-
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.
The F22 goes operational.
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Flying gas tanks
They are good planes IMHO, but are a waste of money.
American air tech from 30 years ago is more than adequate taking on little third world countries like Afghanistan & Iraq, but it is not going to capture people like Osama Bin Laden. The F22 are great airplanes that will give America unmatched air superior over the world for a long time, but it is not useful against terrorists or nuclear capable countries.
China doesn?t need to take over America by brute force, because they will take over America economically. China is more than capable of swallow Taiwan or any other third/developing countries at the moment, and they will have no trouble from the US because they are bank rolling the American Empire/War machine.
marvdmartian
Diamond Member
Yeah, but a Concorde would look cool with about a hundred Phoenix or AMRAAM missiles hanging under it's wings, wouldn't it?? :shocked: :laugh:
BTW, thanks for the link to the F22 website page. Four pages of some pretty nice pictures, and even some good HQ pix on the last couple pages. 🙂
Don't know why, but I think this picture is awesome......love the "putt putt putt" looking exhaust coming out of the missile! 😀
I think the pic is photshopped.
techs
Lifer
I actually agree with most of what you said. However, we do need a new plane as even third world countries are aquiring planes and radar and missles that will make our current planes vulnerable, not to mention the ones we have are aging.
On the other hand, given the HUGE shortfalls we are facing monetarily I don't think in 20 years America will be able field a military that can do anything more than homeland defense and only attack and defeat second and third world countries.
The F-22 sounds pretty cool and looks pretty nifty, but seriously, when it comes to good looks -
Jas 35 Draken - http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=589890
SAAB J29 'Tunnan' (The Barrel) http://www.flygplan.info/images/saab_tunnan.jpg
Jas 35 Draken - http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=589890
SAAB J29 'Tunnan' (The Barrel) http://www.flygplan.info/images/saab_tunnan.jpg
marincounty
Diamond Member
No, I think it's because the B1 bomber was a turkey, and the B2 bomber is way too expensive. The military keeps buying these overpriced gold-plated weapons and it is crowding out money for body armor, armored humvees, etc..
Notice the $189 million pricetag for the F22, and the reduced number they will buy.
I'll bet even this number gets reduced in the future.
MadRat
Lifer
The B-1B was an inexpensive Turkey compared to most every attack fighter we've bought since. One B-1B can handle the tasks of several F-16's and do it all on one trip. The F-16's on the other hand cost less per unit so people percieve its cheaper. But take one of the B-1B's against six of the latter and the TCO is on the bombers side of favour. The B-2 cannot win that argument because each unit cost is equal to a single squadron of F-16's and one B-2 is pretty limited in comparison. Unlike the B-1B it doesn't have the flexibility to launch cruise missiles and other offensive standoff systems so that they don't count towards the treaty limit with the Russians. Lets face it, once SEAD is accomplished then 80% of the missions are simply trucking bombs to the target. The B-1B is the best bomb truck in the service, even better at it than the B-52 in terms of service cost per pound and total tonnage per trip.
marincounty
Diamond Member
The B-1 has, and continues to have, troublesome spare parts shortages, partly caused by a lack of funding, that seriously detract from its mission readiness. As recently as last fall, the aircraft was reporting a mission capable rate of 51.9 percent, the lowest of the Air Force's bomber fleet. During Fiscal Year 1998, the cannibilazation rate for the B-1B was 99 percent - virtually every aircraft that flew a mission had a part cannibalized from another B-1B.
http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-020514-failures-b1bomber.html
In its latest report, the DOT&E said that problems with the design of cockpit controls and displays could mean the aircraft will not be able to employ as many as 25 percent of its smart weapons.
Without upgrades to the aircraft's defensive avionics, the B-1's contribution to future conflicts could be seriously diminished, DOT&E said. "The B-1B may be limited to a stand-off role or use only after the air defense threat is suppressed," said the DOT&E's report.
Total Number of Aircraft: 100; Total Program Cost: $32.5 billion; Average Unit Cost: $325 million
http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-020514-failures-b1bomber.html
In its latest report, the DOT&E said that problems with the design of cockpit controls and displays could mean the aircraft will not be able to employ as many as 25 percent of its smart weapons.
Without upgrades to the aircraft's defensive avionics, the B-1's contribution to future conflicts could be seriously diminished, DOT&E said. "The B-1B may be limited to a stand-off role or use only after the air defense threat is suppressed," said the DOT&E's report.
Total Number of Aircraft: 100; Total Program Cost: $32.5 billion; Average Unit Cost: $325 million
When did Congress every have long term planning except for their own benefits?
CaptnKirk
Lifer
Mystery History - Interesting read.
Poor old B-1, by the time Congress finished carving up the carcass, it wasn't even half as capable as it was intended to be.
While Air Vehicle # 1 was still under construction, they were thinking up ways to cheapen it out, costing performance.
Saved 1.3 million per plane by eliminating the variable intake system in the nacelles which allowed supersonic flight,
so for less than 1% cost savings they killed alll flight capability above 0.95 Mach - lost over 200 MPG airspeed.
Whoopee !
Then the Rocket Sled Tests discovered that the escape module wouldn't function for recovery above 400 MPH,
dynamic pressure pinned the 'Dumbo Ears' - the stabilizers on the cockpit down and prevented their extention.
Tghe result was thet the module 'spun up' and kept spinning, wrapping the parachute around it. No way out.
So we redesigned the escape to be individual cannisters for each crew member - Air Vehicle Ship # 4 was the first of the Model B's.
Units 1, 2, & 3 were the 'A Model' with the variable inlets, Unit # 4 and all subsequent production models were 'B Models'
Most of the technology that went into the B-1's was data learned from the XB-70's very limited flight program.
They quickly sifted through what worked and what didn't to design the B-1 without repeating those mistakes.
Much of the lessons learned from the B-1 through it's flight test programs starting in the mid 1970's evolved
into the data that allowed us to design the F-22 and JSF, especially composite structures and stealth coatings.
The failed development of the A-12 also contributed to the evolution of solutions to composite structures in
the F-22 and F-35 programs.
They're telling you less than half of what an F-22's can do - with simular deletions of data for the F-35's.
Poor old B-1, by the time Congress finished carving up the carcass, it wasn't even half as capable as it was intended to be.
While Air Vehicle # 1 was still under construction, they were thinking up ways to cheapen it out, costing performance.
Saved 1.3 million per plane by eliminating the variable intake system in the nacelles which allowed supersonic flight,
so for less than 1% cost savings they killed alll flight capability above 0.95 Mach - lost over 200 MPG airspeed.
Whoopee !
Then the Rocket Sled Tests discovered that the escape module wouldn't function for recovery above 400 MPH,
dynamic pressure pinned the 'Dumbo Ears' - the stabilizers on the cockpit down and prevented their extention.
Tghe result was thet the module 'spun up' and kept spinning, wrapping the parachute around it. No way out.
So we redesigned the escape to be individual cannisters for each crew member - Air Vehicle Ship # 4 was the first of the Model B's.
Units 1, 2, & 3 were the 'A Model' with the variable inlets, Unit # 4 and all subsequent production models were 'B Models'
Most of the technology that went into the B-1's was data learned from the XB-70's very limited flight program.
They quickly sifted through what worked and what didn't to design the B-1 without repeating those mistakes.
Much of the lessons learned from the B-1 through it's flight test programs starting in the mid 1970's evolved
into the data that allowed us to design the F-22 and JSF, especially composite structures and stealth coatings.
The failed development of the A-12 also contributed to the evolution of solutions to composite structures in
the F-22 and F-35 programs.
They're telling you less than half of what an F-22's can do - with simular deletions of data for the F-35's.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
That fight is still going on.
Composites in the early 1990's weren't the 'miracle drug' they were said to be, consequently the A-12
weighed in nearly 1/3rd more than the design allowed.
Further advancements in design and materials have brought us to where we have a better handle on composites.
Today's F-35 with composite technology continues to evolve, it couldn't have been built just 4 years ago.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
