F-22 Raptor Combat Trials

[DoubleTap]

Interesting article from Popular Mechanics regarding the current combat trials the F-22 Raptor is being put through.

[Fireman]

didnt one of those beasties just crash in California last week somewhere?

[Perfesser]

I am glad the Raptor seems to do so well, but I hope the damn thing is insulated from EMP, or it is going to be a very heavy paper-weight if s*** hits the fan big-time.

DT

Won't much matter, almost nothing else is.

[Tonar]

didnt one of those beasties just crash in California last week somewhere?

I think that was an F-18 Hornet

[Fireman]

nope, it was a Raptor..

http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F22Crash032509.xml&headline=F-22%20Raptor%20Crashes%20Near%20Edwards%20AFB

didnt realize they had that many on the lines already.

[Tonar]

I thought you meant the one in San Diego that landed on a house.

[BadAim]

I remember watching a TV show on the developement of the F22. The F15 chase plane pilot they interviewed commented that the term "chase plane" was a joke, the F22 pilot could push the throttle and leave at will, there was no chasing to be had. Quite a machine.

[Jabo]

I may be wrong about this, but isn't the F22 the only aircraft in service capable of 'supercruise' i.e. the ability to maintain supersonic flight without the use of reheat? Concorde could do it is well, but isn't exactly 'in service' any longer, more's the pity.

~S~ Jabo

[Rattler]

No, Jabo - I googled it just awhile back, and your own English Electric Lightning could supercruise. First operational fighter to do so.

[Enforcer57]

Yeah, those things kick everybody's ass they go up against. And yes, you can count on it (and

all other modern combat AC) being hardened against EMP.

As good as it is, it was still stupid to take the F-117 out of service assuming the F-22 is gonna

be able to do its job of selective ground attack on dangerous targets. While it no doubt can, the

small numbers we are gonna have (less than 200 probably) mean they probalby will be busy doing

air to air stuff.

I keep hoping Ill see one since I live 60 miles from Lockheed. A freind of mine does planning

on the assembly line and is still amazed at teh stuff he keeps seeing on this machine.

[Jabo]

No, Jabo - I googled it just awhile back, and your own English Electric Lightning could supercruise. First operational fighter to do so.

Well, you learn something new every day. Given the age of the Lightning that's seriously impressive

As good as it is, it was still stupid to take the F-117 out of service assuming the F-22 is gonna

be able to do its job of selective ground attack on dangerous targets. While it no doubt can, the

small numbers we are gonna have (less than 200 probably) mean they probalby will be busy doing

air to air stuff.

I thought that was the reasoning behind the JSF - The F-22 is the 'Air Dominance Fighter'

[Enforcer57]

Well it was, but it's still pretty stupid to take the 117s out of service before the replacement

is online. The AF said that the F-22s could do its job until then.

[DoubleTap]

Well it was, but it's still pretty stupid to take the 117s out of service before the replacement

is online. The AF said that the F-22s could do its job until then.

[Enforcer57]

Yeah, the F and E models are vastly improved over the C and D, but it still doesn't

have alot of the capabilities of the B and D model Tomcats that had new radar

and systems installed along with thier new engines (40% thrust increase and amazing new radar).

The 14 still has the longest range radar in any of our fighters, and it's far more reliable and

cost effective with the new stuff than the old A models. They also can do considerable ground attack

missions as they did in 93, though it is still primarily a fighter.

The only reason the navy gave for its retirement was

purely costs, and those were decreased by the new equipment. It certainly was

gonna need replacing soon, but the Super Hornets are not it. They will have to

do for the next 20 yrs though, and are certainly capable machines that are very

competitive in air to air.

Gonna be a while before the Super Hornets can reliably kill you at 100+ miles.

The Ds especially had a huge amount of time left on them before they would

need major airframe work. The Bs already had it done.

The Super hornets are great fighter and attack AC, but they still lack much of

what the F-14 oculd do in its laters versions.

I kinda doubt the long range version of the Aim-120 will make it into production,

but I could be wrong. I hope I am.

IIN any event, we are gonna be a bit more hardpressed when taking on well

flown planes like SU-30s amd Mig-35s with vectored thrust, much less European

and Chinese machines (like J-10) that are loaded with new tech and capability.

I was a freshman and sophore in high school when the F16,15, F-14A, flew (72-74)

and the F-18 was just a concept plane known as the P-530. I am 52 yrs old now.

I know these planes are upgraded and far superior to what the first ones were

(though the 15 and 16 really haven't changed that much), but to have only

one 5th generation "light" fighter in production

[Rattler]

Personally, Carl, I think that people who wish the F-14 was still in service are thinking more from their heart than their brain.

Don't get me wrong: it's always been one of my favorite planes ever. It was a fantastic plane when it entered service, and through the 90's, but it was sorely long in the tooth.

Given the training regime of the US Navy, and the sheer number of launches and traps each plane takes, and the increased weight Tomcats were forced to carry, they were getting extremely worn out, and expensive to operate.

Commonality of systems was the way to go, and the brass felt that the SuperBug gave them more bang for the buck.

I sure hope that they go through with the AMRAAM 120D; it should be able to engage targets well over 100km (50% over the 120C-7).

[DoubleTap]

What do guys think of the developing "pilotless" planes?

[B16Enk]

What do guys think of the developing "pilotless" planes?

A bit like what we do in IL2 then....

I know it seems like science fiction, but so did alot of crap 50 years ago, and things only seem to be accelerating.

[Enforcer57]

yeah, drones are taking on alot more of the dangerous (and non-PC) attack misns, and have a larger

role in future airpower. One must keep in mind that they have thier limits, and wont be able to completely replace manned AC completely. Drones will, in my opinion, be used as a compliment, and as a weapon used from manned AC.

I know that F-14s were due for replacment, but I still maintain it was way too premature, especially considering the capability of hte recently modified Bs and the new Ds, which had alot of time left on them. They were retired before their replacement (whatever it is) was available. and I meant its use in 2003, not 93.

It was also pretty stupid to scrap nearly all the Bs and Ds simply to keep Iran fromgetting any of thier parts. that was pretty stupid and speaks for itself.

[Perfesser]

I think I heard that 30% of the weight and size of a modern fighter is for the pilot.

Avionics, survivability, redundancy(to get him home) ejection seats and all that.

So without the pilot you're looking at an extra 30% ordinance.

For decades planes have been limited by the pilot's limits of G force and endurance.

How about a 20G fighter? Or more? Unlimited endurance.

The Mk1 eyeball is obsolete anyway, radar, long range TV, FLIR are far better. You could have many sensors on the craft and a guy on the ground for each one of them, the equal of 10 pairs of eyes in each craft, watching every angle at once.

The implications of the next part may be disturbing for some who have never thought about it ...... and is probably the biggest factor in the drive to develop this.

The American public has only ever complained about 1 thing in regards to wars fought.

Not billions in cost, not enemy casualties, not civilian deaths, not countries laid to waste.

Only 1 thing.......... Americans in body bags.

Keep the public sedated with American Idol, McDonalds and cheap drugs and we'll do what we want.

As long as they have their SUV's and cheap gas they won't even care.

Like the old Bush-Cheney joke:

"The Iraq war will kill 3 million Iraqi's and a blonde with big boobs."

"why the blonde?"

"see....... I told you they wouldn't care about the 3 million Iraqi's".

Ike was right about the M-I Complex

[Enforcer57]

I tend to agree with most of that Perfessor, especially these days. We can keep support as long as our casualties are low and it's pretty quick, which is why hte Iraq thing wasn't well thought out initially.

The exception is Vietnam. I well remember it, as my Dad was a civilian flight instructor for the Army the entire war, and I watched the news every evening as a kid. The the vast majority of the so called "anti war" movement was protesting ENEMY casualties, and fully supported the NVA and VC war effort. These guys ALWAYS had dozens of VC/NV flags, made no secret of their support for the communists and thier hatred for the US miilitary. I saw this crap myself in Enterprise Ala as they would come down there and protest outside Ft RUcker; I am still pissed that the armed forces day airshow was cancelled due to their demands in response to the invasion of Cambodia in 69; I see why, since it hurt their friends so bad. .

I was in High school when Jane Fonda went to Hanoi and cheered on NVA gunners as they fired at our planes during Linebacker in 72, and called POWs war criminals. Just wanted to make sure everybody remembered those people. We have got to make sure that kind of nonsense is never encouraged again.

[Tribunus]

Jane Fonda went to Hanoi and cheered on NVA gunners as they fired at our planes during Linebacker in 72.

She did more than just cheer them on.