Sonic boom rattles SoCal!


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:26 pm

gh wrote:
Marlow wrote:
donley2 wrote:Hmm. How long can I continue to bite my tongue?

Until all people who may wish to do us harm have beaten their swords into ploughshares. It's better to build a weapon and never have to use it, than to need a weapon and not have it ready to use. The reality of war is like Murphy's Law, when you're least prepared is when it will come. I'm the most dovish ex-mil you'll ever meet, but even I know the value of constant vigilance and preparedness. Think of all the billions of dollars of nukes (and nuke R&D) that were made in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s that are now obsolete and unusable. MAD works though.


Yes, I'm sure all the poor grunts in Iraq who had to buy their own body armor or cobble together more for their Humvees will be glad to know that when Independence Day comes Will Smith will have something to fly that can beat off the aliens.

I'm certainly happy that the big hats in the Pentagon aren't emulating the French (having prepped for the Franco-Prussian war in 1914 and WWI in 1940), but being too far ahead, IMHO, is about as bad as being too far behind. The brass's love affair with toys at the expense of bodies on the ground has tilted too far.

I'm as hardcore a fan of military technology (particularly planes) as anybody, but the soldiers themselves should come first and they're not being served as well as they should.

At something like $150M per unit, the F-22 is a CEO-type luxury.

end of rant


Great point GH. While egg heads are spending billions on toys, our men on the ground need the best protection we can possible produce and they were not getting it.

I still think we can and should try to do both.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby bad hammy » Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:35 pm

Marlow wrote:In 1986 (!!!) when the F-22 went into R&D we were still neck-deep in the Cold War (which the Soviet Union was 'winning' arms-wise)
Or not . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:38 pm

marknhj wrote:My vote would be Yes, scrap it now.

Wow and people call ME naive. I assume you are one of those people who demand peace at any cost. When you've lost you're freedom, it's too late to consider the cost.

SQUACKEE wrote:Great point GH. While egg heads are spending billions on toys, our men on the ground need the best protection we can possible produce and they were not getting it.

You're not reading what I wrote.

It's a unique feeling to be The Hawk here. That's never happened to me before.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:40 pm

bad hammy wrote:
Marlow wrote:In 1986 (!!!) when the F-22 went into R&D we were still neck-deep in the Cold War (which the Soviet Union was 'winning' arms-wise)
Or not . . .

You know not of what you speak - it's just that simple. I know what the Soviet Union was capable of then. And I have never seen unclassified documents about it since. It's far scarier than what you can imagine.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:06 pm

Marlow wrote:
bad hammy wrote:
Marlow wrote:In 1986 (!!!) when the F-22 went into R&D we were still neck-deep in the Cold War (which the Soviet Union was 'winning' arms-wise)
Or not . . .

You know not of what you speak - it's just that simple. I know what the Soviet Union was capable of then. And I have never seen unclassified documents about it since. It's far scarier than what you can imagine.

Tin foil hats are on, I see.

Look, I'm not saying that what the SU had wasn't plenty scary, but the US had (and has) more than our fair share of scary shit too.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 03, 2008 5:15 pm

bad hammy wrote:Tin foil hats are on, I see.

Oh no, you're free to take it off now. Russia, China, who have you, are pale ghosts of the SU

bad hammy wrote:Look, I'm not saying that what the SU had wasn't plenty scary, but the US had (and has) more than our fair share of scary shit too.

Indeed we did, and ours was far more technologically advanced (smarter), but they had MORE and BIGGER sticks than we did - again, it's just that simple. As was oft repeated then: The USA - the world's second largest nuclear power.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

One of their 100-megaton bombs, built and tested, airburst over NYC would kill 20-30 million in the first day and over 50 million in a week.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby JRM » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:47 am

On Saturday afternoon (Dec 6th), two F16's flew no more than 1000 ft over our house. They were coming from the Rose Bowl, where they were marking the kick-off of the UCLA-USC game. Pretty impressive sight.

There was also some fighter activity here in Pasadena yesterday, as well (I could hear it, but didn't see it). I assume it was for Pearl Harbor ceremonies.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby JRM » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:54 am

Marlow wrote:One of their 100-megaton bombs, built and tested, airburst over NYC would kill 20-30 million in the first day and over 50 million in a week.


Note that the 100-Mt design was not aircraft deliverable (at least at the time in the early 1960s). The scaled-down 50-Mt version was, however it was too expensive for what it was.

A short lesson in nuclear bombs: the damage area of a nuclear weapons scales as the cube-root of the yield. So, a 1-megaton (1000 kt) weapon only has 10 times the damage radius of a 1-kt bomb. That means that bigger yield isn't better. The 100-Mt device would only have a blast radius about 4.5x that of a megaton weapon. It's thus far more "efficient" to cover an area with multiple smaller warheads than one large one.

That's why strategic arsenals never really exceeded the 20-Mt range, with the average size being about a megaton (and most tactical nukes being in the 100-500 kt range).
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby gh » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:03 am

and now that you've told us, you'll have to kill us?!
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Marlow » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:09 am

JRM wrote:It's thus far more "efficient" to cover an area with multiple smaller warheads than one large one..


Which is why their MIRV (Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) capabilities were so fearsome. I tracked Delta submarines that housed 16 silos for them babies and if the balloon had ever gone up, I was supposed to sink that mutha before it launched. [not a snowball's chance in a thermonuclear blast that I could have done it in time! :( ]
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby cullman » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:59 am

JRM wrote:A short lesson in nuclear bombs: the damage area of a nuclear weapons scales as the cube-root of the yield. So, a 1-megaton (1000 kt) weapon only has 10 times the damage radius of a 1-kt bomb. That means that bigger yield isn't better. The 100-Mt device would only have a blast radius about 4.5x that of a megaton weapon. It's thus far more "efficient" to cover an area with multiple smaller warheads than one large one.

Kool. 8-)

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Postby Jack Slocombe » Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:51 pm

My gawd. Look how we have migrated from a simple sonic boom to the ultimat big nuclear boom. Poor Marlow has been painted as a peaceful highschool teacher and track coach with a secret warmongering past.

Lets get back to the sonic boom. Bring back the great old Lockheed F-104 at mach 1.1 right over the Rose Bowl during the New Years game. That should shake em up!
Jack Slocombe
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Groveland & Sunnyvale CA, & Poulsbo, WA

Postby lonewolf » Mon Dec 08, 2008 2:42 pm

Jack Slocombe wrote: Marlow has been painted as a peaceful highschool teacher and track coach with a secret warmongering past.


See, even a Stanford grad/Gator fan has redeeming qualities. :wink:

So much so, that I have given him a pass on his current political derangement , attributing it to a passing aberation. :)
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Marlow » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:42 pm

lonewolf wrote:So much so, that I have given him a pass on his current political derangement , attributing it to a passing aberation. :)

Whew! I thought there for a second that you were going to demand that Texas Relays officials polo back, and it's my fave! :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby lonewolf » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:42 pm

Marlow wrote:
lonewolf wrote:So much so, that I have given him a pass on his current political derangement , attributing it to a passing aberation. :)

Whew! I thought there for a second that you were going to demand that Texas Relays officials polo back, and it's my fave! :wink:


Nah, not all Indians are "Indian Givers." :)

I could probably scare up an OU shirt if you need one to wear to the Oklahoma/Florida donnybrook.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Marlow » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:46 am

lonewolf wrote:I could probably scare up an OU shirt if you need one to wear to the Oklahoma/Florida donnybrook.

Um . . . that's such a nice gesture, but I think I'd like to keep my kneecaps for a while longer, so thanks, but no thanks.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Jack Slocombe » Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:45 am

Now we've gone from sonic booms, to nuclear booms, back to sonic booms, to a football game to free shirts to kneecapping. I guess "stay the course" has a new meaning in the USA,............now it means, wander all over. scheesch.
Jack Slocombe
 
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Groveland & Sunnyvale CA, & Poulsbo, WA

Postby JRM » Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:42 pm

The B-2 stealth bomber did a fly-over of the Rose Parade this morning, which was somewhat impressive (it was an hour late!). But, the absolutely MORE impressive sight was following the fly-over of the game. Our house is about 2 miles directly south of the Rose Bowl. The B-2 banked directly over my front lawn, at what had to be no more than 600 ft altitude. Simply incredible sight (and bone-rattling sound)! That's a New Year's tradition I always look forward to!
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Postby dj » Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:21 am

JRM wrote:The B-2 stealth bomber did a fly-over of the Rose Parade this morning, which was somewhat impressive (it was an hour late!).


How do you know it was late? Maybe you just couldn't see it the first time! :)
dj
 
Posts: 6199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby gh » Mon Jan 05, 2009 10:24 am

gh wrote:Speaking of the F-22 boondoggle, this was in my paper this morning:

<<....Gates also dared challenge the military-industrial complex over egregious military spending on projects such as the $65 billion F-22 stealth fighter plane that was designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses that were never built and has yet to fly a combat sortie in either the Afghanistan or Iraq wars....>>

Sure looks pretty though, eh?


This a multi-generation e-mailing that I got from a Marine pilot buddy:



 
 
Subject: F22 Briefing


 

Just a little more data on the greatest flying machine going. Except, maybe the F-35.    

     AWESOME MACHINE.
F-22 Briefing -  Dallas 2008

            We were briefed on operations with the F-22 by two pilots of the 90th Fighter Squadron, presently in Alaska at Elmendorf.  They were unassuming  young jocks who looked remarkably like we did 40 years ago.  While they tried to keep the briefing low key it was obvious they felt superior in capabilities to anyone else in the world.  I agree with that assessment.


PERFORMANCE


            They didn’t talk much about the performance of the 22 but most of us had seen demo flights.  I include an Energy Maneuverability chart below for comparison to the F-15, the predominate fighter of the day before the F-22 came into service.


            Redefining the meaning of high performance,



            This chart shows the ability of the F-22 to MAINTAIN 5 G’s at max power.  The 22 can sustain a 5 G turn in max power up to 54,000 feet at about .95 mach.  At mach 1.8 he can sustain a 5 G turn at 62,000 feet.


            The F-15 can maintain a 5 G turn in full power up to about 30,000 feet.  I estimate that an F-4 could maintain a 5 G turn at max power below around 5,000 feet.  I don’t believe an F-100 could MAINTAIN a 5 G turn at any altitude.  By this I mean that in an F-100 you could go as fast as you want on the deck in full burner, enter a 5 G turn and you would begin to lose energy, eventually falling below 5 G’s.


            I compared the Dash one E-M charts for the F-4E and it cannot even MAINTAIN LEVEL FLIGHT at max power at the upper levels of the F-22 5 G range.  Incredible!


 

COMBAT CAPABILITY


            We were given an unclassified briefing that was nonetheless eye watering. Conversation with ET Murphy had given me an Eagle’s eye view of the Raptor but this was from the other side.  When I mentioned these tests at Eglin, the Raptor guy said that it didn’t matter  how many were against the Raptor.  Kills were only limited by numbers of weapons carried.


            First of all the F-22 cannot be seen by the enemy.  It does not use active radar like other fighters.  Yet it has a complete 360 degree threat awareness capability, seeing everything above it, below it, from in front and behind.  This includes all aircraft in the area and all missiles on the ground around it.


            The F-22 is tied into all others in his flight and sees everything that all F-22’s in his flight sees, and everything (that he wants) that an AWACS sees, if one is around.  He sees this in an easy to read, all purpose scope that has user friendly displays.  For example, friendly aircraft are displayed as green blips on his scope, enemies are red.  They say, “If you're red, you're dead.”


            The can engage multiple enemy targets with their fire-and-forget, all aspect missiles (the latest AIM-9’s, AMRAMS and Sparrows).  They have multiple communication options including scrambled audio that can be used within their own flight only, if they so desire.  They can coordinate information through a system they call “High Fiddle” which is High Frequency Data Link, tieing them together with Data Link.      


They have sensors that let them look through the floor of the cockpit, so to speak electronically and see missile sites on the ground, displayed on the scope with SAM rings depending in size on the type of missile detected.  They practice coordination with F-15s/16’s and can guide the latter to avoid having them flying into the SAM rings while the F-22’s can move through them without worry.


The F-22 radar keeps track of all targets by shooting out pencil beam radar signals, lasting fractions of a second that gives them heading, speed, and type aircraft information.  And it does this automatically, keeping track of all aircraft in the area.  The radar, on its own sends these signals out periodically to keep track of the targets around without giving away its own position.


All weapons (including JDAMS if needed) are carried internal.  When they fire a missile, the bay doors snap open, the missile fires and the doors close immediately.  Only in the second or so that the doors are open is there any radar reflection area to be detected.


They have variable nozzles for the engines which allows them to appear to defy the laws of physics while maneuvering.  These nozzles move left, right and up and down, allowing the aircraft to move laterally and to engage in any attitude.  In other words a fighter could be chasing an F-22, assuming he could see it, and the 22 could turn laterally and fire its all-aspect missiles from any position or attitude.


I asked one of the pilots how they used the nozzles.  He told me that they just used normal controls and the computer does the rest.


At one point in the briefing on of those attending, talking about fighting F-15’s, said something like, “I guess you can fly circles around the F-15’s.”  One of the young Raptor drivers spoke, almost under his breath, saying “That’s basically what we do.”  I was close enough to hear him.  Not everyone did


 
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Marlow » Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:33 am

While they tried to keep the briefing low key it was obvious they felt superior in capabilities to anyone else in the world. I agree with that assessment.


Whoever thinks the F22 is a boondoggle just needs to picture himself in their flight boots. What machine do you want strapped to your butt when the whistle blows? And we all know it will - hopefully constrained to a tactical strike - but I for one am glad we have them.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby gh » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:11 am

It's still a ludicrous boondoggle. Nothing will ever convince me of anything otherwise, particularly at a time when money is so tight.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Marlow » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:37 am

gh wrote:It's still a ludicrous boondoggle. Nothing will ever convince me of anything otherwise, particularly at a time when money is so tight.

To be cheesy and melodramatic, the cost of freedom is priceless. The exorbitant cost of the F-22 is mostly the R&D involved, not just how much it is to build one. The R&D started decades again, when we did not know what our priorities would be. I agree that the F-22 and the number ordered LOOKS like a waste of money we don't really have, but that is not something we could have determined before the fact, nor do we know what the world will look like in 5 years, when we might actually NEED these aircraft. This is the same dance we go through when the DoD wants a new $mega-billion submarine or aircraft carrier. The cynics say they are unnecessary, too costly, and will be obsolete by the time they are built, but even here in the 21st Century, we still need them.

National Defense cannot be second-guessed. That's one of the great lessons of history.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:43 am

Marlow wrote:National Defense cannot be second-guessed. That's one of the great lessons of history.


I agree and with Iran most likely buying some "super jets" from Russia in the near future it is important we have a jet that can fly circles around it.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby lonewolf » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:22 am

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:It's still a ludicrous boondoggle. Nothing will ever convince me of anything otherwise, particularly at a time when money is so tight.

To be cheesy and melodramatic, the cost of freedom is priceless. The exorbitant cost of the F-22 is mostly the R&D involved, not just how much it is to build one. The R&D started decades again, when we did not know what our priorities would be. I agree that the F-22 and the number ordered LOOKS like a waste of money we don't really have, but that is not something we could have determined before the fact, nor do we know what the world will look like in 5 years, when we might actually NEED these aircraft. This is the same dance we go through when the DoD wants a new $mega-billion submarine or aircraft carrier. The cynics say they are unnecessary, too costly, and will be obsolete by the time they are built, but even here in the 21st Century, we still need them.

National Defense cannot be second-guessed. That's one of the great lessons of history.


I'm with Marlow. Despite his deplorable political leanings :) and eclectic taste in movies (not that that is a bad thing) he is right on this one.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby gh » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:39 am

If the F22 is so essential to our national defense, how come it has yet to fly its first combat mission? (that is the case, isn't it?)

I'm not remotely agin military spending; I'm agin spending it on the wrong tools, and this is as wrong as it gets.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby SQUACKEE » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:44 am

gh wrote:If the F22 is so essential to our national defense, how come it has yet to fly its first combat mission? (that is the case, isn't it?)

I'm not remotely agin military spending; I'm agin spending it on the wrong tools, and this is as wrong as it gets.


I thought you were against it because money is tight now, or is it because you dont think its as good as advertised or both?
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Marlow » Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:27 am

gh wrote:If the F22 is so essential to our national defense, how come it has yet to fly its first combat mission? (that is the case, isn't it?)
I'm not remotely agin military spending; I'm agin spending it on the wrong tools, and this is as wrong as it gets.


The F-22 is NOT essential to our national defense . . . right now . . . but neither I, nor anyone else, can predict whether it might not be VITALLY essential to our national defense in just a few short years. We have never used ANY of our nuclear arsenal in the last 60 years, so there's $Billions in R&D AND production that was deployed and then discarded, totally unused . . . but they were still 'essential'.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby BruceFlorman » Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:27 am

Marlow wrote:The F-22 is NOT essential to our national defense . . . right now . . . but neither I, nor anyone else, can predict whether it might not be VITALLY essential to our national defense in just a few short years.

Seems like this line of reasoning can be used to justify the development of absolutely any weapon system, regardless of cost or practicality.

gh wrote:This a multi-generation e-mailing that I got from a Marine pilot buddy:

Subject: F22 Briefing

Just a little more data on the greatest flying machine going. Except, maybe the F-35.

...

So if the F-22 is a boondoggle, what's the F-35?
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby Vince » Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:38 am

BruceFlorman wrote:
Marlow wrote:The F-22 is NOT essential to our national defense . . . right now . . . but neither I, nor anyone else, can predict whether it might not be VITALLY essential to our national defense in just a few short years.

Seems like this line of reasoning can be used to justify the development of absolutely any weapon system, regardless of cost or practicality.

gh wrote:This a multi-generation e-mailing that I got from a Marine pilot buddy:

Subject: F22 Briefing

Just a little more data on the greatest flying machine going. Except, maybe the F-35.

...

So if the F-22 is a boondoggle, what's the F-35?


And what's the $750 billion banking, Insurance, Automaker, Wall street, etc. etc. hand out?
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby gh » Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:25 am

gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby BruceFlorman » Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:00 am

Image
Yeah, these ads have been all over the Sports Illustrated website for at least a week. The F-22 isn't a boondoggle, it's a public works project. :roll:
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Postby Rob » Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:08 am

The F-22 is a 'nice' enough aircraft, but the designers at Lockheed Martin put all their eggs into one basket - namely stealth.

As an example, the aircraft I am involved in designing pulls 9g subsonic and 7g supersonic and will maintain 6g all day long (rather than 5g of the F-22). It can supercruise as well as the F-22 (i.e. fly supersonically without the use of afterburner) and has inherent aerodynamic instability (i.e. centre of gravity positioned behind the centre of lift), which gives superior manoeuvrability.

The main problem with the F-22 (apart from it being a bit pricey) is that it relies entirely on Radar warfare to win the fight - its electronically scanned APG-77 Radar and internal AMRAAM carriage rely on not being seen, prior to launching a missile ("First look, first shot, first kill" mentality).

But the weapons bay doors take significantly longer than 1 second to open and close (= detection possible by an enemy fighter) and what about IRST (Infra-Red Search & Track)?? Unless your fighter has the ability to shroud its engine exhausts (like the F-117) in order to reduce IR from the jet pipe (which it doesn't, since this technique is geometrically incompatible with afterburning engines) or to cool its wing leading edges so that it blends in with the -56°C outside air temperature at 30,000 ft (which it doesn't, as it would require too much power), then the F-22 is vulnerable to sensitive infra-red attack sensors that are being fitted to other contemporary jet fighters. The F-22 itself is not fitted with such a sensor...

And when PAK-FA comes along (whether it be in the hands of the Russians or anyone else they've sold it to for hard currency) your gung-ho pilots who always think they're better than anyone else, will need to be very careful indeed.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Postby Vince » Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:08 am

Rob wrote:The F-22 is a 'nice' enough aircraft, but the designers at Lockheed Martin put all their eggs into one basket - namely stealth.

As an example, the aircraft I am involved in designing pulls 9g subsonic and 7g supersonic and will maintain 6g all day long (rather than 5g of the F-22). It can supercruise as well as the F-22 (i.e. fly supersonically without the use of afterburner) and has inherent aerodynamic instability (i.e. centre of gravity positioned behind the centre of lift), which gives superior manoeuvrability.

The main problem with the F-22 (apart from it being a bit pricey) is that it relies entirely on Radar warfare to win the fight - its electronically scanned APG-77 Radar and internal AMRAAM carriage rely on not being seen, prior to launching a missile ("First look, first shot, first kill" mentality).

But the weapons bay doors take significantly longer than 1 second to open and close (= detection possible by an enemy fighter) and what about IRST (Infra-Red Search & Track)?? Unless your fighter has the ability to shroud its engine exhausts (like the F-117) in order to reduce IR from the jet pipe (which it doesn't, since this technique is geometrically incompatible with afterburning engines) or to cool its wing leading edges so that it blends in with the -56°C outside air temperature at 30,000 ft (which it doesn't, as it would require too much power), then the F-22 is vulnerable to sensitive infra-red attack sensors that are being fitted to other contemporary jet fighters. The F-22 itself is not fitted with such a sensor...

And when PAK-FA comes along (whether it be in the hands of the Russians or anyone else they've sold it to for hard currency) your gung-ho pilots who always think they're better than anyone else, will need to be very careful indeed.


Nice plane, not cheap either. Whoever flies one better hope a F-22 isn't over the horizon because the 9gs they will be pulling are going to be straight down.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Rob » Sun Feb 08, 2009 9:29 am

Not sure if it was clear, but the aircraft I was describing in most of my previous post is not the PAK-FA (which has yet to fly and is the product of Sukhoi), but the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The F-22's achilles heel is IR vulnerability - which of course used to mean within-visual-range combat (like the ubiquitous Sidewinder missile), but things have moved on. The infra-red technology now available in Germany can track a 15 ton piece of metal (which is all the F-22 is, physically speaking) through standard atmosphere at ranges similar to the F-22's Radar. And it has no defence against such sensors. Long range missiles such as Meteor, which have a greater range than the latest version of AMRAAM (AIM-120D) due to their ramjet engines that continue to operate once the rocket motor has burned out, flying passively and updated periodically by high speed datalink from the fighter's IRST, prior to going active in the terminal phase, are going to give an F-22 pilot all he can handle - and more.

But as long as you are happy to believe the propaganda coming out of the Pentagon (which obviously wants to protect the programme), then I guess you can be content that your dollars are being wisely invested.

And perhaps you can inform us why the USAF banned the use of IRST sensors on the Eurofighters that competed recently in the Red Flag exercise at Nellis AFB? No doubt it was for all the 'right' reasons?? :roll:

Anyway, a couple of other, more pragmatic, issues to consider:

Even if your Radar manages to detect and track a target at the ranges claimed, limitations with the IFF (Interrogator Friend or Foe) preclude accurate target identification at such ranges, which then prevents a shot being taken (under NATO rules of engagement).

Secondly, an F-22 is unlikely ever to face a Eurofighter in real combat, so don't get too excited by the claims and counter claims.

In conclusion, the USAF needs the F-22 but you should not underestimate the threat from Sukhoi (Su-35BM and the later PAK-FA) - this threat is real and getting more serious to deal with - for both of us.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Postby Vince » Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:35 am

Rob wrote:Not sure if it was clear, but the aircraft I was describing in most of my previous post is not the PAK-FA (which has yet to fly and is the product of Sukhoi), but the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The F-22's achilles heel is IR vulnerability - which of course used to mean within-visual-range combat (like the ubiquitous Sidewinder missile), but things have moved on. The infra-red technology now available in Germany can track a 15 ton piece of metal (which is all the F-22 is, physically speaking) through standard atmosphere at ranges similar to the F-22's Radar. And it has no defence against such sensors. Long range missiles such as Meteor, which have a greater range than the latest version of AMRAAM (AIM-120D) due to their ramjet engines that continue to operate once the rocket motor has burned out, flying passively and updated periodically by high speed datalink from the fighter's IRST, prior to going active in the terminal phase, are going to give an F-22 pilot all he can handle - and more.

But as long as you are happy to believe the propaganda coming out of the Pentagon (which obviously wants to protect the programme), then I guess you can be content that your dollars are being wisely invested.

And perhaps you can inform us why the USAF banned the use of IRST sensors on the Eurofighters that competed recently in the Red Flag exercise at Nellis AFB? No doubt it was for all the 'right' reasons?? :roll:

Anyway, a couple of other, more pragmatic, issues to consider:

Even if your Radar manages to detect and track a target at the ranges claimed, limitations with the IFF (Interrogator Friend or Foe) preclude accurate target identification at such ranges, which then prevents a shot being taken (under NATO rules of engagement).

Secondly, an F-22 is unlikely ever to face a Eurofighter in real combat, so don't get too excited by the claims and counter claims.

In conclusion, the USAF needs the F-22 but you should not underestimate the threat from Sukhoi (Su-35BM and the later PAK-FA) - this threat is real and getting more serious to deal with - for both of us.

Not sure about all the rules, but there was only limited Eurofighter participation. Don't furrow your Eurobrows about the USAF, the future generations of fighters will probably be unmanned and super fast(Mach10). See the throttle capable x-43 Scramjet.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Rob » Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:07 pm

Mach 10 is fine - but it depends on where you want to go, and what you want to do. You do know what the turning circle is at Mach 10, even for a UAV - right?
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Postby Marlow » Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:34 pm

Rob wrote:Mach 10 is fine - but it depends on where you want to go, and what you want to do. You do know what the turning circle is at Mach 10, even for a UAV - right?

Mach 10 is devastating for ingress, delivery and egress. Tactical maneuvering will typically still be performed at less than supersonic speeds.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Rob » Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:53 pm

Exactly, so high speed strike is ok (assuming your bombs don't break up at high Mach number, as most of your current LGBs and PGMs would), but it isn't very useful for air combat, especially at the altitudes you would need to fly to achieve Mach 10.
Rob
 
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Munich

Postby Marlow » Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:24 pm

Rob wrote:Exactly, so high speed strike is ok (assuming your bombs don't break up at high Mach number, as most of your current LGBs and PGMs would), but it isn't very useful for air combat, especially at the altitudes you would need to fly to achieve Mach 10.

Somehow I just can't see the necessity of dogfights in the future, Star Wars notwithstanding.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests