• 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.

F22, really beautiful

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
F-18 looks cooler.

Either way.. what good are these now that conventional war is done? Is this thing awesome at cave spelunking and tent hunting?
 
I want this:

3940501434_3c6c9aa6ca.jpg
 
TheSlamma said:
F-18 looks cooler.

Either way.. what good are these now that conventional war is done? Is this thing awesome at cave spelunking and tent hunting?
Click to expand...

Conventional war is done? Apparently you have no idea what the Korean DMZ is, or what happens if Iran finally goes off it's rocker.

If China decides they are taking Taiwan back, that could go conventional for a while before nukes are used as well.
 
Looks great on paper and pretty.

However, can not place into a combat area where it might get hit with a piece of metal.

Poke a hole and destroy its flying ability when a control wire is damaged.

Heck, the thing could not even fly properly when an electronic glitch caused a reset of the flight computers.

What happens if a control surface is damaged in flight. Kiss it gooddby
 
I much prefer the look of planes that were designed by hand, not by computer. They have much more personality and don't look boring.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Looks great on paper and pretty.

However, can not place into a combat area where it might get hit with a piece of metal.

Poke a hole and destroy its flying ability when a control wire is damaged.

Heck, the thing could not even fly properly when an electronic glitch caused a reset of the flight computers.

What happens if a control surface is damaged in flight. Kiss it gooddby
Click to expand...

Doubtful
 
EagleKeeper said:
Looks great on paper and pretty.

However, can not place into a combat area where it might get hit with a piece of metal.

Poke a hole and destroy its flying ability when a control wire is damaged.

Heck, the thing could not even fly properly when an electronic glitch caused a reset of the flight computers.

What happens if a control surface is damaged in flight. Kiss it gooddby
Click to expand...

You don't know much about fighter control systems, do you? All modern fighters are unstable by design, and rely on flight computers to make them flyable... hence if it didn't work more than on paper, tell that to the fighters who've been doing it for decades.

I got some awesome pics of the F-22, have seen it 5 times, and each time it amazes me like the first.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Looks great on paper and pretty.

However, can not place into a combat area where it might get hit with a piece of metal.

Poke a hole and destroy its flying ability when a control wire is damaged.

Heck, the thing could not even fly properly when an electronic glitch caused a reset of the flight computers.

What happens if a control surface is damaged in flight. Kiss it gooddby
Click to expand...
So, it's pretty much like the F-16? And what happens when a hydraulic line breaks in an older fighter?

@topic: The F-22's design is already 20 years old. It's hardly state-of-the-art, it's overpriced and it looks like an F-15 with a water retention problem.
 
qliveur said:
@topic: The F-22's design is already 20 years old. It's hardly state-of-the-art, it's overpriced and it looks like an F-15 with a water retention problem.
Click to expand...

That is how fighter design works. What we see is 20 years behind what is being tested out at Area 51.

It is "state of the art" in the sense that it is the most advanced production fighter in the world.
 
It's beautiful. But so ultimately useless. Major powers wars are so unlikely so that having a high performance dog fighter is a massive waste of resources when there is nothing that even comes close to it.

The F-35 is superior in that it is multi-role and still it barely registers on the scale of "is this needed in modern warfare"

What sucks is that I'm an Aero Major and I realize that eventually, the Govt funding bubble to aircraft development has to pop soon.
 
I read somewhere recently that the F22 is to receive the F35's stealth paint coating. Air superiority aircraft are always sexy, but lets not forget about the cargo's. The C17 is quite amazing if you ever have the chance to see it show off its short landing capabilities. Second photo is of the Boeing Wedgetail.

The third and fourth photos are related to the F22. It is the first ever 757 airframe, used by Boeing for testing F22 avionics. You can see the F22 parts grafted onto the nose and above the cockpit.

0623895.jpg


0774711.jpg


0796595.jpg


0552913.jpg
 
qliveur said:
So, it's pretty much like the F-16? And what happens when a hydraulic line breaks in an older fighter?

@topic: The F-22's design is already 20 years old. It's hardly state-of-the-art, it's overpriced and it looks like an F-15 with a water retention problem.
Click to expand...


It is not 20 year old tech. It was designed with future proofing in mind. It has multiple slots for upgrades which resemble something like a long pci slot and not even one third of them are currently used. All the electronics are easily upgraded. The engines and power plant are state of the art with triple redundancies. It can fly higher and maneuver at that height which makes it unmatched against anything currently in production. The competition can fly to the same altitude but then becomes uncontrollable. Test flights have been performed at speeds of Mach 2.1 and the pilots reported that it controlled just like it was at Mach 1. It allows for pressurized flight suits to compensate for g-force effects on the pilot by pressuring parts of the suit to keep the blood flow where it should during maneuvers. It can target an enemy plane before the enemy can even see the f-22 on radar .

The technology used in the plane still isn't public and some of the electronics systems are as advanced as anything people might see in computers today. The downside is the cost. The plane required developing technology that didn't exist. It uses custom processors that are just now making it to the public market. The military went way over what they should have for the cost but it was worth it . It is one damn fine plane.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Looks great on paper and pretty.

However, can not place into a combat area where it might get hit with a piece of metal.

Poke a hole and destroy its flying ability when a control wire is damaged.

Heck, the thing could not even fly properly when an electronic glitch caused a reset of the flight computers.

What happens if a control surface is damaged in flight. Kiss it gooddby
Click to expand...


It is designed with triple redundancy. Meaning for every critical item there are two backups. The flight computers are double redundancy and the APU are double redundancy with battery back up for navigation and control systems. It has a glide mode should shutdown of all systems occur allowing the plane to remain upright and level , the control surfaces are in glide mode by default and have to be powered into an alternate mode . If you cut power they return to default positions. The downside is that in that mode you lose quite a bit of control but it isn't like it drops from the sky like a rock.
 
shortylickens said:
And old. I seem to recall playing some Janes games with it almost 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

It's only been in service since 2005. It just took nearly 25 years to be developed.

1981, USAF starts working on requirements for their next fighter
1986, design officially begins on the YF-22 and YF-23
1991, YF-22 wins the competition
1997, production F-22 first flies
2003, first production F-22 is officially delivered to the USAF
2005, first F-22 squadron becomes fully operational

But really, if you think the F-22 is "old" stop and consider that both of its immediate predecessors, the F-15 and F-16, were designed in the 1960s.
 
OCGuy said:
That is how fighter design works. What we see is 20 years behind what is being tested out at Area 51.

It is "state of the art" in the sense that it is the most advanced production fighter in the world.
Click to expand...
I understand that, apparently, that is how it's done now, yes.

However the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 all went from drawing board to deployment in roughly 5 years, making the F-22's gestation period seem ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top