• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
30
CLICK HERE! <http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/index_da.swf?fa=armytimes&wa=armytimes&wd=575&ht=324&cp=21772&bw=&state=vid&em=false&fn=/flv/20080714_rc_f22>
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
232
Here's the link

I enjoyed the narration on this one, it wasn't full of a ton of BS like most demo announcers spew at airshows.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,169
Reaction score
2,224
Wow!!
We really want to get this super fighter. :eek:
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,117
Reaction score
1,179
Kinda dry. I like it with the music better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em5STCwbwo0

Now if I could just identify the music. :-\
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,117
Reaction score
1,179
Machdiamond said:
The music sounds very much like the Transformers soundtrack.
There's a part in The Dark Knight sound track that resembles it but not quite. Ah well. I'll have to give the Transformers soundtrack a listen.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,169
Reaction score
2,224
We can see interlock between the elevator motion and the thrust vectoring nozzles motion through these videos. (taken from back side of the plane after landing) :eek:
 

Machdiamond

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
326
Reaction score
9
Speaking of Farnborough air display, I want to go on record to make a prediction:
Ten years from now (16 tops), we will see an air display at Farnborough of an Air Superiority UCAV pulling 20-25g's turns that will make the F-22 show look like kindergarten entertainment.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,169
Reaction score
2,224
Oh! Air superiority UCAV will be stronger than F-22?
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,241
Reaction score
398
Though I'm not a great fan of the F-22 (the production version a little better than the prototype, but still...) I have to admit this is a superb shot! Thanks for sharing.
 

JazzTime

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Sorry, Stargazer2006... perhaps, because you are the artist... this plane is deprived some "graceful ease", inherent in the previous generations...
I's known, that the beautiful plane flies beautifully...
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
100
Stargazer2006 said:
Though I'm not a great fan of the F-22 (the production version a little better than the prototype, but still...) I have to admit this is a superb shot! Thanks for sharing.
Even if you are not a fan, see it perform at an airshow if you can. Video really does not do their routine justice at all.
 

JazzTime

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
OK!!! But... my opinion - F-22 - the victory of the forces (engines) over the beauty of (aerodynamics) ...
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,948
Reaction score
648
Where did Metz said this? Interview? Published media or TV? What interview and when?
Can anyone dig into memory?

Thanks!
 

Trident

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
945
Reaction score
148
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1483179&postcount=727

An interview for a History/Discovery Channel aviation documentary, according to sferrin :)
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,948
Reaction score
648
well, if I could find specific title...
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,948
Reaction score
648
I bet I was reading explanation somewhere (Sweetman's book? article in WAP or IAPR? don't remember) why Lockheed decided to cut a part of trailng edge and move stabilator forward. Does someone remember the reason they have done this (please no theories, just facts)? Thanks!
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,117
Reaction score
1,179
flateric said:
I bet I was reading explanation somewhere (Sweetman's book? article in WAP or IAPR? don't remember) why Lockheed decided to cut a part of trailng edge and move stabilator forward. Does someone remember the reason they have done this (please no theories, just facts)? Thanks!
If you go find one of those "before/after" shots comparing the YF-22 to F-22A planform you can see what they did. There is an issue of Code One (and probably elsewhere) that describes why they made each of the changes. They clipped the end of the wing trailing edge to mount sensors related to the ALR-94 IIRC. They clipped the inside edge of the horizontal stab. for edge alignment, and they reduced the size of the vertical tails because they'd intentionally oversized them on the YF-22 to make sure they would have enough stabilty. The production vertical tails are more optimized to the aircraft.
 

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
500
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
Clipping the end of horizontal stabs made no difference to their performance but it did add to the planform alignment of the aircraft edges.

Clipping the wingtips, was not done so the the ALR-94 can be installed but to improve its coverage.

As for clipping the flaps edge and moving the stabs forward....
The big root chord, though, moved the tails back. Eventually we even had to notch the wing for the front of the tails. If the tails moved farther back, they would fall off the airplane."
from http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/oct_98/oct2a_98.html
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,948
Reaction score
648
Thanks, Niko! That's exactly what I've seen. But now explanation seems rather strange - yf-23 had an enormous chord of wing and v-tail, but no one at northrop was worrying of 'tail falling off'. May be it's related to specific fuselage tail config of two a/c. Was asking of that because this decision was replicated on t-50...
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
232
Well, technically speaking, you could push the tails back. But if they work fine where they are, pushing them back just adds, weight and drag, and the attendant increase in cost and less performance that comes with the increased weight and drag.
 

lantinian

Inspired
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
500
Reaction score
6
Website
www.lantinian.blogspot.com
Was asking of that because this decision was replicated on t-50...
You know, I just noticed that...funny. I was listening to the 2005 Space Shuttle lectures from MIT a year back and one of the speakers had a funny story about how he met with his russian counterpart for Buran program.

The Americas were using the Apollo launch pads for the shuttle, which were not positioned in the best possible way, so the shuttle had to execute this roll maneuver after take off to get in the right inclination.

The funny thing is that the russians were doing the same on Buran, even though that they didn't have to do it. So this american program manager went to the russian one and asked "Why do you execute a roll maneuver on Buran after take off. The answer: "Because you do it" said the Russian, and that is a true story.

Sundog is right though. The horizontal stabs of the F-22 already had tailboom build specifically to hold them. If there was a technical justification for the stabs to be moved even further back, they would have.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
93
I'm sure it's basically a factor of a near-delta wing combined with an aft tail, plus the fact that the wing TE is swept forward (mostly for LO reasons) and the stabilizer LE has a high sweep angle (same as the wing, also LO). Notching the flaperon (not the wing itself) avoids an awkwardly long tailboom. The N-102 Fang had a similar issue.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,948
Reaction score
648
thanks to everyone once more!
 

lancer21

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
297
Reaction score
21
Yep , i always found really interesting that for some reason they couldnt integrate the JHMCS and the AIM-9X on the F-22 when the other legacy fighters still in service have it since 2003!

Also , lets hope it will never come to this, but if theoretically speaking, this year in a war "somewhere" the yankees get "somehow" in WVR in their F-22s, wonder how effective the AIM-9Ms they have atm will be even against a 4th gen oponent , given that 19 years ago , AFTERBURNING iraqi Mig-25s were able to fool them with just few flares???( various sources state that in the Gulf War between 76 and 86 AIM-9M were launched for 12 kills( by 14 hits?), and 71 to 75 Aim-7M launched for 25 kills( 33 hits?).Also the PK of the AMRAAM is aparently somewhere around 50%...)
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
111
lancer21 said:
Yep , i always found really interesting that for some reason they couldnt integrate the JHMCS and the AIM-9X on the F-22 when the other legacy fighters still in service have it since 2003!

Also , lets hope it will never come to this, but if theoretically speaking, this year in a war "somewhere" the yankees get "somehow" in WVR in their F-22s, wonder how effective the AIM-9Ms they have atm will be even against a 4th gen oponent , given that 19 years ago , AFTERBURNING iraqi Mig-25s were able to fool them with just few flares???( various sources state that in the Gulf War between 76 and 86 AIM-9M were launched for 12 kills( by 14 hits?), and 71 to 75 Aim-7M launched for 25 kills( 33 hits?).Also the PK of the AMRAAM is aparently somewhere around 50%...)
A real world Pk of .5 is actually really, really good. I'd be happy with that.
 

lancer21

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
297
Reaction score
21
Might be true , but bare in mind that this PK is deduced from the several not so top of the line targets , couple of iraqi Migs shot down after the Gulf war ( 2?), several Galebs(3?) , and yugoslav Mig-29s ( 4)...offcourse the AMRAAM was upgraded continuously , but still would be interesting to be seen the PK against a well equiped ( with active and pasive jamming) ,and well manoeuvered 4th gen oponent..actually i think that between comparable generation fighters and comparable generations missiles, the PK wont be much higher that Vietnam ...the PK imo is important to note because for instance in the case of the F-22 for instance, that would meen a more that expected freqvency of getting close to the oponent(s) to finnish him/them off than envisaged (at least in more ...intense scenarios -higher numbers of oponents -highly unlikley in the real world tho)...hence the importance of the WVR weapons performance...
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
111
lancer21 said:
Might be true , but bare in mind that this PK is deduced from the several not so top of the line targets , couple of iraqi Migs shot down after the Gulf war ( 2?), several Galebs(3?) , and yugoslav Mig-29s ( 4)...offcourse the AMRAAM was upgraded continuously , but still would be interesting to be seen the PK against a well equiped ( with active and pasive jamming) ,and well manoeuvered 4th gen oponent..actually i think that between comparable generation fighters and comparable generations missiles, the PK wont be much higher that Vietnam ...the PK imo is important to note because for instance in the case of the F-22 for instance, that would meen a more that expected freqvency of getting close to the oponent(s) to finnish him/them off than envisaged (at least in more ...intense scenarios -higher numbers of oponents -highly unlikley in the real world tho)...hence the importance of the WVR weapons performance...
Not completely sure I follow you here... The Pk would, I suspect. be better than Vietnam, because our weapons are better designed, our tactics have changed substantially, and our training is better. I don't see how you can infer the 2nd point you're making simply by noting Pk.
 

BDF

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
122
Reaction score
26
The Pk is 0.6, which is 15 shots for 9 kills since 1991. I throw out the fratricide kill on the UH-60s that are often tabulated, and one missile attributed to Dozer (M. Shower) was actually a AIM-7 (he fired two slammers and one AIM-7). Also a couple of the shots over deny flight against those Mig-25s were apparently desperation shots outside of the NEZ. So if you throw those out as being outside parameters then you get a Pk of 0.70.

The F-22’s cockpit was incompatible with the JHMCS’ cockpit mapping which is why the HMDS for the F-35 went down a different route. F-22 PO has said recently (last year) that a helmet is possible but unfunded. It’ll be interesting to see where they go with the F-22 upgrade paths after 3.2. The unfunded 3.3 brings more EA toys to the table but so far no HMDS, cheek arrays etc.
 

aim9xray

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
544
Reaction score
164
F-14D said:
The Pk would, I suspect. be better than Vietnam, because our weapons are better designed, our tactics have changed substantially, and our training is better.
And all of the factors noted could be trumped by an inept, politically directed and micromanaged RoE. Not that this has ever happened...
 
S

sublight

Guest
BVR is the reason that F-22 is "BS". There have been less than 10 BVR air to air kills in the entire American history of air warfare. If the F-22's strength is BVR, and we dont do BVR, then what the hell is the point? It sure is an expensive one.
 

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
66
AeroFranz said:
When was the last time the US adopted a European fighter? Nieuport 17s? ;D
P-51 - developed on British contract & only gained high altitude performance on a British engine...

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia would agree to let the U.S. join the PAK-FA program (after all we're all friends now with the exception of some cold-warriors who've been trying to take out all remaining coldwar regimes that were opposed to us and also chip away at the CIS alliances). Egos and national pride would prevent such co-operation though: Imagine American's being willing to buy a European fighter, let alone a Russian one...
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
232
Avimimus said:
P-51 - developed on British contract & only gained high altitude performance on a British engine...
The funny thing about that, though, was that it was the American integration of the engine to the airframe that was chosen for production. Granted, that's because the designers were able to integrate it better than the British could. The British integration of the Merlin on the P-51 airframe was downright ugly. If you're really into the development of the P-51, I can't recommend this book enough.

As for the T-50 being bought by the U.S., it would never happen. First, because the U.S. already has the best combat aircraft in the world, the F-22. Second, if the U.S. bought the T-50, they would westernize it and put U.S. engines and systems in it and that would greatly outclass the Russian T-50 itself so the Russians aren't about to allow that to happen.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
111
Avimimus said:
AeroFranz said:
When was the last time the US adopted a European fighter? Nieuport 17s? ;D
P-51 - developed on British contract & only gained high altitude performance on a British engine...

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia would agree to let the U.S. join the PAK-FA program (after all we're all friends now with the exception of some cold-warriors who've been trying to take out all remaining coldwar regimes that were opposed to us and also chip away at the CIS alliances). Egos and national pride would prevent such co-operation though: Imagine American's being willing to buy a European fighter, let alone a Russian one...
I doubt the Russians would actually let the US get involved, because they'd have to disclose too much. Plus, Sundog is right in his analysis about what systems would be changed (love to get the Russian ejection seats, though). Another reason is that if the US was gong to spend that kind of money, they'd get far more bang for the buck by buying more F-22s and continuing development of its systems. Plus it would take travel to a a parallel universe to imagine that Congress would agree to shutting down the F-22 line, but would fund a derivative of a foreign aircraft to perform the same mission.

As far as the US adopting foreign fighters, there is more than just ego involved. Back when there were dozens of competitive aircraft companies, such a thing might be theoretically possible. Now, however, there are only a few companies in the entire West (Lockheed, Dassault, maybe Northrop Grumman, maybe Boeing and Saab-although one wonders if they will do anything beyond Gripen) that still have the capability of taking an advanced fighter all the way from design to production. Buying a derivative a a foreign design would mean that expertise would be lost, and it may be too expensive to get it back.

While the US has liked to design its own, and I don't see that changing on cutting edge fighters, it has become far more open to foreign products over the years. The B-57, the Harrier, the T-45 Hawk derivative, the Slingsby T-3A (it was our fault, not the aircraft's, that it didn't work out), the VH-71 (ditto), the UH-72, maybe the KC-45 (maybe not, but let's not go there), the upcoming APKWS, the British DFCS for the F-14 (can't thank Britain enough for that, even though the Tomcat lost its ability to do its pirouette maneuver once it was installed) and the beat goes on...
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,556
Reaction score
130
sublight said:
BVR is the reason that F-22 is "BS". There have been less than 10 BVR air to air kills in the entire American history of air warfare. If the F-22's strength is BVR, and we dont do BVR, then what the hell is the point? It sure is an expensive one.
And how many nuclear warheads have been fired by ICBMs? By your ‘use it or loss it’ rationale this capability is unimportant? The lack of US BVR kills has a lot more to do with the lack of engagements these weapons were designed for. Certainly these weapons have had plenty of successful play being used by some export customers like Israel and Iran. However in the real world as opposed to enthusiasts’ limited peak on it based on what happens to be written up in some book or press release or ranting commentators webpage weapons like the AIM-120 are extensively tested in the kind of environment it would face if a major air battle was actually to develop.

As to criticism of the AIM-120’s body of work much of this is just massaging the facts. Air Power Australia and that guy who was fired from RAND used such a dodgy method to lower the Pk it defied general assumptions of mathematics. Such as if one does not want to count a kill as a kill because you believe it does not qualify as BVR then its best to not count that launch as well as the kill, rather than counting the launch and counting that kill as a miss! Great way to lower the Pk as long as no one is actually paying attention to what your saying.
 
Top