Jump to content

F-22 Raptor "sucks"


Pilotasso

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 595
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I will be on the winning side, hacking them from the ground :D

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-22's have not participated in any combat yet. There has been no combat yet that required an F-22 to do anything, AFAIK. I suspect you will see F-35's in combat before you see F-22's in combat.

 

Is there any info on F-22 operating in Iraq war? B-2 and F-117 were active as I know.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot do that without a ridiculously huge antenna, or without significantly shortening the frequency. This is just basic physics. Aperture size and divergence angle at a given frequency are directly related.

 

The beam width is usually defined as ~0.7 power output off the peak, but there's energy radiating outside of this. At closer ranges you can 'widen' the beam, but this is a mathematical re-definition of what a beam may mean to do you and has nothing to do with the physics of the device, and does not physically change anything. (Incidentally this is done at close ranges since there is a higher energy flux, and this allows to scan volume faster at short ranges).

Do you have the equations for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah right I see where you're coming from. However my point is that it would still help detection range to be able to use a longer range mode at shorter distances since most actual killing will be done inside 40-60km due to AAM performance limitations, whereas radars are generally set-up such that their narrowest beam is aimed at detection of normal fighters at ranges over 240km. Using passive sensors to cue the radar at shorter, missile capable ranges could still be useful.

 

The beam width also depends on wavelength but reduced wavelength does increase atmospheric attenuation.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0255135

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/atm-absorption.htm

 

I believe beam width is usually defined as the angle within which power is at least 0.5 times the peak not 0.7.

 

http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an05.en.html

 

I'm also looking at the second link wondering whether lower frequency radar could be useful. How accurately does a modern missile need to be guided by INS before self-locking? MWR AGMs can be fired blind and still lock targets themselves as can some IIR AAMs. With a smart enough missile maybe the razor sharp precision in guiding the missile to the ball park won't be as important especially if it knows what it's looking for.


Edited by countto10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it wouldn't. The short range mode is for 20nm or less.

That has been the legacy case but I would imagine that IRST renders a sub-20nm mode defunct now. Covers a wider volume, adequate sensitivity over such a short range and entirely passive. It would be silly to use radar for sub-20nm searches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IRST scans slower than radar and in many cases it has a limited depression angle due to the mount. Maybe you mean something like the DAS, which is a different kettle of fish, but this is also data-link dependent. It has slightly sub-20/20 acuity AFAIK, so it's actually quite a visual range system. Either way, it's all about sensor fusion today so you're very unlikely to be choosing between one or the other.


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IRST scans slower than radar and in many cases it has a limited depression angle due to the mount. Maybe you mean something like the DAS, which is a different kettle of fish, but this is also data-link dependent. It has slightly sub-20/20 acuity AFAIK, so it's actually quite a visual range system. Either way, it's all about sensor fusion today so you're very unlikely to be choosing between one or the other.

Wide angle optical sensors do not scan. They're more the equivalent of an eye. Visual range? No. More than that. At the limits of effective range then it becomes about fusion with data from other sensors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, in some aspects - it does even more, since 20 years has passed between the Raptor and PAK FA. For example, because of advancements in the electronics and the heterogeneous structures for the last 20 years, which made AESA transmitters much cheaper - PAK FA is equipped with the lateral AESA arrays from the beginning. Same thing with the EODAS analogue on PAK FA - 101 KS-U, that Raptor doesn't have. And finally, same goes for the computer simulations and CAD - computing capacity and capabilities rose up by more than 1000 times for those 20 years, gave incredible new opportunities to developers of PAK FA and save a lot of money.

 

Something more to know about PAK-FA's enhances! I didn't read much about it indeed!

Mistakes, obviously, show us what needs improving. Without mistakes, how would we know what we had to work on!











Making DCS a better place for realism.

Let it be, ED!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

IRST scans slower than radar and in many cases it has a limited depression angle due to the mount.

 

What about having more that one IRST sensor...

 

Depression / elevation angle shouldn't be a problem if you have one in front of the canopy & the other one under the nosecone...they can be calibrated or "fusioned" in such manner where canopy mounted IRST scans the upper hemisphere and the other one scans lower hemishpere.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;1875340']Lol says the guy called 'MaverickF22' with the picture in his avatar.......

 

Yes mate... you are an official Fanboy! ;)

 

I'm afraid you've been reading too much promotional material for the F-22... WVR the Typhoon will EAT your little Raptor for breakfast.

 

You are just taking wild stabs in the dark with regards to the Typhoon performance.. I don't think you have done your home work at all!

 

''but in fact, the EF's canards only provide stability (so they won't create lift almost at all)''

 

This is total nonsense, the canard 'naturally' produces lift to balance the lift coming off the wings, the faster the aircraft is going the higher this lift value becomes.

 

Here is a tip.... listen to GG and others....

 

Yes they have proof you are wrong.... no they won't show it to you ;)

 

Now you can be a Eurofighter fanboy also, because it's the same or just slightly better than the Raptor in a 360 deg. turn, but bleeds a lot more airspeed as well, which is a negative fact!

 

I think i gave you all the answers needed in that post, but it seems you just say whatever you like! I've already told about the canards role (for EF), the comparison between the F-22's and EF's turning capability can be seen at live airshows by just using a chronometer (where indeed the difference is small between EF and F-22 for a constant turn rate), T/W and T/D ratios, physical facts that don't need any further proof!

 

Here are some good comparisons (so far):

 

 

Between 4:24 and 4:44 the Eurofighter completed the 360 deg turn, with quite good turn speed entry (more than 300kts anyway)

 

Here's a GR4, which did it better than the first one (probably a higher entry speed), 360 deg. in 17 seconds (almost as good as an F-16C), that fuel tank is only to impress idiots, cause it's empty for airshows:

 

 

And now the Raptor:

 

 

360 deg. turn in about 19..20 seconds

 

Now the fishhook turn for which the F-22 is king above all known modern fighters:

 

 

almost 180 deg. in 4.5 seconds? Guess again!

 

Even if i might not know as much as you, in details, about each plane's full capabilities, these real and visual facts prove enough!

Mistakes, obviously, show us what needs improving. Without mistakes, how would we know what we had to work on!











Making DCS a better place for realism.

Let it be, ED!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...