- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
The F-22 presents an interesting conundrum.
It is complete overkill (and thus not necessary) for our most urgent military purposes (war on terror, securing Iraq, eradicating al-Qaeda). Even if we went to war with Iran or North Korea tomorrow, our current fleet of fighters and bombers would make mincemeat out of the competition.
The only countries against which the F-22 might provide a real value are China and Russia. However, if we go to war against either of those two countries, air superiority would be the least of our worries.
It is complete overkill (and thus not necessary) for our most urgent military purposes (war on terror, securing Iraq, eradicating al-Qaeda). Even if we went to war with Iran or North Korea tomorrow, our current fleet of fighters and bombers would make mincemeat out of the competition.
The only countries against which the F-22 might provide a real value are China and Russia. However, if we go to war against either of those two countries, air superiority would be the least of our worries.
IIRC the F-117 Nighthawk is just about unflyable without it's Computerised FCS....not that it matters much when you are almost completly invisible to the enemy anyway and have little chance of being shot at.
It's just a pity that the RAAF decided to put it's money on the over priced lemon that is going to be the F-35 JSF...we had the option of purchasing a small number of F-22's with some reduce capability (damn yanks...never let us play with all their toys :|), but we decided to go with the F-35 because of it's cheaper cost....now the cost is increasing considerably...
Once again our defence forces make a bad decision...kinda reminds me of our navy..."lets replace our modern Sikorsky Seahawk helicopters with Veitnam era Kaman Seasprites"
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
They haven't made an EMP device yet that will disable the ol' rubberband and propeller combo!
Yes! My fleet of Balsa wood flyers will reign the skies!!!
Hahahha
.
It's too bad that most countries in the world won't fight against our strength . Even with the old F-16 and F-15, I don't think any country can pick a fight with the USAF and win. China would prefer to destroy our spy satellites or any low orbit satellites to blind us and cut off our communication networks. Asymmetric warfare is the way of the future, the US better adapt. Iraq is just a small taste.
. Even with the old F-16 and F-15, I don't think any country can pick a fight with the USAF and win. China would prefer to destroy our spy satellites or any low orbit satellites to blind us and cut off our communication networks. Asymmetric warfare is the way of the future, the US better adapt. Iraq is just a small taste.Originally posted by: Pocatello
It's too bad that most countries in the world won't fight against our strength
The US tested its antisatellite weapon in 1985. We'd do the same to China if they attempted it on our satellites.
And then for the crippling blow to their economy, we'd close Wal-Mart.
And for that reasoning alone, I am glad you never decided to make the military part of your future or past.
MBrown
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2001
- 5,724
- 35
- 91
Almost all military aircraft's electronics are shielded against EMP. Nothing's perfect, but it's not going to be easy taking them out.
Spoken like a true armchair general with no actual facts to back up opinions! Bravo!
Seriously, you naysayers have NO IDEA what you are talking about. None. Stop acting like you do, ok? It's not your fault that you don't, but it's pathetic when you act as if you know all of the F-22A's capabilities or understand how it will be used in any future conflict.
So far, one of the few intelligent questions raised about the Raptor is from EagleKeeper, but I would posit that any fighter aircraft which takes damage and continues flying in today's operational world is lucky. I would be very surprised if the Raptor were not designed for battle damage, building on the legacy of the Eagle. Also, the Raptor has one key control feature which the Eagle lacks -- thrust vectoring. I'm sorry, my friend, but the Eagle has landed as the premier fighter aircraft.
Now, if they slap an AESA radar into it, they can certainly extend its usefulness considerably, and no one can argue that another aircraft dominated the skies for as long as the F-15 has. Even the F-22 won't match that feat.
As for the Eurofighter, it's a compromise aircraft built by a patchwork consortium of firms all over Europe. You know the incompatibilities you can get when you build a computer from a wide variety of parts manufacturers? Think about it. Plus, if it goes up against the Raptor, how can it kill what it can't see at a long distance? If the Raptor is only 25% better than the Eurofighter, it still shoots first and kills first which means the Eurofighter loses every time. That's simplistic, I admit, but so is the analysis in this thread.
I wouldn't say that. He tried to rag on the F-22 because it depends on a computerized flight control system to fly, but then he used the F-16 as an example of a plane that would keep on flying if it was hit- a testament to the reliability of planes that don't depend on a computer FCS.
There's one problem with that- the F-16 *does* depend on a computerized FCS.
Some F-15s already have an AESA radar, the AN/APG-63(V)2
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Plus, if it goes up against the Raptor, how can it kill what it can't see at a long distance? If the Raptor is only 25% better than the Eurofighter, it still shoots first and kills first which means the Eurofighter loses every time. That's simplistic, I admit, but so is the analysis in this thread.
That's a good point that I think a lot of other people miss. People are vastly underestimating the usefulness of having better detection/stealth capabilities. If you can hit me from 40 miles out while I need to get within 30 miles to hit you, you'd be able to win nearly every time by adjusting your tactics. You'd be able to do repeated hit and runs with relative immunity. Get within range, attack, retreat. Get within range, attack, retreat. The enemy would never be able to get in range.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,591
- 5
- 0
The F16 has computerized FCS. However, the plane is aerodynamically sound.
In otherwords, if the computer is down and the pilot can fly by wire control, the plane can be flown, not efficiently/effectively, but the pilot does not have to punch out.
W/ the F22,it REQUIRES the computer to be online and in control. Without it, the plane will eventually destroy itself by
The computer trying to overcorrect for perceived or real issues. The flight surfaces are unable to provide the needed input to match the computer design parameters for control.
The plane without the computer is not able be stable and will become a brick.
Originally posted by: dug777
This reads like an advert for the F-22
Nothing in the OP suggests it has faced off against a top rank Sukhoi or a Typhoon...
All we can go by is the past. And judging from the record of the F-15 versus Migs, I'd say the F-22 is in a very good position.
All the time I see someone boldly stepping up and claiming that the past is the past, it's irrelevant now and that this time it's going to be different. And nearly every time, their dreams are dashed when, not surprisingly, the historic trend continues along the same path.
The US is merely refining its skills in that area. It has the data from those past engagements, its has the experience to engineer the proper changes, and it has the budget to implement those changes.
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: dug777
This reads like an advert for the F-22
Nothing in the OP suggests it has faced off against a top rank Sukhoi or a Typhoon...
All we can go by is the past. And judging from the record of the F-15 versus Migs, I'd say the F-22 is in a very good position.
All the time I see someone boldly stepping up and claiming that the past is the past, it's irrelevant now and that this time it's going to be different. And nearly every time, their dreams are dashed when, not surprisingly, the historic trend continues on the same path.
I suspect you mistake the capability of the machine for the competence of the pilot.
Most of the F-XX vs Mig showdowns were vastly experienced F-XX fighters with overwhelming air support etc against green Mig pilots, afaik
Regardless of the accuracy of that, i can't see what relevance your comment has, the OP reads like a backslapping, self-congratulatory advert for the F-22
No, the F-16 is not stable. It was designed to be inherently unstable to increase maneuverability and requires a computerized FCS to remain stable and fly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16
"Negative static stability
An aircraft with negative static stability will, in the absence of control input, depart from level and controlled flight. Most aircraft are designed with positive static stability, where a plane tends to return to its original attitude following a disturbance. However, positive static stability hampers maneuverability, as the tendency to remain in its current attitude opposes the pilot's effort to maneuver; therefore, a plane with negative static stability will be more maneuverable. With a fly-by-wire system, such a plane can be kept in stable flight, its instability kept in check by the flight computers.
The YF-16 was the world's first aircraft to be slightly aerodynamically unstable by design. This feature is officially called "relaxed static stability." At subsonic speeds, the airplane is constantly on the verge of going out of control. This tendency is constantly caught and corrected by the FLCC (Flight Control Computer) and later the DFLCC (Digital Flight Control Computer), allowing for stable flight"
And here's another source: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm
"The YF-16 became the world's first aircraft to be aerodynamically unstable by design. With its rearward center of gravity, its natural tendency is to nose up rather than down. So level flight is created by the elevator pushing the tail up rather than down, and therefore pushing the entire aircraft up. With the elevator working with the wing rather than against it, wing area, weight, and drag are reduced. The airplane was constantly on the verge of flipping up or down totally out of control,. and this tendency was being constantly caught and corrected by the fly-by-wire control system so quickly that neither the pilot nor an outside observer could know anything was happening. If the control system were to fail, the aircraft would instantly disintegrate; however, this has never happened."
And yet another source: UNSTABLE AIRCRAFT DESIGN: THE COMPUTER AT THE CONTROLS
"Rafale, Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon or the F-22: the new generation of superfighters have one design feature in common, something that no modern fighter can do without. They are designed unstable. At the end of the 70s the Lockheed Martin F-16, developed back then by General Dynamics, was the first series production fighter to use this technology."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter