CLEARANCE: Top Secret
- May 13, 2009
- Reaction score
To be fair, I hate all think tanks with the same gusto.
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.Machdiamond said:The music sounds very much like the Transformers soundtrack.
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.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.
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.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!
from http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/oct_98/oct2a_98.htmlThe 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."
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.Was asking of that because this decision was replicated on t-50...
A real world Pk of .5 is actually really, really good. I'd be happy with that.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%...)
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.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...
And all of the factors noted could be trumped by an inept, politically directed and micromanaged RoE. Not that this has ever happened...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.
P-51 - developed on British contract & only gained high altitude performance on a British engine...AeroFranz said:When was the last time the US adopted a European fighter? Nieuport 17s? ;D
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.Avimimus said:P-51 - developed on British contract & only gained high altitude performance on a British engine...
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.Avimimus said:P-51 - developed on British contract & only gained high altitude performance on a British engine...AeroFranz said:When was the last time the US adopted a European fighter? Nieuport 17s? ;D
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...
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.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.