F-22 Raptor Thread

Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
FORBIN said:
It would be less, equal or more agile that a Su-35S, Typhoon or Rafale ? annouced the best.

Su-35S is the only with a 3D vectored thrust, maybe Su-30MKI/SM/MKM/MKA which have it are also good ?

I can not find number for F-22 turn rate sustained or instantantenous.
Click to expand...

Well at low altitude and post stall I'm going to give #1 to the Su-35s, as we move into medium altitude the Rafael and Typhoon are very close and the Typhoon will maintain that awesomeness into the high altitude where the Su-35 will begin to run out of breath.

But, at high altitude and very high speed the Raptor is no doubt number 1, 6Gs at fifty thousand feet is very agile, and far ahead of anything else, all do to lots of horses and lots of smart FCS and Aerodynamics, and that boys and girls is the number that counts
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Air Force Brat said:
Well at low altitude and post stall I'm going to give #1 to the Su-35s, as we move into medium altitude the Rafael and Typhoon are very close and the Typhoon will maintain that awesomeness into the high altitude where the Su-35 will begin to run out of breath.

But, at high altitude and very high speed the Raptor is no doubt number 1, 6Gs at fifty thousand feet is very agile, and far ahead of anything else, all do to lots of horses and lots of smart FCS and Aerodynamics, and that boys and girls is the number that counts
Click to expand...

The F-22 flew today at EAA Air Venture, it will fly Friday and Sunday as well during the afternoon airshow, the F-35 A will be on static display and making a few flybys as well?
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
This is an excerpt from Arie Church's excellent article, "Dogfighting's Premature Demise", I would encourage every SDF member who has any interest in such things to read very carefully General Moseley's comments: they are the "Gospel according to General Moseley", my wording, this was excerpted from todays Air Force Magazine, Daily Report, and is a brief but very direct quote from General Moseley as he spoke at the Mitchell Institute.

Arie Church has very accurately and very succinctly quoted General Michael Moseley, and his NOT politically correct assessment of the "furball".

"in the 1950s and "we built airplanes with no guns ... then Mig-19s, Mig-17s kicked our ass" over Vietnam, "Don't ever forget, the F-15 and F-16 were built as maneuvering airplanes," "the F-22 is effectively invincible" in a maneuvering engagement while the "
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
." "If the fight finds you and you can't maneuver, or you can't defend yourself, … I would offer that we have a fundamental failure in understanding actual combat."​

Many SDF ers are under the very sadly mistaken impression that BVR is rule of law, and nothing could be further from the truth, as General Moseley reminds everyone of the sordid past where USAF and USN got their "butts kicked" by Mig 17s and 19s, this over reliance on the latest "kool tool" is a "loser" and lots of airmen have lost their lives proving that hypothesis still stinks. I especially like General Moseley's comment that the F-22 is "effectively invincible", while the F-35 will "be okay".

That's why it remains imperative that we maintain our F-22 fleet, while bringing the F-35 up to a similar standard, the F-35 will be very good, and it is imperative that we tweak that bird's FCS over to maximize its "air combat maneuvering"
General Moseley's comments sound like "Vipers" little talk in "Top Gun", but make no mistake, General Moseley is the "real deal", not a politician or marketing wonk.
 
Last edited:
Ultra

Ultra

Junior Member
From
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
series "Aircraft as Art" - High Resolution (3000 x 3000)
WEB12013-2011h.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ultra

Ultra

Junior Member
You know, with all the fanfaire and hooplas with F-35, it got me thinking....

I think DoD and Lockheed need to examine an upgraded version of Raptor.

Call it.... Super Raptor :D ......very much like the Hornet to Super Hornet. It will be built on a proven platform, it will be not as costly as F-35, and it can take many of the technologies developed for F-35 and port it over to F-22.

1. Take the technologies or just the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
engine over to a modified F-22 airframe. The F135 is a lot more powerful than the F119 and it should give F-22 significant boost to speed and agility.

2. Maybe enlage the airframe a little (Super Hornet is 25% larger than Hornet... but I am not saying it should be as much as 25% increase for Super Raptor... just a little bit larger), allowing more space for the internet weapon bay to carry more missiles and bombs. Enlarging the wings may also increase the lift and combat radius.

3. Larger airframe may also allows Super Raptor to have larger nosecone, hence larger and even more powerful radar.

4. Larger airframe also means it will have more rooms for the fuel tanks, allowing it to fly further, loiter longer.

5. Maybe HMD and IRST, only if it doesn't go into a development hell like the F-35.
 
Last edited:
S

Scratch

Captain
You know, I think even building and operating more F-22s is hugely expensive as it is. Although experiance gained through F-35 development may offset that a little. Going as far as you describe, enlarging and therefore modifying the complete airframe and structure is going to be quiet an undertaking.
The SuperHornet, while carrying the name and looking alike, is quiet often described as a new airplane.
I think that coming up with a SuperRaptor in the way you dexcribe it is indeed a bit too much in the current budget environment.

There is the huge and costly commitment towards the F-35. There's the need for a new bomber with the LRS-B project upcoming. Possibly reengining the B-52s. There is the aqcuisition process for the new KC-46 tanker. Then the GPS Block three launches are still to come. In the other services there's the need for new SSBNs, surface combatants, amphib assault vehicles etc.

On a smaller scale, new tech developments from the -35 are migrating towards the -22. I think some radar capabilites / upgrades are among them. The USAF recently released a RfP for a HMS system for the Raptor. AIM-9X block 2 will arrive in 2017 I think. Some kind of an IRST would indeed be really nice and usefull, although intrude into the structure / shaping.
Engine wise, I guess the next iteration will be fitting an F-119 sized (uprated) variable cycle engine in several years, once those become ready.

The upgrades you describe are, IMO, likely at least a decade out when budget constraints become less acute. Although, with the programs described above, that situation may remain for 2 + decades. Then such a SuperRaptor could become a transition towards the 6th gen. Depending on how that goes.
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
Scratch said:
You know, I think even building and operating more F-22s is hugely expensive as it is. Although experiance gained through F-35 development may offset that a little. Going as far as you describe, enlarging and therefore modifying the complete airframe and structure is going to be quiet an undertaking.
The SuperHornet, while carrying the name and looking alike, is quiet often described as a new airplane.
I think that coming up with a SuperRaptor in the way you dexcribe it is indeed a bit too much in the current budget environment.

There is the huge and costly commitment towards the F-35. There's the need for a new bomber with the LRS-B project upcoming. Possibly reengining the B-52s. There is the aqcuisition process for the new KC-46 tanker. Then the GPS Block three launches are still to come. In the other services there's the need for new SSBNs, surface combatants, amphib assault vehicles etc.

On a smaller scale, new tech developments from the -35 are migrating towards the -22. I think some radar capabilites / upgrades are among them. The USAF recently released a RfP for a HMS system for the Raptor. AIM-9X block 2 will arrive in 2017 I think. Some kind of an IRST would indeed be really nice and usefull, although intrude into the structure / shaping.
Engine wise, I guess the next iteration will be fitting an F-119 sized (uprated) variable cycle engine in several years, once those become ready.

The upgrades you describe are, IMO, likely at least a decade out when budget constraints become less acute. Although, with the programs described above, that situation may remain for 2 + decades. Then such a SuperRaptor could become a transition towards the 6th gen. Depending on how that goes.
Click to expand...

I'll say bring back the YF-23 program and turn it into a 6th gen fighter.

img_2460.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Equation said:
I'll say bring back the YF-23 program and turn it into a 6th gen fighter.

img_2460.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

very fine thoughts from each of you young gentlemen, all cogent, all do-able, as Master Scratch reminds us money will remain an issue. As you have suggested Equation there is NO need to re-invent the wheel, the YF-23 or YF-22 would both offer a very fine platform to upgrade into our next gen, forget the pilot-less, tail-less KRAP. Start developing another real airplane NOW, forget the 12 layers of complexity and nebulous bull research that will cost billions of dollars, my own recommendation is that we simplify the Raptor, forget the OVT, and keep the electronics functional, but simple
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top