Raptor and other fighter types

[Sweeper 0]

I will for now take on some info about the Raptor

here is detailed info here

However in this topic I want to correct the ones saying that flying an modern jet is easier than WW2's.

I have past squad experience from an F-22 sim, in the end I ruled the air and earned my nickname but before that, I was an target, and flying target to the others.

Tactics play an important part and the newest technology is a darn if you don't know how to use it.

Total Air War had an option to give you thrust vectoring whenever you wanted by pressing an key above TAB.

This pic is from the sim I once played, if you got it, don't look for servers they are all down.

The MiG-42 is however the F-22 Counter part but it is only 2 prototypes of it.

I will look after some pics of it

Maybe this... I saw a pic long time ago but it was not from this angle.

Now please comment no start with better ones just facts and performance, no flaming...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

uhhhh... hmm? What's your point? That thread was about how bad an idea putting a supersonic aircraft into OFP would be.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

As long as people can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of military aircraft without making country an issue of discussion, I don't see how this could be a bad discussion

In actual fact, such posts are the point of this forum

[second_draw 0]

How much do they (f-22 raptor) cost? I know it is a hell of alot of money but their alleged superoirity is worth it.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The F-22 was designed by Lockheed Martin & Boeing for the USAF Advanced Technology Fighter Competition, where it won out over the prototype YF-23. It is capable of super-cruise, that is it can fly at speeds up to Mach 1.5 without afterburner, letting it fly faster for longer periods than any other air-superiority fighter in existence. It is incredibly expensive though- $150 million+ per aircraft. That means it ain't going to be available in anything approaching adequate numbers for many years.

Specs:

Power plant

Two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines with afterburners and two-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles. Each engine is in the 35,000-lb-thrust class.

Length

62 ft. 1 in.

Wingspan

44 ft. 6 in.

Height

16 ft. 5 in.

Top speed

Mach 2 class

Supercruise speed

Mach 1.5+

Top Speed: So classified they don't even mention top speeds when talking about it, but thoguht to be in the Mach 2 range

Ceiling and weight

Classified

Armament

Internally, six radar-guided AIM-120C advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (or two 1,000-pound class GBU-32 joint direct attack munitions in place of four of the AIM-120Cs) in main weapons bay; two heat-seeking AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles in side weapons bays (one in each bay)

One M61A2 20 mm multi-barrel cannon

Four external stations can carry additional stores (weapons or fuel tanks)

Crew

Pilot only

First flight

September 7, 1997

Flight test aircraft

Nine

Initial operational capability

Late 2005

Planned production

339 aircraft

Avionics:

A common integrated processor (CIP), a central "brain" with the equivalent computing throughput of two Cray supercomputers

Shared low-observable antennas

Ada software

Expert systems

Advanced data fusion cockpit displays

Integrated electronic warfare system (INEWS) technology

Integrated communications, navigation and identification (CNI) avionics technology

Fiber optic data transmission.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

In comparison, here are the dimensions of the F-15C, the USAF's principle air-superiority fighter:

Length: 63 ft. 9 in.

Span: 42 ft. 9 3/4 in.

Height: 18 ft. 5 1/2 in.

Weight: 68,000 lbs. max.

Speed: 1,875 mph (Mach 2.5 plus)

Armament: One internally mounted M-61A1 20mm 20-mm, six-barrel cannon with 940 rounds of ammunition; four AIM-9L/M Sidewinder and four AIM-7F/M Sparrow air-to-air missiles, or eight AIM-120 AMRAAMs, carried externally.

Also, the F-15C is significantly cheaper, clocking in at around $30 million per aircraft.

[second_draw 0]

In a sort of price-performance comparison. Do you think the f-22 raptor could take down 5 f-15c's in a single combat. Rather general guidlelines i know, but could it be done?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (second_draw @ Oct. 01 2002,11:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In a sort of price-performance comparison. Do you think the f-22 raptor could take down 5 f-15c's in a single combat. Rather general guidlelines i know, but could it be done?<span id='postcolor'>

That is very broad. Are we talking a visual range dogfight, or a beyond visual range missile joust? Who has the advantage? Do they both know where the other is? Remember, both will be armed with the same weapons, (AMRAAMs, AIM-9xs, 20mm).

In a dogfight, with evenly matched pilots, the win would most likely go to the F-22, with it's more sophisticated fly-by-wire systems, not to mention this new fangled thrust vectoring stuff I have heard so much about. Remember, the F-15 is basically a 30 year old aircraft at this point, with the C variant being about 21 years old. They don't have fly-by-wire, which is a not a serious liability until you get into a turning match with an aircraft that has it.

In an even missile duel, it would once again go to the F-22. It's stealth characteristics, better radar, better ability to evade missiles.

Now, is it worth it to pay 110 million dollars more for an aircraft whose only match is one that we already have? Beats me.

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

What's the fly-by wire thing?

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Oct. 01 2002,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (second_draw @ Oct. 01 2002,11:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In a sort of price-performance comparison. Do you think the f-22 raptor could take down 5 f-15c's in a single combat. Rather general guidlelines i know, but could it be done?<span id='postcolor'>

That is very broad. Are we talking a visual range dogfight, or a beyond visual range missile joust? Who has the advantage? Do they both know where the other is? Remember, both will be armed with the same weapons, (AMRAAMs, AIM-9xs, 20mm).

In a dogfight, with evenly matched pilots, the win would most likely go to the F-22, with it's more sophisticated fly-by-wire systems, not to mention this new fangled thrust vectoring stuff I have heard so much about. Remember, the F-15 is basically a 30 year old aircraft at this point, with the C variant being about 21 years old. They don't have fly-by-wire, which is a not a serious liability until you get into a turning match with an aircraft that has it.

In an even missile duel, it would once again go to the F-22. It's stealth characteristics, better radar, better ability to evade missiles.

Now, is it worth it to pay 110 million dollars more for an aircraft whose only match is one that we already have? Beats me.<span id='postcolor'>

I know someone who is the head of an aviation museam. He said that it wasn't really the age of the aircraft but the avionics inside like the guidance. Therefore older planes (aka f-15c) could be flown closer to new plane. eg. Singapore fly the skyhawks and australia fly the f-111. So surely this f-15c could give the f-22 at least a run for its money?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STS_SolidSnake @ Oct. 01 2002,12:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's the fly-by wire thing?<span id='postcolor'>

It is a digital joystick

Basically, in the old days the stick controlled hydraulics that moved the flaps and wings etc., whereas today it is done through a joystick, which sends electrical signals to electrically controlled hydraulics

[shadow 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Oct. 01 2002,12:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STS_SolidSnake @ Oct. 01 2002,122)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's the fly-by wire thing?<span id='postcolor'>

It is a digital joystick

Basically, in the old days the stick controlled hydraulics that moved the flaps and wings etc., whereas today it is done through a joystick, which sends electrical signals to electrically controlled hydraulics <span id='postcolor'>

Think of it as servo-steering for aircrafts

Among choppers: The Apache has it, The Cobra don't....

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Oct. 01 2002,12:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Oct. 01 2002,12:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STS_SolidSnake @ Oct. 01 2002,12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's the fly-by wire thing?<span id='postcolor'>

It is a digital joystick <!--emo&

Basically, in the old days the stick controlled hydraulics that moved the flaps and wings etc., whereas today it is done through a joystick, which sends electrical signals to electrically controlled hydraulics <span id='postcolor'>

Think of it as servo-steering for aircrafts

Among choppers: The Apache has it, The Cobra don't....<span id='postcolor'>

Thanks for the answer!

So does this mean if ur not strong enough you cant turn an old fighter fast?

[rwryne 0]

About the 1 raptor costing 5 F15s...if they turned the 339 raptors into 1695 F15s, are they gonna have the pilots?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STS_SolidSnake @ Oct. 01 2002,13:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So does this mean if ur not strong enough you cant turn an old fighter fast?  <span id='postcolor'>

The B-24 Liberator of WW2 fame had no hydraulics, so it was easy to spot a Lib pilot because of his over-developed left arm, which came from trying to keep the huge bomber on course despite the fact that it had a bit of a yaw.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Oct. 01 2002,12:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STS_SolidSnake @ Oct. 01 2002,12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's the fly-by wire thing?<span id='postcolor'>

It is a digital joystick <!--emo&

Basically, in the old days the stick controlled hydraulics that moved the flaps and wings etc., whereas today it is done through a joystick, which sends electrical signals to electrically controlled hydraulics <span id='postcolor'>

There is one other thing that Fly by Wire lets you do.

Aircraft designs have levels of stability.  In other words, with the hands off the controls, will a properly trimmed aircraft fly straight and level.  It's affected by a lot of things... airfoil shape, dihedral, thrust to weight ratio, and a slew of other factors.

With mechanical controls, the aircraft general has to be either neutral or positive stability.  Otherwise the pilot may be too busy trying to keep control of the aircraft to perform ACM.

Fly by wire allows the engineers to take a negative stability aircraft (and these designs are generally VERY manoeuverable) and make it seem like a positive stability aircraft in terms of handling, by making hundreds of minute adjustments to the control surfaces every minute, automatically.  FBW also makes trimming the aircraft much easier, as once the flight parameters are set, the onboard systems can keep everything just the way you want it.

The Raptor does look like cool gee whiz technology.  And since the US Air Fleet is aging at a pretty rapid pace, it's not a bad thing to be developing a successor to the F-15.

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

What about the JSF (joint strike fighter)

What does it differ from the f-22, whats better and whats worse on that jet?

i can't find any "Real" pics of it on google, only drawn images

anyone got more info or comparison with the f-22 and JSF?

[Tovarish 0]

Fly-by-wire generally has one disadvantage though. Usually the G-limits of the aircraft are hard-coded into the computer, so it won't let you pull more G's than the computer says you should. The MiG-29/Su-27 series have an AoA/G limiter that can be overriden by the pilot, (the MiG-29's airframe supposedly can take up to 13 positive G's.). That way if you absolutely need to you can get a  little bit extra from the aircraft - at the risk of permanently degrading it's flight performance. I have a Janes book called "How to fly and fight in the MiG-29", and in it is an interview with one of the first American pilots who was able to evaluate it. He said that the ability to override the AoA/G limiter of the aircraft was one option he wished he could have in his F-16.

[RedRogue 0]

The JSF was designed with the stealth capabilities and a margin of the F-22s ability to reach mach without an afterburner.

JSF also has VTOL capability much like the Harrier Jumpjet but uses a forward thrust fan and thrust vectoring of the engine to perform VTOL manueuvers.

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/unique/html/jsf-external/jsfvid.html

[PHY_Hawkeye 0]

There will be a number of varients to the X-35 JSF

The U.S.A.F. varient is the stock varient, with no STOVL capability.

The U.S.N. varient will be optimised for carrier operations, with a larger control surfaces on the wings and tail.

The U.S.M.C. / R.A.F. / R.N. varient will have STOVL capability and is set to replase the Harrier in all three services. Should enter service with the R.A.F. in 2015 I believe.

Lots of info and pics at the official site

[nolips71 0]

we all know the eurofighter typhoon rules all

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nolips71 @ Oct. 01 2002,18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we all know the eurofighter typhoon rules all <span id='postcolor'>

Ok , this should start a flamewar

thanks Nolips

[Warin 0]

Easy choice:

Stick on topic and dont make half assed comments that are pretty much intended to start an arguement...

OR

Take a 24h Post Restriction and learn to play nice with others.

Get the hint?

Man, the X-35 is pretty cool.  That variable geometry engine is pretty spiffing. In a STOL variant, it could make carrier ops a lot easier on the airframe.

Tovarisch:

There is that limitation to FBW systems.  The problem is when a pilot thinks his capabilities are farther out the right side of the envelope than they really are.  That's when you get airframe failure because some overzealous flyboy decided he could pull a few more G's than the airframe is rated for... or ends up blacking himself out.

It might be nice to have some latitude, but in the end having safety limitations can only cut down on non combat fatalities and accidents.  And the reality is that the majority of lost aircraft in the last 20 years have been from training and routine flights than they have been from combat. (At least my impression of the reality, that is )

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Oct. 01 2002,19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It might be nice to have some latitude, but in the end having safety limitations can only cut down on non combat fatalities and accidents.  And the reality is that the majority of lost aircraft in the last 20 years have been from training and routine flights than they have been from combat. (At least my impression of the reality, that is )<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not disputing that. The MiG-29/Su-27 do have safety limitations, it's just that they can be overriden temporarily in extreeme situations, and even not-so extreme situations if the pilot so wishes.(The Cobra maneuver for example, requires that the AoA/G limiter be switched off). BTW, this is not a limitation of all FBW AC, since all Su-27 and the newer MiG-33 have digital FBW.

[Guest]

What is the relation between the F22 and the JSF? Were they developed in parallel or is the JSF the successor to the F22?