and VISUAL engagement only, the F-16 is likely to be able to hold its own given that it's being piloted by someone who knows his business.

I say this because the F-16's performance is limited by the physical endurance of the pilot. The software that controls it limits maneuvers to 9 Gs, plus a little. An F-22 pilot is subject to the same human endurance limitations, so even if the airframe is capable of greater maneuverability than the F-16, it's an advantage that can't be exploited by a conscious pilot.



Pull'n' geez ain't everthang. The Lightning II can change it's vector--I'm not talking exclusively about vectored thrust--in ways that are impossible for the Falcon. The Lightning II can be--is--a new-age stall fighter. It will turn inside the Falcon at low speed, punishing the pilot very little. The Falcon pilot will either black-out in his futile 9-g turn, or he can hopelessly attempt to slow turn with the Lightning II.


The F-22's first advantage is its virtual invisibility to ordinary radar systems. You can't shoot something down with a radar guided missile if you can't get a lock on it. Its second advantage is its super-cruise ability, which isn't due to revolutionary aerodynamic principles, but instead is due to the fact that it packs two engines in the 40,000 pounds of thrust class!


A third advantage is super-agility. Super-cruise will only get the Lightning II to the engagement area sooner.

Also, it can fly far into enemy airspace, waylay targets on the way--even intercept low-altitude cruise missiles--disrupt or destroy enemy micro-electronics, loiter, wait for the Falcon(s,) and destroy it(them) with its gun if it pleases.



snip...

I don't put down the F-22. Some of its capabilities are MINDBLOWING, judging by what has just been hinted at officially. But aerodynamically speaking, it's not the quantum leap forward that some would have you believe. It's tough to make huge advances in that field when human factors are the limiting factors and existing planes are already limited by them.




The aerodynamic quantum leap the Lightning II does have is with its control surfaces...control surfaces are "aerodynamics" too. The term "aerodynamics" has been mis-used so often that the general public thinks it just means low drag. I'd guess that the Lightning II doesn't have less drag force than the F-15, but if their frontal areas are compared--the Lightning II has a cavernous fuselage...it even has internal weapons bays--the Lightning II's "aerodynamics" are highly advanced. That's probably what the propaganda is talking about.

I strongly suspect that the Lightning II's advanced "aerodynamics" which allows it to transgress enemy airspace (assuming bizarre attitudes--not altitudes--so as to present a low RCS, like flying straight ahead while banked) contributes to its super-dog fighting ability. It's my minimally informed opinion, with immeasurable bias too, that the Falcon has little chance vs the Lightning II in any air-to-air scenario.



Why are you calling it lLightning II? Its name is RAPTOR.

Actually the Falcon has little chance because the Raptor will peg it with a AMRAAM before the Falcon could see it.

ACM abilities are wasted. We have learned that with our couple recent simulated toe to toes with the Indian Air Force Sukhiois. Helmet mounted sights, and WAY off borsight lock on missiles like R-73 and Sidewinder X (and ASRAAM, and Python 4/5) make engagements a slaughterhouse. Between aircraft of similar speed and weapons range like the SU-30 and Eagle C/D/E fights are a bloodbath. Scores were like something out of WWII.

The Scary thing was that even the updated MiG-21's of the Indian AF gave the Falcons nearly as much trouble. They have found a radar as small and nearly as good as APG-65 and succeeded in squeezing it in to that tiny inlet nosecone like we succeeded in getting APG-65 in to Harrier. The Falcon performance wise can fly rings around the "Bisons" as the IAF calls them now, since the MiGs retained uprated versions of their old turbojets so they have a less than 1to1 thrust to weight ration. The radical manuvering was to a large extent negated by the off borsight lockon of the R-73, the Bisons pilots could still keep the Falcons in sight long enough to acheve lockon and fire.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 4:43:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 4:53:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
All in all, I would not ever be lulled into thinking that ACM (dogfighting) ability is outdated. We made that mistake in Vietnam, remember? F-4s without guns on them. Gun pods were then added, and later versions included an internal gun....I think. I admit I'm not quite sure about that.

Any fighter can only carry so many missiles, and missiles...well, we don't call them HITtiles, do we? They're by no means a 100 percent effective solution, not even the newest and most advanced onces.

When you run out of missiles, what's left? The gun is there for a reason. And even if you don't run out of missiles, if you're in close enough, guns will work when missiles won't. Missiles have a minimum range and even if that minimum range is ridiculously short, there are times when you don't want your opponent to blow up and throw shrapnel at you. When you're close enough to see the other pilot picking his nose, to be exact.

CJ



Well that problem is already covered, by the FA-35 and its LASER. Which will have at least one and perhaps two domes and will also be aimed by the HMS.

My point was that with modern missiles and aircraft of relatively similar performance no one has a advantage. The FA-22's speed is the advantage. Dive in, ripple off AMRAAMs as fast as possible, turn and dive away, repeat as needed. Dont be seen untill after the missiles launch dive away at Mach 2+ with a 20 km head start.

If you get caught in a dogfight at visual range and subsonic speed you are no better off than a 40 year old upgunned Fishbed.

Its WWII all over again Dont turn with the Zeeks what ALL P-38 pilots had to have drummed into their heads.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 5:24:14 AM EST
awesome jet, we need 1000 of them
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:03:46 AM EST
McDonnell's and Boeing's UCAVs will make this plane as relavent as a prop plane shortly. McDonnell's 'souped up' F-15 would have been a whole lot cheaper and have been in service years ago… AeroE knows the dope of that model of F15.

UCAVs are the way forward, truely stealthy platforms that can be designed to manouever at 50G! And as I recall a Boeing guy telling me some years ago…… UCAVs are utterly fearless warriors!

Andy
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:09:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
McDonnell's and Boeing's UCAVs will make this plane as relavent as a prop plane shortly. McDonnell's 'souped up' F-15 would have been a whole lot cheaper and have been in service years ago… AeroE knows the dope of that model of F15.

UCAVs are the way forward, truely stealthy platforms that can be designed to manouever at 50G! And as I recall a Boeing guy telling me some years ago…… UCAVs are utterly fearless warriors!

Andy



The UCAVs only saving grace is that we will not lose a pilot when they are shot down.

A UCAV, even if it can pull 20 g (and there is no evidence these can pull anything near that, though they ought to do more than the F-22 is limited to) cannot evade a missle like R-73 that can pull 37 g and only needs the pilot to look in the direction of the target.

And there is no AI good enough to fly them yet, so they will be remote controlled with the inherent delay in the sensor/decision loop that entails.

The drones are good for engaging heavily defended but non moving ground targets. And are at their best when controlled by a very near by mother ship with direct line of sight that gives the shortest signal time and least chance of being blocked or jammed.

So the best choice for a drone mother ship- is a FA-22 iself.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:10:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By alloy6061:

Double the order Congress!


THAT'S RIGHT!.......It's ONLY money!.........PRINT MORE!......Pass that debt to the kids! We won't be around when that bill comes due! SCREW THEM! We want our stuff NOW!!!



Yeah, it's only money...

Money that derives it's ENTIRE value from the power & stability that our military creates...

Power & stability that our military creates because we buy weapons like the F-22, M1A2, and AEGIS, that can kick anyone's ass, worldwide...

Without these advanced systems, without our pre-eminence, we'd be in a world of hurt right now...
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:13:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:

Originally Posted By GC456:
That plane kicks so much ass, it makes the F-16 look like a VW bug.




Don't bet on that. If the rules of engagement are guns only, no missiles, and VISUAL engagement only, the F-16 is likely to be able to hold its own given that it's being piloted by someone who knows his business.

I say this because the F-16's performance is limited by the physical endurance of the pilot. The software that controls it limits maneuvers to 9 Gs, plus a little. An F-22 pilot is subject to the same
human endurance limitations, so even if the airframe is capable of greater maneuverability than the F-16, it's an advantage that can't be exploited by a conscious pilot.

The F-22's first advantage is its virtual invisibility to ordinary radar systems. You can't shoot something down with a radar guided missile if you can't get a lock on it. Its second advantage is its supercruise ability, which isn't due to revolutionary aerodynamic principles, but instead is due to the fact that it packs two engines in the 40,000 pounds of thrust class! It simply has enough power to cruise above Mach 1 without resorting to afterburners. In fact, the aerodynamics of the F-22 have been adapted to the stealth role at the expense of some aerodynamic efficiency.

An F-15 Eagle, outfitted with the engines that are in the Raptor, (assuming you managed to make the necessary structural modifications including redesigning the intakes and ducting so as to get the performance potential out of the engine and shoehorned them in successfully), would be CONSIDERABLY faster than the F-22. Some believe that you would then have a Mach 3 capable F-15, assuming it could withstand the aerodynamic heating and stress at those speeds, which it can't without further (serious) modifications.

I don't put down the F-22. Some of its capabilities are MINDBLOWING, judging by what has just been hinted at officially. But aerodynamically speaking, it's not the quantum leap forward that some would have you believe. It's tough to make huge advances in that field when human factors are the limiting factors and existing planes are already limited by them.

CJ



Thrust vectoring, a F-22-only feature (in our fleet, anyway) is designed to give it the edge in ACM...
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:16:12 AM EST
An F22's been doing low-speed test flights with a chaser plane over my house for a few weeks. I guess this is the one. It's loud.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:16:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:
McDonnell's and Boeing's UCAVs will make this plane as relavent as a prop plane shortly. McDonnell's 'souped up' F-15 would have been a whole lot cheaper and have been in service years ago… AeroE knows the dope of that model of F15.

UCAVs are the way forward, truely stealthy platforms that can be designed to manouever at 50G! And as I recall a Boeing guy telling me some years ago…… UCAVs are utterly fearless warriors!

Andy



The problems with the UCAV concept is LAG & the possibility of jamming the datalink...

Unless it's being controlled by a manned aircraft in RF range, there will be tremendous lag, and either way it will be possible to jam the control signal...

Pilots aren't dead yet...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top