• 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.

F-22 Raptor: Nimble Air Superiority Combat Fighter Jet

N

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
F-22 Raptor in action


Montage of clips of the F-22 airshow demo including cobras, backflips, super-high-alpha flight, the Raptor hovering with its nose pointed straight up, some super-fast pitch-ups, and some "vapor" (sonic shock condensation cones and wingtip vortex contrails) at the very end. Sweet, sweet stuff.

As we know, the F-22 is pretty much invisible in the battlefield (in simulated wargames, F-22 pilots always kill everyone else before being detected), has the fastest cruise speed of any airplane currently flying (MACH 1.5-1.75 depending on whom you ask), is powerful enough to break the sound barrier while flying straight up in a vertical climb while fully loaded, and is extremely advanced in how it manages, shares, and integrates information and presents it to the pilot. This weekend, the USAF has allowed one more thing about the F-22 to be shown to the public: its maneuvering capabilities. This video is a montage of clips from the F-22's first full tactical airshow demo (performed in Langley this weekend by Major Paul Moga) plus a few other F-22 clips from YouTube. I don't think I need to tell you that no American fighter has ever enabled a pilot to do these kinds of aerobatics:
Click to expand...

This thing is damned nimble! If we have a fleet of those it would be hard for any country to match us in air superiority for the next 20 years. Simply amazing!
 
Yeah it is. I remember reading about it a couple years ago when the Air Force got a few. The cool thing is its a joint venture between Lockeed and Boeing. Wiki has great info on it.
 
Unfortunately, the last I heard we were only buying 2 wings worth; nowhere near enough to replace the F-15 in its air superiority role.

I am beginning to think the Air Force is planning to use UAVs a whole lot more in the future for ground attack, CAS and recon missions leaving air superiorty to manned aircraft.
 
powerful enough to break the sound barrier while flying straight up in a vertical climb while fully loaded
Click to expand...
So it has a greater than 1:1 thrust:weight ratio. Isn't that unusual in jets or in fact in any full scale aircraft?

Where is the part with it hovering (I think around 2:40)--do many other jets have the ability to change the angle of the thrusters?

EDIT: Actually I suppose most high speed jets have to have a greater than 1:1.
 
It's a piece of crap for the price; $339 million each.

You can fund a full scale invasion with that much money in most countries.

The US is just highly inefficient at waging war or providing defense at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
It's a piece of crap for the price; $339 million each.

You can fund a full scale invasion with that much money in most countries.

The US is just highly inefficient at waging war or providing defense at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

The F-22 is pretty cool...but are you sure on that cost?

That is a whole lot of modern tech F-15E's or something like that....that cost just cannot be right...

Chuck
 
From Wiki:

By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
The F-22 is pretty cool...but are you sure on that cost?

That is a whole lot of modern tech F-15E's or something like that....that cost just cannot be right...

Chuck
Click to expand...


Yeah that seems about right. The problem is companies like Lockheed Martin are such money sinks. The government just needs to reform how it awards bids to contractors because the method now can hardly be called a method. Contractors should pay for working demos out of their own pockets, as well with the first shipment of working endproducts. The government should not have to pay until the company proves it can actually manufacture it properly. You think not being able to roll in governmental funds would kill their ability, but hardly. It would teach them how to do it without insane per unit cost and decade long delays. If the government ups it weapons and avionic requirements just install such upgrades after delivery, as they undoubtedly would do every 10 years anyways.


I'm not trying to explain how they coud make the same plane at %20 the cost, just how to not have it look like such a joke to congress 15 years down the line.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
From Wiki:

By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yikes.

Does it say after we spend the $62B what the per unit cost will be then??? Please tell me it's going to be less than 30% of that....

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: Dainas
Originally posted by: chucky2
The F-22 is pretty cool...but are you sure on that cost?

That is a whole lot of modern tech F-15E's or something like that....that cost just cannot be right...

Chuck
Click to expand...


Yeah that seems about right. The problem is companies like Lockheed Martin are such money sinks. The government just needs to reform how it awards bids to contractors because the method now can hardly be called a method. Contractors should pay for working demos out of their own pockets, as well with the first shipment of working endproducts. The government should not have to pay until the company proves it can actually manufacture it properly. You think not being able to roll in governmental funds would kill their ability, but hardly. It would teach them how to do it without insane per unit cost and decade long delays. If the government ups it weapons and avionic requirements just install such upgrades after delivery, as they undoubtedly would do every 10 years anyways.


I'm not trying to explain how they coud make the same plane at %20 the cost, just how to not have it look like such a joke to congress 15 years down the line.
Click to expand...

Yeah, something is just not right there. I wonder just how much of this $62B is R&D and figuring the systems as parts and the whole out, vs. actual production cost. Once everything has been figured out, the cost I'd hope to roll one of these off the line better be far far less than $339M. If not, then this program should have been axed long long ago...

Chuck
 
Originally posted by: chucky2

Yeah, something is just not right there. I wonder just how much of this $62B is R&D and figuring the systems as parts and the whole out, vs. actual production cost. Once everything has been figured out, the cost I'd hope to roll one of these off the line better be far far less than $339M. If not, then this program should have been axed long long ago...

Chuck
Click to expand...

It's TOTAL cost of the program from day 1 (which started in the mid 80s). It's certainly not just the production costs. But the more we buy the cheaper the per unit cost... we should get a few more.
 
the air guard unit i recently retired out of will have a full squadron stationed here at hickam afb around 2010, piloted by some of the best pilots (go 199th maitai!) that has ever had a fighter strapped onto them.

the deployment of raptors to hawaii couldn't come soon enough though, as one of our 15's had an inflight emergency and the pilot had to bail out and got feet soaked miles from shore. the coast guard got to him quickly and the pilot was shaken but not seriously hurt. this after a fleet-wide stand down for quite some time.

reminds me of the story that got passed around a long time ago where a pilot who ejects from an aircraft that sports the aces II ejection seat will be permanently shortened a full inch in height due to the gforce experienced from being rocket-blasted out of the cockpit.

 
Originally posted by: Dman877
Why do they bother with fighters anymore? Don't they just get shot down by SAM's?
Click to expand...
There have been counter measures against sams for decades (chaff/flares...I used to play A10 tank killer on the 486).
 
Originally posted by: chucky2
Yikes.

Does it say after we spend the $62B what the per unit cost will be then??? Please tell me it's going to be less than 30% of that....

Chuck
Click to expand...
Roughly $140 million per unit afterward, but we'll have to order $xxx billion worth of jets to see the total per unit cost down to that level. Taxpayers foot the R&D costs too, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be included in the cost equation.

Defense spending is an amazing thing to observe in the United States. The military industrial complex is so embedded into our government that it is near impossible to turn off the spigot now, even though we know our defense spending levels are unsustainable.

It's like watching a 700lb man sitting on the couch, eating himself to death.
 
The Raptor is an incredible piece of hardware. For those wanting to understand a little more about how America can justify the money they spend on defense, take a look at THIS.
 
When is the last time we lost a fighter jet in air to air combat?

And with a jet like this when will the next time be?

I don't think the importance and value of air superiority in any conflict can be underestimated.
 
Originally posted by: Dman877
Why do they bother with fighters anymore? Don't they just get shot down by SAM's?
Click to expand...

F-22's are stealth -- invisible to radar, and thus invisible to SAMS. Hence the $339 million price tag for each one 😉
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
When is the last time we lost a fighter jet in air to air combat?
Click to expand...
The F15 has a perfect operation record, and has a $30 million/unit cost; 10 times cheaper per unit than the Raptor. Asking our government to do a simple cost/benefit analysis and be fiscally responsible isn't too much to ask.

I don't think the importance and value of air superiority in any conflict can be underestimated.
Click to expand...
To battle the al-Qaeda Air Force?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: jpeyton
To battle the al-Qaeda Air Force?
Click to expand...
No to battle the Iranians, or did you forget all those threads you started about us attacking them any day now?
Click to expand...
The Israelis do just fine dominating the Middle East with their F15s.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
When is the last time we lost a fighter jet in air to air combat?
Click to expand...
The F15 has a perfect operation record, and has a $30 million/unit cost; 10 times cheaper per unit than the Raptor. Asking our government to do a simple cost/benefit analysis and be fiscally responsible isn't too much to ask.

I don't think the importance and value of air superiority in any conflict can be underestimated.
Click to expand...
To battle the al-Qaeda Air Force?
Click to expand...

:laugh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top