F-22. The most advanced fighter the world has ever seen.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
This thread inspired me to read the Wiki article on the F-22.

Stuff like this is just bad ass:

Previous stealth aircraft have been plagued by deployment problems due to maintenance-intensive radar absorbing materials and coatings, which are susceptible to weather conditions. Unlike the B-2, which requires climate-controlled hangars, the F-22 can undergo repairs on the flight line or in a normal hangar. Furthermore, the F-22 has a warning system (called "Signature Assessment System" or "SAS") which presents warning indicators when routine wear-and-tear have degraded the aircraft's radar signature to the point of requiring more substantial repairs.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Israel's GDP isn't bad ...

I think the problem with Israel is they have serious debt and inflation/recession. Their economy is not stable.
This was in the 90s, but maybe things have changed?

but their GDP is certainly not bad.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: JayMassive
Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel is not developing any planes.

They sold their airplane technology/design blueprint to China.

I don't recall Israel ever developing aircraft for their military. I know they have serious military force, but they're not too original.

Compared to who? And where do they get the money? They have a pretty pathetic GDP...

usa helps em of course :Q
plus they're very well trained

What you just give them equipment for free? And I doubt they're better trained than other modern millitaries.

Combat experience > training
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: JayMassive
Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel is not developing any planes.

They sold their airplane technology/design blueprint to China.

I don't recall Israel ever developing aircraft for their military. I know they have serious military force, but they're not too original.

Compared to who? And where do they get the money? They have a pretty pathetic GDP...

usa helps em of course :Q
plus they're very well trained

What you just give them equipment for free? And I doubt they're better trained than other modern millitaries.

almost 2 billion a year, joint training, mandated military involvement for citizens, and a nuclear program

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp

That puts them at number 26, which is not very good, but what's more it puts Britain and France below India which means it probably does not take technology into account as much as it should and Israel's main advantage is technology...

People are always going on about how strong Israel is and I'm starting to wonder why...



Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel's GDP isn't bad ...

I think the problem with Israel is they have serious debt and inflation/recession. Their economy is not stable.
This was in the 90s, but maybe things have changed?

but their GDP is certainly not bad.

In millions of USD

European Union - 13,502,800
United States - 12,455,825
...
Israel - 129,841

That's number 39, below Malaysia.

 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Israel is not an economic powerhouse with those numbers,

but

GDP Per Capita shows how well a nation is doing.

They rank in the top in the M.E, but Kuwait/UAE might be tied or ahead of them now.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,934
567
126
The Red Air threat was compromised of a number of previous generation Air Force and Navy aircraft including the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 Super Hornet. During the exercise, in which more than 40 aircraft littered the skies, the Blue Team achieved a remarkable 241-to-2 kill ratio. It should be noted, however, that the 2 aircraft lost on the Blue Team were F-15C aircraft and not the F-22s.
That's because most of the F-15C's combat systems and avionics suite are over 10 years old (in technology standards), particularly the inferior AN/APG-63(V)1 radar system, and deliberately being kept that way to justify the 'need' for the F-22. Though much improved over the original version, the APG-63(V)1 capabilities are still very dated and near the limits of its upgradeable processing and memory capacity.

Raytheon has developed a major retrofit package, the AN/APG-63(V)3, based on the same Active Electronically Scanned Array technology found in the F-22's AN/APG-77, with major processing, memory, and avionics capability increases over the AN/APG-63(V)1. Certain elements within the Air Force, defense industry, and Congress are trying to prevent this and other cost-effective improvements to the F-15C because they would effectively close the capability gap between the F-22 and F-15C.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c...el_awst_story.jsp?id=news/10184top.xml

The F-15C's aerodynamics and flight performance characteristics are still on par with newer aircraft, all it needs is a modern avionics and combat systems overhaul, as well as an engine update and significant improvements in the reliability of several sub-systems, all of which have passed development and prototype phases and are ready for operational evaluation. A few studies/analysis of these improvements concluded the F-15's air superiority could be extended at least 15 years into the future for about $5 billion or less.

Now think about why we are spending 200+ billion to 'replace' the "indisputed and unrivaled king of air-to-air (and multi-role) fighter" in the world when that status could be extended by at least 15 years at a cost of not more than $5 billion?

While we will need to replace the F-15 at some point, it is fairly indisputable that point would be no sooner than 2022 with cost-effective improvements, but for the 'push' in favor of the F-22 by certain interests within the defense industry and military.

The further-out we attempt to predict the needs and capabilities of a future aircraft, the more likely those predictions will be wrong. The F-22 will already be 15 years-old when it is slated to finally replace the F-15. We could have kept it in development phase for another 10 years at a fraction of the cost and ended up with an even better and future proof replacement for the F-15C.
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Aimster
Nice aircraft

wonder if a Russian S-300 or S-400 system can take one out.

My favt. is still the SU-27 and F-15 , but no doubt the F-22 would own them both

S-300 or S-400 will probably make mincemeat of the F-22, since they were designed to shoot down very low radar signature targets like missile warheads, but they are very expensive missiles, and Iran doesn't have them. China does though.

Wow, what sources are you using? MSIC, DIA, NGA? Do you have the imagery to back up your MOB assessments?

:laugh:

EagleKeeper: When the radar is activated, the other aircraft can also detect the owner.

"Can" is different from "will" with regard to ELINT. I agree with the blanket statement, but it's not that simple as you probably remember (you DID listen to your intel guys, right? :D ).

Anyway, I think part of the problem with armchair discussions of which aircraft is superior to another is that amateurs don't understand what's important in the comparison. People on web forums often talk about the advantages of thrust vectoring (the cobra manuever!) or how many missiles an aircraft can carry. They ignore the differences in avionics and the ability of different radars to use different scan and tracking techniques or even more simply the ability of a RWR display to show multiple threats with enough detail to give the pilot proper SA. Electronic warfare is THE area today, in detection, evasion, and attack. Ignore that -- you die.

The F-22 has the most advanced fighter radar in the world today that is fully integrated with the aircraft's avionics suite. Keep that one fact in mind because it matters a great deal.
 

slatr

Senior member
May 28, 2001
957
2
81
Originally posted by: Superself
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Those are damn impressive results. :) Dropping JDAMs accurately from 50,000 feet is also a big deal. Not sure many AA systems can effectively image and target the Raptor at such an altitude. So is the reliability of the plane so far.

Yes that is a very big deal. Carpet bombing at mach 1.5 and 50k feet with JDAMS is lethal. I don't think there is a defense against this yet...especially against stealthed F-22s.


That is amazing. It is super-cruising on by at about 1000 mph and dropping a bomb (with accuracy) from 9 miles up. Also, the fighter itself it only about 60-62 feet long.

What could possibly be the counter for this?


 

slatr

Senior member
May 28, 2001
957
2
81
Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
Originally posted by: Aimster

My favt. is still the SU-27 and F-15 , but no doubt the F-22 would own them both

Same here... until they start putting F-22s in video games so I can fly them.

They have had those since the early 90s. I believe the name of the earliest sim was actually f-22 raptor. You can also fly one as an add on in MS Flight Sim.

 

slatr

Senior member
May 28, 2001
957
2
81
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The problem with the Raptor may be that if any foreign object interferes with the flight surface/control, the plane becomes a flying brick.

The Eagle and Falcon can take hits and keep on rolling.

While the Raptor is an impressive aircraft, it has to be treated as a long range standoff weapon. It requires computer control, the pilot can not fly it alone.

You do know that the F-16 requires a computer to fly, don't you?

Just about any fighter designed in the last 30 years is inherently unstable and requires a computerized FCS.

Actually, the F-15 auto trims (unlike many Russian planes which are much harder to fly) and while not a fighter the A-10 is a fairly modern warplane with a fully manual backup system.

 

DLT3C

Senior member
May 8, 2006
420
0
0
What bothers me is the "we" factor. "we" bombed, "we" invaded, "we" attacked. We means "(one)'s self and others", as in a collective action, so please explain to me the reason why keyboard-typers on this forum take credit for what the military of the country they just happened to be born in do.

Don't hate, elaborate.
 

beemercer

Senior member
Feb 10, 2006
817
0
0
Originally posted by: slatr
Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
Originally posted by: Aimster

My favt. is still the SU-27 and F-15 , but no doubt the F-22 would own them both

Same here... until they start putting F-22s in video games so I can fly them.

They have had those since the early 90s. I believe the name of the earliest sim was actually f-22 raptor. You can also fly one as an add on in MS Flight Sim.

I actually have a F22 and a F117 simulator on 4 floppys :).
 

slatr

Senior member
May 28, 2001
957
2
81
Originally posted by: DLT3C
What bothers me is the "we" factor. "we" bombed, "we" invaded, "we" attacked. We means "(one)'s self and others", as in a collective action, so please explain to me the reason why keyboard-typers on this forum take credit for what the military of the country they just happened to be born in do.

Don't hate, elaborate.

Americans.. our military.. our backing of our military

Nationalism


 

LtPage1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2004
6,311
2
0
The most jaw-droppingly awesome waste of my money since... well, since the Soviets threw in the towel.
 
Nov 3, 2004
10,491
22
81
Originally posted by: DLT3C
What bothers me is the "we" factor. "we" bombed, "we" invaded, "we" attacked. We means "(one)'s self and others", as in a collective action, so please explain to me the reason why keyboard-typers on this forum take credit for what the military of the country they just happened to be born in do.

Don't hate, elaborate.

somehow i knew you were from canada.
 

MSUEngineer

Member
Dec 28, 2005
30
0
0
Originally posted by: DLT3C
What bothers me is the "we" factor. "we" bombed, "we" invaded, "we" attacked. We means "(one)'s self and others", as in a collective action, so please explain to me the reason why keyboard-typers on this forum take credit for what the military of the country they just happened to be born in do.

Don't hate, elaborate.

Umm, our tax dollars paid for those aircraft, so I think we can say "we" if we please!
 

regnez

Golden Member
Aug 11, 2006
1,156
0
76
Originally posted by: IAteYourMother
Originally posted by: DLT3C
What bothers me is the "we" factor. "we" bombed, "we" invaded, "we" attacked. We means "(one)'s self and others", as in a collective action, so please explain to me the reason why keyboard-typers on this forum take credit for what the military of the country they just happened to be born in do.

Don't hate, elaborate.

somehow i knew you were from canada.
:laugh:
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: DivideBYZeroI bolded the well argued retort. I now understand fully why having ousted the previous country's leadership you have still yet to wrestle control of the country you wished to liberate.

I don't watch CNN, but then I don't watch FOX, either...
That wasn't my argument. That was my venting of frustration at your incompetence.
And we're not wrestling. Putting the butt kick to would be better. These fools are just a bunch of leaked in Iranians and worthless scum who have nothing better to do but give the world a hard time. I'm guessing from your phrasing, you're an UKie, am I right?
You probably watch the BBC, which is about the rough equivalent of CNN, only blatantly lefty.
Originally posted by: dug777why isn't the f-22 winning the war on terrors?
Because planes don't occupy countries...just maybe?
Originally posted by: slatr


Nationalism
Wrong.
Patriotism.

 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Because planes don't occupy countries...just maybe?

no, because we are too kind. the way to defeat your enemy is to truely destroy them. think japan/germany. you bomb the f*ck out them until they surrender and lose their fighting spirit. its bloody but it works. we are too soft to do such a thing now so we now are mired in a mess.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Because planes don't occupy countries...just maybe?

no, because we are too kind. the way to defeat your enemy is to truely destroy them. think japan/germany. you bomb the f*ck out them until they surrender and lose their fighting spirit. its bloody but it works. we are too soft to do such a thing now so we now are mired in a mess.

Regardless of your philosophy on war, wars are never won soley by planes, and wars are never won soley by soldiers either. Good combos and coordination are what do it. If you don't use your arsenals to best effect, you won't get anywhere. Not to mention theres not much to bomb.