Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Why oh why did we not build 400+ of these........................... :'(
 
TomS said:
Yeah, he looked like he was having trouble keeping up.
Click to expand...

Years ago I was fortunate to see the first public demonstration of the F-22 at Edwards. It was not the Raptor airshow you see today - this was one of the first production aircraft being flown by a test pilot. None of the maneuvers you would see in a Raptor demo today were flown, this was barely more than a flyby and few turns in front of the crowd at low speed. The F-16 chase could not keep up, and the much larger F-22 turned in a *much* smaller radius. If you knew what you were looking at it was very impressive at the time.
 
Steve Pace said:
Love this - Give it up for Mr. Ax! -SP
Click to expand...

Uh, no. This is the same person responsible for the "F-35 defeated by F-16 in dogfight trials" firestorm by intentionally mischaracterizing a single flight test.
 
Please refrain from calling journalist "idiot" no matter how strongly you disagreed with them. I made a mistake calling Carlo Kopp a liar a few years back for his campaign against the f-35 and got a strong warning from PaulMM.
 
donnage99 said:
Please refrain from calling journalist "idiot" no matter how strongly you disagreed with them. I made a mistake calling Carlo Kopp a liar a few years back for his campaign against the f-35 and got a strong warning from PaulMM.
Click to expand...

Fixed. (Sorry, it's difficult to respect any "journalist" who butchers the facts as much as that guy does, in the name of the almighty click.)
 
I'm digging the concept of rapid deployment of small numbers of F-22s.
Wouldn't it be fun if the next time a Su-24 decides to do some idiotic buzzing of a destroyer, an F-22 creeps out of nowhere and joins on its wing unseen? sort of a nice reminder of your own mortality. ;D
 
AeroFranz said:
I'm digging the concept of rapid deployment of small numbers of F-22s.
Wouldn't it be fun if the next time a Su-24 decides to do some idiotic buzzing of a destroyer, an F-22 creeps out of nowhere and joins on its wing unseen? sort of a nice reminder of your own mortality. ;D
Click to expand...

That would be nice.

It would be also great if there was a way to override their digital navigation system or perhaps override their fly-by-wire system. Perhaps a little command to force them to straight and level flight, force engage the autopilot and send them home, cut them to 25% power, any number of subtle nudges.

One can fantasize.
 
AeroFranz said:
I'm digging the concept of rapid deployment of small numbers of F-22s.
Wouldn't it be fun if the next time a Su-24 decides to do some idiotic buzzing of a destroyer, an F-22 creeps out of nowhere and joins on its wing unseen? sort of a nice reminder of your own mortality. ;D
Click to expand...

That would be difficult to know when any given Russian AC is going to drop down to the deck and buzz one of the USN's ships. Unless the US provokes an encounter like was done with Libya in the 80s, it's always going to be a matter of luck to have a Raptor present during an encounter. I say just accidentally turn on the phalanx, and oops, sorry to shoot down your plane.

That being said, a couple of Raptors could fly along with the USAF surveillance AC and the next time a Sukhoi wants to intercept, the Raptor could light them up and ask them to go away.
 
Indeed, unless you had a standing patrol over the ships, it would be hard to catch an intruder coming from airspace only a short distance away...
And yes, while buzzing an Arleigh Burke destroyer has a lot of in-you-face value, it is also a very effective way of shortening your life span in a war scenario!
 
www.wsj.com

U.S. Air Power Needs an F-22 Upgrade

House Armed Services Committee member J. Randy Forbes and former secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne write that U.S. air power needs an upgrade and Congress should consider resurrecting the F-22 Raptor or finding a suitable replacement.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com
 
AeroFranz said:
it is also a very effective way of shortening your life span in a war scenario!
Click to expand...

Well duh! In a war scenario the first warning the destroyer might have received was an incoming missile...
 
These are done for the consumption of the general public - I'm annoyed that some people will inevitably interpret it as the Russians being able to fly their aircraft right on top of a US warship and sink it in a war scenario. Of course we know that's not what an attack profile would look like.
 
AeroFranz said:
These are done for the consumption of the general public - I'm annoyed that some people will inevitably interpret it as the Russians being able to fly their aircraft right on top of a US warship and sink it in a war scenario. Of course we know that's not what an attack profile would look like.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here thinks that AeroFranz. I am concerned about the Russians flying aerobatics over the usaf "spy planes." Unlike the Su27s, our guys don't have ejection seats for when there is a collision. Honestly, why not fly some raptors with them? ...for part of the mission at least?
 
Airplane said:
AeroFranz said:
These are done for the consumption of the general public - I'm annoyed that some people will inevitably interpret it as the Russians being able to fly their aircraft right on top of a US warship and sink it in a war scenario. Of course we know that's not what an attack profile would look like.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here thinks that AeroFranz. I am concerned about the Russians flying aerobatics over the usaf "spy planes." Unlike the Su27s, our guys don't have ejection seats for when there is a collision. Honestly, why not fly some raptors with them? ...for part of the mission at least?
Click to expand...

Depending on the spy plane, perhaps that cap would be a good job for A-10's. They're pretty tough birds. Very likely to survive a "brush" with another jet.
 
Let's see: cruise speed for an RC-135 is 500 knots. Max speed for the A-10 is around 380 knots. Endurance for the RC is at least 12 hours; more with refueling. Endurance for the A-10 is around 4 hours in general and 12 hours is pushing the absolute limits of a single-pilot aircraft.
 
B-2 crews flew non-stop 44 to 46-hour combat missions with multiple inflight refuelings. That has to be some kind of record. -SP
 
NeilChapman said:
Airplane said:
AeroFranz said:
These are done for the consumption of the general public - I'm annoyed that some people will inevitably interpret it as the Russians being able to fly their aircraft right on top of a US warship and sink it in a war scenario. Of course we know that's not what an attack profile would look like.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here thinks that AeroFranz. I am concerned about the Russians flying aerobatics over the usaf "spy planes." Unlike the Su27s, our guys don't have ejection seats for when there is a collision. Honestly, why not fly some raptors with them? ...for part of the mission at least?
Click to expand...

Depending on the spy plane, perhaps that cap would be a good job for A-10's. They're pretty tough birds. Very likely to survive a "brush" with another jet.
Click to expand...

To clarify, by "brush" do you mean a collision of some kind?
Not sure the A10 any more likely to survive a significant collision than a RC-135, the latter by its sheer size surely more likely to limp away from a minor collision.
Anyway a strange criteria for choosing a recon platform as actual collisions in such scenarios are very rare, and it's not like Chinese or Russian fighters sent out to actually ram US planes on these kind of missions.
Also if this was a real concern it would be better to reconsider how to do the role rather going for more-ram proof aircraft (UAV at higher altitude, etc.)

If we are actually talking about being fired on the A10 would be an equally dead duck when faced by a Flanker level fighter in this scenario.
 
So this RAM (assuming it's RAM) looks like it's having aging issues with the cracking and such. My question is do the cracks matter or does the material still look "smooth" to radar? Or is it just degrading on a predictable, measurable, schedule and will be replaced if/when it gets to a certain point?

 
sferrin said:
My question is do the cracks matter or does the material still look "smooth" to radar?
Click to expand...

The photo does not load, and the exact composition/layering of the F-22 RAM is not public. There is significant detail in the F-22 lawsuit though.
Assume it does not look "smooth" to radar, though like anything else this depends very much on the radar frequency. Do not assume that these cracks measurably alter the radar cross section.

sferrin said:
Or is it just degrading on a predictable, measurable, schedule and will be replaced if/when it gets to a certain point?
Click to expand...

Again, there is more detail in the F-22 lawsuit. Operational F-22s are regularly checked using ground diagnostics and are checked using DYCOMS after depot service.
 
Cracks do seem too small to be noticable by X band and lower frequencies. Higher frequencies may pick up on them but then again, it's very hard to protect various gaps between panels, tiny antennas and so on against those frequencies.
 
quellish said:
sferrin said:
My question is do the cracks matter or does the material still look "smooth" to radar?
Click to expand...

The photo does not load, and the exact composition/layering of the F-22 RAM is not public. There is significant detail in the F-22 lawsuit though.
Assume it does not look "smooth" to radar, though like anything else this depends very much on the radar frequency. Do not assume that these cracks measurably alter the radar cross section.

sferrin said:
Or is it just degrading on a predictable, measurable, schedule and will be replaced if/when it gets to a certain point?
Click to expand...

Again, there is more detail in the F-22 lawsuit. Operational F-22s are regularly checked using ground diagnostics and are checked using DYCOMS after depot service.
Click to expand...

See attachment:
 

Attachments

  • RAM.jpg
    RAM.jpg
    169.8 KB · Views: 141
sferrin said:
See attachment:
Click to expand...

This is very obviously an aircraft about to undergo depot service - because of the gouge from the boom.
 
TomS said:
Let's see: cruise speed for an RC-135 is 500 knots. Max speed for the A-10 is around 380 knots. Endurance for the RC is at least 12 hours; more with refueling. Endurance for the A-10 is around 4 hours in general and 12 hours is pushing the absolute limits of a single-pilot aircraft.
Click to expand...

I did say "depending on the spy plane". I was thinking of the P3. The have been known to be "bumped" by other nations fighters.

But your point is well taken. They're usually out for a good while.
 
Steve Pace said:
B-2 crews flew non-stop 44 to 46-hour combat missions with multiple inflight refuelings. That has to be some kind of record. -SP
Click to expand...

The 44+ hour sorties to Afghanistan were a record. At least thoseguys get to lie down and have a nap during the flight.
 
TomS said:
Steve Pace said:
B-2 crews flew non-stop 44 to 46-hour combat missions with multiple inflight refuelings. That has to be some kind of record. -SP
Click to expand...

The 44+ hour sorties to Afghanistan were a record. At least those guys get to lie down and have a nap during the flight.
Click to expand...

And I imagine the B-2 has a level of automation in its flight profile that the A-10 driver would only dream of during a 300kt transit overseas.
 
...USAF not my branch, but in my time, we were given a little assistance for long endurance missions. It's called Dextroamphetamine. This was over 17 years ago though. don't know if it's still used.

Now, I don't know if they still hand those out, because they really do have abuse potential, but I can't think of a better time to pop one then on a 44 hour mission. Still, thinking about our $750,000,000 B-2As being flown by "tweaking" pilots is probably not something that the USAF is eager to make public.

Does anyone here have USAF experience? I know energy drinks are really popular in the Army. Same with ephedra and other stimulants. Curious.
 
TomS said:
Steve Pace said:
B-2 crews flew non-stop 44 to 46-hour combat missions with multiple inflight refuelings. That has to be some kind of record. -SP
Click to expand...

The 44+ hour sorties to Afghanistan were a record. At least thoseguys get to lie down and have a nap during the flight.
Click to expand...

Not all the missions are long distance.
 
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
...USAF not my branch, but in my time, we were given a little assistance for long endurance missions. It's called Dextroamphetamine. This was over 17 years ago though. don't know if it's still used.

Now, I don't know if they still hand those out, because they really do have abuse potential, but I can't think of a better time to pop one then on a 44 hour mission. Still, thinking about our $750,000,000 B-2As being flown by "tweaking" pilots is probably not something that the USAF is eager to make public.

Does anyone here have USAF experience? I know energy drinks are really popular in the Army. Same with ephedra and other stimulants. Curious.
Click to expand...

Provigil (modafinil) and Dexetrine (dextroamphetamine) are the standard and approved USAF "Go Pills."
 
marauder2048 said:
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
...USAF not my branch, but in my time, we were given a little assistance for long endurance missions. It's called Dextroamphetamine. This was over 17 years ago though. don't know if it's still used.

Now, I don't know if they still hand those out, because they really do have abuse potential, but I can't think of a better time to pop one then on a 44 hour mission. Still, thinking about our $750,000,000 B-2As being flown by "tweaking" pilots is probably not something that the USAF is eager to make public.

Does anyone here have USAF experience? I know energy drinks are really popular in the Army. Same with ephedra and other stimulants. Curious.
Click to expand...

Provigil (modafinil) and Dexetrine (dextroamphetamine) are the standard and approved USAF "Go Pills."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. That's kind of what I figured. Those are long flight times.
 
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
marauder2048 said:
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
...USAF not my branch, but in my time, we were given a little assistance for long endurance missions. It's called Dextroamphetamine. This was over 17 years ago though. don't know if it's still used.

Now, I don't know if they still hand those out, because they really do have abuse potential, but I can't think of a better time to pop one then on a 44 hour mission. Still, thinking about our $750,000,000 B-2As being flown by "tweaking" pilots is probably not something that the USAF is eager to make public.

Does anyone here have USAF experience? I know energy drinks are really popular in the Army. Same with ephedra and other stimulants. Curious.
Click to expand...

Provigil (modafinil) and Dexetrine (dextroamphetamine) are the standard and approved USAF "Go Pills."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. That's kind of what I figured. Those are long flight times.
Click to expand...

In Canada we are very familiar with the USAF use of go pills.
 
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
marauder2048 said:
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
...USAF not my branch, but in my time, we were given a little assistance for long endurance missions. It's called Dextroamphetamine. This was over 17 years ago though. don't know if it's still used.

Now, I don't know if they still hand those out, because they really do have abuse potential, but I can't think of a better time to pop one then on a 44 hour mission. Still, thinking about our $750,000,000 B-2As being flown by "tweaking" pilots is probably not something that the USAF is eager to make public.

Does anyone here have USAF experience? I know energy drinks are really popular in the Army. Same with ephedra and other stimulants. Curious.
Click to expand...

Provigil (modafinil) and Dexetrine (dextroamphetamine) are the standard and approved USAF "Go Pills."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. That's kind of what I figured. Those are long flight times.
Click to expand...

Evidently they have a cot and toilet available.

“Airmen loaded the gear that Pita and mission commander “Spaghetti” would need in the airplane: a sleeping bag, extra clothes, survival kit, folding cot, snacks and sandwiches, bottled water, plenty of piddle packs to avoid overfilling the toilet bowl, and lots of Diet Cokes for Pita."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3057735/posts
 
Bill Walker said:
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
marauder2048 said:
BioLuminescentLamprey said:
...USAF not my branch, but in my time, we were given a little assistance for long endurance missions. It's called Dextroamphetamine. This was over 17 years ago though. don't know if it's still used.

Now, I don't know if they still hand those out, because they really do have abuse potential, but I can't think of a better time to pop one then on a 44 hour mission. Still, thinking about our $750,000,000 B-2As being flown by "tweaking" pilots is probably not something that the USAF is eager to make public.

Does anyone here have USAF experience? I know energy drinks are really popular in the Army. Same with ephedra and other stimulants. Curious.
Click to expand...




Provigil (modafinil) and Dexetrine (dextroamphetamine) are the standard and approved USAF "Go Pills."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. That's kind of what I figured. Those are long flight times.
Click to expand...

In Canada we are very familiar with the USAF use of go pills.
Click to expand...

It was a tragedy but both the Canadian and US boards of inquiry (as well as the court martial) dismissed the " 'go pills' defense" since it was highly improbable
that the small 5-10 mg doses of Dexedrine would induce both the extreme aggressivity seen in Coffee 52 *and* the extreme passivity exhibited by Coffee 51.
 
sferrin said:
See attachment:
Click to expand...

To give you a plausible scenario:

While on a training flight the F-22 refuels and the tanker boom strikes and gouges the Raptor. Oops. This happens somewhat regularly and has been a problem for most VLO aircraft in US service. You can see the gouge in the photo.

The gouge is too deep for regular repair. To fix it requires depot service to repair not only the RAM, but the... things under and surrounding it. This aircraft is scheduled for depot service, other LO maintenance tasks are de-prioritized, and the aircraft is no longer "combat ready". This is why you see the cracked and degraded surfaces elsewhere on the aircraft - the signature is not being maintained because the big offended (the gouge) is not repairable without depot service.

The gouge would definitely affect the aircraft RCS negatively. Not necessarily because of the damage to the RAM, but more likely because of the damage to what is underneath - the uniform conductive coating that makes the RAM and shaping effective.

The other degraded RAM surfaces would not have a large effect on the RCS of the aircraft. RAM is important, but it is not magical stealth steak sauce. Physical limitations prevent RAM from being a significant contributor to the RCS of a VLO aircraft. As a (very) general rule of thumb figure an ideal RAM application gives a -20dBsm reduction. Sometimes it is more (not much more), sometimes it is less, and the lower the signature from shaping the less effective RAM is. An aircraft that has a -72dBsm signature from shaping will not be able to use RAM to drop another 20 in that band.
 
Looked quickly to see if this was posted sorry if it has interesting none the less.

http://worldwarwings.com/usaf-tests-1-raptor-against-5-f-15s-shuts-up-critics
 
http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/stealth-is-king-the-world-is-flat/
 
jsport said:
http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/stealth-is-king-the-world-is-flat/
Click to expand...

That is an impressively poorly researched article.
 
quellish said:
jsport said:
http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/stealth-is-king-the-world-is-flat/
Click to expand...

That is an impressively poorly researched article.
Click to expand...

just second article from War on the rocks hoping low altitude ingress is not dead.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom