• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Could say 10 F22 Raptors take out china's entire air force?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: exdeath
I'm aware the numbers are only public data. Just the mach 1.8 max for the Raptor seems ridiculous given that it has at least 10,000 lbs thrust more than the F15 and is lighter and stronger... and come on, if it can supercruise at 1.5 that means full after burner only adds 0.3 mach? I don't think so... clearly the top performance numbers are classified.
Click to expand...

The top speed is limited by safety and design constraints. On some aircraft, like the B-1B bomber, older versions could go Mach 2.5 while new versions are subsonic. They have the same engines, the only reason is that they switched to non-movable engine inlets.

I don't think the F-22 has movable inlets, and the materials used for the aircraft would become too hot at high speeds (lots of composites compared to aluminum for older aircraft). So it's probably either inlet limited or safety limits, the flight control system not letting it go any faster for safety reasons.
Click to expand...


I must have taken it for granted that the F-22 would have variable inlet ramps if it's replacing the F-15... lack of variable intake would limit the top speed of the F-22 to about mach 2.

I really hope they decide to keep the F-15s in service then instead of replacing them. No need to drop them since they are still the world's premiere fighter compared to what everyone else has.
 
Originally posted by: exdeath
It's still a reliable indication. Laws of inertia and the force required to accelerate a given mass don't change just because you're in the air. Drag and wing loading are of course factors, but if I remember, the F22 has the EF beat in those as well, especially when loaded (internal weapons bays vs. external)
Click to expand...

I think you are basing too much stuff on Hot Rod and your 750HP Mustang (which 750HP is sort of interesting to me as I know a lot about the 289, 302, and 351 windsor series, a bit about the 4.6/5.4 and 750HP is a not easy to obtain mark).

I don't know what your background is in education, but a lot of these 'basics' get enhanced with military aircraft, some of the stuff that is not so easily seen.

Proof is in pitting two in a point to point race and seeing which arrives first, but that is flawed because some will win that race by a narrow margin but have spent all their fuel doing so.

With aircraft it's a lot to do with range, payload, and speed...altitudes play an important role as well. There are a lot of variables. The thrust and weight are a very minor sliver of the whole picture.

 
Originally posted by: SilentZero

Actually your wrong. The cost per unit-flyaway is 97 million, but total military build cost is about 200 million. So the cost per aircraft will be anywhere between those two figures, but possibly higher. Thats not considering the other costs that went into developement which were in the billions.
Click to expand...

I wrote a very lengthy post about this before detailing the F-22's cost. The 97 Million figure would be realistic, but the 200 million figure is just politicians playing the game of "funny numbers".
 
Originally posted by: Valkerie

Look at the wars throughout history.
i.e. - Korean War, China intended to intervene for self-defense. Did they build the Great Wall for defensive measures, or was it to prepare them to invade their enemies later on?
Click to expand...

Walls are strictly defensive. Since the wall is in China and doesn't move, I don't see how you'd use it to attack anyone else.
 
Originally posted by: exdeath
I really hope they decide to keep the F-15s in service then instead of replacing them. No need to drop them since they are still the world's premiere fighter compared to what everyone else has.
Click to expand...
I am getting too old 🙁 to be recalled for the F-15s if problems develop with them.
No more conflicts are needed that require them for specialized uses for the next 20 years.

Should not be recalled to active duty when needing a wheelchair😛

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b

you know your stuff...bea me to saying what you did :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Experience is the best teacher

 
quote:
Originally posted by: exdeath
It's still a reliable indication. Laws of inertia and the force required to accelerate a given mass don't change just because you're in the air. Drag and wing loading are of course factors, but if I remember, the F22 has the EF beat in those as well, especially when loaded (internal weapons bays vs. external)



I think you are basing too much stuff on Hot Rod and your 750HP Mustang (which 750HP is sort of interesting to me as I know a lot about the 289, 302, and 351 windsor series, a bit about the 4.6/5.4 and 750HP is a not easy to obtain mark).

I don't know what your background is in education, but a lot of these 'basics' get enhanced with military aircraft, some of the stuff that is not so easily seen.

Proof is in pitting two in a point to point race and seeing which arrives first, but that is flawed because some will win that race by a narrow margin but have spent all their fuel doing so.

With aircraft it's a lot to do with range, payload, and speed...altitudes play an important role as well. There are a lot of variables. The thrust and weight are a very minor sliver of the whole picture.
Click to expand...

Thanks for saving my time & breath again alkemyst 🙂

exdeath, as for providing CFD & wind tunnel results, please point your request toward the US Airforce as they own & control the info. I would say that detection and the means to that end is what separates the 'top performance' of fighter aircraft today. Unfortunatley, most people are used to specific physical performance characteristics that they may not fully understand, but can at least grasp. Saying that one aircraft is faster than the F/A-22, or more maneuverable, or carries more weapons is MEANINGLESS. If an F/A-22 can shoot down the 'higher performance' aircraft and never be seen, what's the point of 'higher performance'.

This argument is why UCAVs WILL replace manned fighters (not all at once and not all frontline). The reason being who care's if manned fighters fly Mach 3.0, pull 10Gs, carry 14 missles + 2 cannons + etc..., fly stabily at 45°+ AoA backwards, forwards and sideways, and have a total single craft cost with ordinance (minus human pilot) of $75+ million dollars when the US will field UCAVs that fly 300-500mph, are barely stable in forward flight, carry 2-4 missles each, can't pull more than a few Gs, cost $15-25 million each, and cannot be detected. I know this is going offtopic an already offtopic topic but China would have to steal and reverse engineer 50+ years of advanced US aviation & DETECTION technology and then PRODUCE it to even be a viable threat. The ground based systems coiming out of Russia & Ukraine are good even by our standards, but they're not enough.
 
Originally posted by: Valkerie
If China was aggressive, what did they do about the Japanese invading them? How about the Mongolians? Did they kick the Hmong migrators out, why? Who helped the Vietnamese ship weapons to their own country from former-USSR? Did China help the North Koreans when a potential enemy was getting too close? And did a US military general strongly suggest to invade China, and you don't think the Chinese heard about the general being relieved of command by the US President himself? Do we see China wanting to take over indo-China, how come they haven't done it for the past century? Do I sound stupid or what. If China wanted to take over Vietnam, for example, they'd have a much harder time than France and the U.S. combined, even if they're next door and have the numbers.

It's ideology, and not socia repression alone. China's dictators, would have needed to become a Hitler. Unlike Hitler, Mao never wanted domination of other countries, but his own people for himself. So if the leaders sought global domination like Hitler, China would be something else today, battered down by alliances, or over-ruling Asia.
Click to expand...

Here are my comments:

China was invaded by Japan before WW II because the Japanese force was much stronger and China was weaken by the civil war <Communists vs. Nationals>. Similar situation when Gehis Khan forces invaded the Hans dynasty <Mongolian forces were much stronger, as a matter of fact, they were the best back then..guess who beat them? LOL....>. Can't comment on the Hmong. China and Russia were friends with the NORTH Vietnamese, used North Vietnam as proxy to fight the South and the U.S.
China did intervene with Southeast Asia, fought with Vietnam in 1979 over Cambodia.
China invaded Tibet in the 1960s and Mao was the leader then <see my previous links about Tibet>.

What I was telling 91TTZ was China may not be a huge colonial power as France/England were in the 18th and 19th century but they sure were not ***Throughout history, China has tended to be non-aggressive***.

One more thing, Vietnam does have an AirForce. Vietnam Airforce list
 
Originally posted by: OS
heh, why doesn't someone invent an unmanned steath missile ship that can clear out a sky full of fighters.
Click to expand...


They had a missile some company (It was one I never heard of) offered the Air Force a long time ago, it was amazingly cheap, like 10% of the cost of a normal missile, and nothing was able to get away from it, nothing, no matter what it did, flares, chaff, etc was totally ignored. All the pilot had to do was lock it to the target, and off it went, night or day, unless the electronics or the motor failed, it was a sure kill. They had a F16 or F18 converted to a remotely controlled drone that was shown trying to avoid the missile and it had no problem killing it. A helicopter was also wasted with no problem.

For reasons only the govt knows, they turned it down! A plane loaded with these would have been able to totally destroy the other side in a few minutes, just limited by how many "shots" (missiles) it could carry. I remember the owner of the company shaking his head, not believing they didn't want it. I did the same thing.
 
Originally posted by: hemiram
Originally posted by: OS
heh, why doesn't someone invent an unmanned steath missile ship that can clear out a sky full of fighters.
Click to expand...


They had a missile some company (It was one I never heard of) offered the Air Force a long time ago, it was amazingly cheap, like 10% of the cost of a normal missile, and nothing was able to get away from it, nothing, no matter what it did, flares, chaff, etc was totally ignored. All the pilot had to do was lock it to the target, and off it went, night or day, unless the electronics or the motor failed, it was a sure kill. They had a F16 or F18 converted to a remotely controlled drone that was shown trying to avoid the missile and it had no problem killing it. A helicopter was also wasted with no problem.

For reasons only the govt knows, they turned it down! A plane loaded with these would have been able to totally destroy the other side in a few minutes, just limited by how many "shots" (missiles) it could carry. I remember the owner of the company shaking his head, not believing they didn't want it. I did the same thing.
Click to expand...

Did it fix the ozone layer when fired as well? :roll:
 
With the proper support 10 Raptors could hold air superiority enough for the rest of the forces to bomb the living beejeezus out of China's air force.

Anything that got into the air would be shot down and everything that didn't would be toasted in the hangars. The US military has already done that... they didn't even need Raptors. Falcons, Eagles, Tomcats, etc worked just fine.
 
With all due respect to the Raptor, you do not even need it to defeat the elite Chinese airforce.

Use the P3s; takes out Migs in a heartbeat - (April 2001).

Lot cheaper than a Raptor and greater endurance range.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
With all due respect to the Raptor, you do not even need it to defeat the elite Chinese airforce.

Use the P3s; takes out Migs in a heartbeat - (April 2001).

Lot cheaper than a Raptor and greater endurance range.
Click to expand...

I thought ramming was more of a naval tactic.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
With all due respect to the Raptor, you do not even need it to defeat the elite Chinese airforce.

Use the P3s; takes out Migs in a heartbeat - (April 2001).

Lot cheaper than a Raptor and greater endurance range.
Click to expand...

I thought ramming was more of a naval tactic.
Click to expand...

I do not know if the Chinese Navy flys MIGs.

However, because the MIG attempted 🙂P in cheek) to land on the surface of the ocean, it may have been a Naval A/C.😕

I

 
It is impossible to take out chinese airforce even with 100000 whatever planes.

Why is that ?

They got SA nukes, so it's bye bye AWAC.
 
Originally posted by: Sixtyfour
It is impossible to take out chinese airforce even with 100000 whatever planes.

Why is that ?

They got SA nukes, so it's bye bye AWAC.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea the range of those SA missles vs the range of an AWACS coverage.

Research before eating your foot.

 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Sixtyfour
It is impossible to take out chinese airforce even with 100000 whatever planes.

Why is that ?

They got SA nukes, so it's bye bye AWAC.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea the range of those SA missles vs the range of an AWACS coverage.

Research before eating your foot.
Click to expand...

They can use 500 interceptors with 50 planes that carry a nuke.
 
Originally posted by: Sixtyfour
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Sixtyfour
It is impossible to take out chinese airforce even with 100000 whatever planes.

Why is that ?

They got SA nukes, so it's bye bye AWAC.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea the range of those SA missles vs the range of an AWACS coverage.

Research before eating your foot.
Click to expand...

They can use 500 interceptors with 50 planes that carry a nuke.
Click to expand...

Assuming that many planes actually make it out of their revetments.

Our bombers and cruise missiles might have something to say about that.
 
Originally posted by: K1052


Assuming that many planes actually make it out of their revetments.

Our bombers and cruise missiles might have something to say about that.
Click to expand...
There is no way to shoot 550 planes when you are relying on aircraft carriers.
And there is no need to have all 550 intact, only 1 with a nuke would do the job if succesfully passed airdefence.

 
Slightly OT, but still related - I always thought the YF-23 was cooler looking than the F-22...too bad it lost out in the competition. It was stealthier and faster, but I think the F-22 had the edge in manuverablity: http://www.hitechweb.szm.sk/stealth3b.files/YF-23-4.jpg I wish the Navy picked these up as Tomcat replacments instead of the gay-looking YF-35
Click to expand...

Actually there are no 'offical' reasons as to why the 22 won over the 23, they both had excellent stealth characteristics and the test planes both tested P&W and GE engines. Any aircraft deigner can look at the designs and point out the biggest problems with the 23 though. The first is that in order to achieve the internal payload on the F-23 missles were 'stacked' which presented a potential problem in the event of the launch ramp malfunction. Second, servicing the engines due to placement and body design would have been much more time consuming on the 23. Finally, the YF-23 had a tendency to leave vapor trails off of the outboard wing edge under certain maneuvering conditions. Even though all of these problems were minor in comparison to say a control, thrust, or stealth problem, they were enough to push the design over to the 22. I personally agree with you though, the 23 is simply hot.

Cost wise it would never replace the F-35, the volume of sales on these puppies provided our international partners buy their share will make them 'dirt' cheap compared to a twin engine aircraft.
 
Originally posted by: Sixtyfour
Originally posted by: K1052


Assuming that many planes actually make it out of their revetments.

Our bombers and cruise missiles might have something to say about that.
Click to expand...
There is no way to shoot 550 planes when you are relying on aircraft carriers.
And there is no need to have all 550 intact, only 1 with a nuke would do the job if succesfully passed airdefence.
Click to expand...

The US retaliation would be swift and proportional.

Most likely with us using nuclear Tomahawks launched from SSNs (or SSGNs in the near furure) to neutralize Chinese surface groups.

Also, China would be out a good chunk of it's air force just to take out one carrier group.





 
Originally posted by: hemiram

They had a missile some company (It was one I never heard of) offered the Air Force a long time ago, it was amazingly cheap, like 10% of the cost of a normal missile, and nothing was able to get away from it, nothing, no matter what it did, flares, chaff, etc was totally ignored. All the pilot had to do was lock it to the target, and off it went, night or day, unless the electronics or the motor failed, it was a sure kill. They had a F16 or F18 converted to a remotely controlled drone that was shown trying to avoid the missile and it had no problem killing it. A helicopter was also wasted with no problem.

For reasons only the govt knows, they turned it down! A plane loaded with these would have been able to totally destroy the other side in a few minutes, just limited by how many "shots" (missiles) it could carry. I remember the owner of the company shaking his head, not believing they didn't want it. I did the same thing.
Click to expand...


That story is complete nonsense. Utter garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top