F-22 Rulez!!!

[reborn]

That looks to me more like a hydraulic control valve failure than anything else. Ive never seen anyone fluctuate control surfaces like that on purpose before.

 

i've seen that video recently on tv. it was said that there occured a problem with the prototype's flight control computer.

[GGTharos]

Regarding B-2's, i had a table with NATO aircraft losses, where it has an extensive article about downing of an B2, confirmed by eyewitnesses. I don't want to fight over this, nor i care...if it's downed, then it's NATO's propaganda, if it isn't downed, then it's Milosevics' propaganda that took place.

 

All B-2's are accounted for back home ;)

 

Old stealth - stealth technology that employs shape, material and paint to reduce RCS. F-22 uses same tactics. If sensor device was "tuned" to track F-117, it's only matter of time when that sensor device will be tuned to track F-22. The principle is same, only the variables changed. If Raptor participates in minor conflicts, such as separate anti-terrorist actions, it's stealth will go on...but if it fights an sovereign nation with whole army, like it was in FedYu, it's only a matter of combat hours until it gets unvealed.

 

Uhm ... stealth works for CURRENT AND PROJECTED FUTURE SENSORS. That is what was purchased, not stealth that 'stops working tomorrow'. What are you talking about?

About the only thing that can be 'tuned' to detect a stealth fighter is a long-wavelength radar, and -that- can't guide weapons. Stealth is designed -specifically- to dimish the RCS to -threat- radars which must -by necessity- use a certain range of frequencies.

 

A new stealth tecnology would be something like plasma stealth. Employing an active stealth generator. Electromagnetic countermeasures could also do...if your stealth gets unvealed, you just tune your stealth generator. In nowadays case, your airframe is to be replaced (or severely altered).

 

Is plasma stealth and, it's tech. cousins, Star Trek for now, i think not, but i won't place my money on it. Does USAF really need Raptors now? I think not, and they could invest couple of years for exploration of new stealth technologies. This "old" principle has been negated, and it will be negated again.

 

Yes, it's quite Star Trek right now.

 

About projectiles...somebody said that R-33 is obsolete, R-127 good only with AWACS...they maybe true, but atleast top Russian aircraft can carry long range missiles. Raptor is bound to AIM-120C5's range, it can't even carry Phoenix. And "setting up an BVR" as you say it, would be more effective from a longer distance.

 

Errr, which 'Top Russian Aircraft'? The MiG-31 is a bomber interceptor, and the R-127 or whatever it is so large and will be produced in such small quantities that it has no choice but to be specialized.

 

Raptor doesn't /need/ Phoenix -or- anything else because it cannot be detected before it can launch the AMRAAMs! The AIM-120 gains -further- range because it is launched atvery high speeds, like any other missile, but the difference -here- is that the F-22 can launch in this manner -routinely- whereas other aircraft need to light up the cans and burn loads of fuel to get up to similar speed.

 

Perhaps you should take as evidence the AIM-120 improvement programme: It doesn't aim to actually increase the missile's overall range, but rather its no-escape range. What does this tell you if not 'Max range is not that important'?

 

With my opinions about F-22's stealth, an AAM-L would be even more desired. If it had an option to launch something of Novator's range, it could even attack from friendly or neutral space. Not getting exposed to somebody's radar. It's stealth may be perfect, but you are stealthiest when nothing looks at you.

 

 

How about getting back to talking about /existing/ if not operational missiles and stealth technology? :)

[Guest IguanaKing]

All B-2's are accounted for back home ;)

 

Yup...and our military couldn't hide a B-2 crew not coming home from the public for very long. Also, if a single B-2 didn't come back to Whiteman AFB, the press would have been all over it. They sit right outside the fences and watch, and count.

 

Uhm ... stealth works for CURRENT AND PROJECTED FUTURE SENSORS. That is what was purchased, not stealth that 'stops working tomorrow'. What are you talking about?

About the only thing that can be 'tuned' to detect a stealth fighter is a long-wavelength radar, and -that- can't guide weapons. Stealth is designed -specifically- to dimish the RCS to -threat- radars which must -by necessity- use a certain range of frequencies.

 

Yup, and no matter what future sensors are developed, LO aircraft will STILL be harder to detect than conventional aircraft. :D

 

Errr, which 'Top Russian Aircraft'? The MiG-31 is a bomber interceptor, and the R-127 or whatever it is so large and will be produced in such small quantities that it has no choice but to be specialized.

 

Not to mention that most, if not all, of the super whiz-bang Eastern missiles have never been used in combat. Until then...well I guess I can accept the "My theoretical performance beats your actual performance by miles" argument. NOT!!! :smilewink:

[504 Wolverine]

I wonder what the chainsaw was actually used for. With the uninformed media, I can only guess as to its actual role in the rescue.

 

[Guest IguanaKing]

 

Now THAT is pretty conclusive, thanks Wolverine. :D

 

As they say, s**t happens, occasionally the canopy jettison might refuse to operate. To be clear to some of our members, this can happen on ANY aircraft, its not an exclusive F-22 failure.

[nscode]

Uhm ... stealth works for CURRENT AND PROJECTED FUTURE SENSORS. That is what was purchased, not stealth that 'stops working tomorrow'.

 

it's just that things moove faster than "projected" when it's needed.

 

What are you talking about?

About the only thing that can be 'tuned' to detect a stealth fighter is a long-wavelength radar, and -that- can't guide weapons.

 

that is true... for present weapons (that we know of).

[Rhen]

It was a control gains problem from what I understand. The pilot over-pitched, slammed the butt into the ground, and then over-compensated several times trying to get it back under control. He failed and put it into a "death wave".

 

Correct. It was a go-around attempt in afterburner. Once the gear was up and the aircraft was in afterburner, the full travel of thrust vectoring and max control gains was given to the pilot. This caused the pilot to enter a pilot induced occiliation. The pilot retarded the throttle out of burner and attempted to control the oscillations using stick movement :doh: and throttle changes:no: (he should've frozen the stick in a nose up position). This caused the aircraft to settle and a gear-up landing to occur. NO control valves were failed. The aircraft was very pitch sensitive in this regime - it was well known by test pilots. This pilot didn't deal with it well because it was unexpected.:joystick:

 

Was it the pilots fault? Partially, but it was also the aircraft's fault as well - to be fair. An aircraft that's very prone to pitch sensitivity in a go around situation with afterburner (burners probably aren't required for an F-22 go around unless in a traffic pattern stall), is not a proper software solution (it's the software that unlocks these control gains with the gear up and throttle in MAX afterburner).

 

Regarding the canopy. The canopy failed after a red ball was called in for a canopy unlocked indication during preflight. The canopy was cycled multiple times to try to clear the malfunction, with the last cycle trapping the pilot. This was caused by a single-point failure of screws attaching the canopy to the hydraulic actuator, which backed out. There's three ways to leave the aircraft at this point:

 

1. Jettison the canopy and have a chance of the canopy falling into the cockpit, killing the pilot or seriously damaging the aircraft if it falls on the aircraft. Let's not talk about the explosive bolts firing and what damage that might do.

2. Eject. Which may cause bodily injury and damage to the aircraft.

3. Wait for the fire department to cut you out of the aircraft.

 

F-22s are refitted with longer screws to prevent this failure in the future.

 

So, name me an aircraft in any military service that didn't undergo multiple modifications and refits after seeing operational readiness due to, wire bundle chafing, poorly thought out engine/hydraulic line placement, structural airframe components, missiles hitting the airframe upon release, the list goes on.

 

Glad to see this thread back on topic, but regarding the PIO incident, this was answered several pages ago.

[Force_Feedback]

Still, the people that are 'working' on the FCS should be either slapped 10 times with a silly stick, or being forced to code the whole damn thing in assembler (as per Sim Heil). I guess those guys are like Micr0$0ft, but without too much dev. work, and promises for better products. Imagine how agile the F-22 would be without that 'unoptimized' FCS software. it will be like 'can we have 100 million to research new software in the coming 10 years?' DoD: sure, whatever, we don't know a thing about equipment, heck, we don't even understand why aircraft fly, but 100 mil seems right for such a comples system. And then the local strip bar becomes very popular and well visited.

 

And then people will whine "but the f-22 behaves like roadkill" well, your problem is with those money draining research teams that leech money and don't do their job according to their pay.

[nscode]

This pilot didn't deal with it well because it was unexpected.:joystick:

 

 

:megalol:

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yeah, yeah, let's see you always make the right decision, nscode. Have you ever felt reduced g's? They feel a bit more violent than you may think they do, and it kinda interferes with your thinking if you're not accustomed to it on that particular airframe. As Rhen said, it was a combination of pilot and machine error.

 

Ain't it funny how, when a Ukrainian Su is shown crashing into a crowd at an airshow, everybody says "oh, what an unfortunate event!" But when its an F-22 that has a problem on film, so many people say "what a piece of s**t."? Isn't it funny how that works? Again...looks like jealousy to me. :megalol:

[tflash]

All B-2's are accounted for back home ;)

 

 

 

About the only thing that can be 'tuned' to detect a stealth fighter is a long-wavelength radar, and -that- can't guide weapons.

 

Just a technical question on this topic, GG. Is the problem that the long-wavelenght radar doesn't give the right range/alt/speed indication or is the problem that the long-wavelength radar cannot be used to produce a tracking beam that can be followed by the missile?

 

For the latter you could eventually work wih a datalink instead of a guiding beam?

[nscode]

Yeah, yeah, let's see you always make the right decision, nscode. Have you ever felt reduced g's? They feel a bit more violent than you may think they do, and it kinda interferes with your thinking if you're not accustomed to it on that particular airframe. As Rhen said, it was a combination of pilot and machine error.

 

Ain't it funny how, when a Ukrainian Su is shown crashing into a crowd at an airshow, everybody says "oh, what an unfortunate event!" But when its an F-22 that has a problem on film, so many people say "what a piece of s**t."? Isn't it funny how that works? Again...looks like jealousy to me. :megalol:

 

And why again are you puting words in my mouth that I didn't say? It's just that "it was unexpected" as a reason for error is so damn funny... and wrong.

 

When people make errors resulting in people dying because of rushing things and cutting cost - yes, it is an unfortunate event and those responsable should be punised.

But when a system designed to let pilot take his mind off of flying and concentrate on other things makes pilot think about what that system will do to him next - yes, it is a piece of s**t.

[GGTharos]

Just a technical question on this topic, GG. Is the problem that the long-wavelenght radar doesn't give the right range/alt/speed indication or is the problem that the long-wavelength radar cannot be used to produce a tracking beam that can be followed by the missile?

 

For the latter you could eventually work wih a datalink instead of a guiding beam?

 

The problem is that the position of the target as returned by the radar is not very accurate. Lastly, the antenna size of the missile's radar makes things even less accurate when the missile attempts to guide. This is pretty much the same reason why you don't shoot ARMs at an EWR: They won't hit.

 

Anyway, you -could- use an active missile and a datalink theoretically, yup - the missile would then have to look for the target all on its own -but- ...

 

The datalink is giving it a pretty inaccurate position of the target to search for -and- the stealth aircraft is stealthed precicely....against that missile's radar. Also let's make something clear: Long wavelength causes the apparent RCS to increase, however, stealth does -still- reduce the detection range. (Think of it this way: RCS 'increase' seems to be linear, so, if your stealth is 0.01m^2 in RCS and you multiply this by 100, it will STILL be picked up much closer than your 4m^2 RCS fighter multiplied by 100)

 

Basically, you have multiple effects that cause this to be a problem. You -could- of course just lob a small nuke at it, too...

[Guest IguanaKing]

And why again are you puting words in my mouth that I didn't say? It's just that "it was unexpected" as a reason for error is so damn funny... and wrong.

 

When people make errors resulting in people dying because of rushing things and cutting cost - yes, it is an unfortunate event and those responsable should be punised.

But when a system designed to let pilot take his mind off of flying and concentrate on other things makes pilot think about what that system will do to him next - yes, it is a piece of s**t.

 

Hmmm...it looks like I haven't put any words in your mouth. I'm sorry, but what you said in that last sentence is exactly what I'm talking about. Are you not aware that the crash in that video was during the flight test program? It was fairly early in the program too. Are you suggesting that the Su-35 never crashed in RDT&E? The test pilot of that F-22 even basically said "Uhh...yeah, I f'd up but the engineers kind of f'd up too. Its never a good idea to do those kinds of control tests so close to the ground in an aircraft you don't know all that well yet". So, it would seem that this was also the result of rushing the process, and nobody died.

[nscode]

I meant the system... not entire aircraft. And at that time. If they did something to decrease the size of if - good for them :)

[Force_Feedback]

80 people died in that crash in Lviv, afaik the pilot of the YF-22 didn't die. The pilots of the Ukrainian crash are now getting their a**es stuffed for the next 11 years in prison, the yf-22 pilot is a hero. See the difference?

 

If there is something that defeats F-22s stealth, and it's out there, you must be employed by the CIA/NSA and have a very high security clearance to know, otherwise it's all speculation. There are talks about the Aurora for over 15 years, yet, no one has ever made a picture, or were there any 'leaks' so, does that make the Aurora bullsh*t? Well, time will tell. By the time the F-22 will be on a mig-21 tech level, we will know, until then, speculate all you want. Some secrets are kept very, very well, and the Internet is not as free as you'd think, so not all the 'secret info from inside sources' is really from those sources ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

80 people died in that crash in Lviv, afaik the pilot of the YF-22 didn't die. The pilots of the Ukrainian crash are now getting their a**es stuffed for the next 11 years in prison, the yf-22 pilot is a hero. See the difference?

 

The YF-22 pilot in question is not heralded as a hero, so I'm not sure where you got that. He's just a guy who had a mishap.

 

The Lviv situation kinda pisses me off actually. I understand that the flight crew "had to be punished" for killing so many people. But, how could anyone expect a pilot to be proficient enough to fly in an airshow with only slightly more than 20 hours a year of stick time? I spend more time than that every year walking to my mail box. Their government is just making them the fall guys for a collossal failure of their defense program, and that makes me angry.

[tflash]

The problem is that the position of the target as returned by the radar is not very accurate. Lastly, the antenna size of the missile's radar makes things even less accurate when the missile attempts to guide. This is pretty much the same reason why you don't shoot ARMs at an EWR: They won't hit.

 

Anyway, you -could- use an active missile and a datalink theoretically, yup - the missile would then have to look for the target all on its own -but- ...

 

The datalink is giving it a pretty inaccurate position of the target to search for -and- the stealth aircraft is stealthed precicely....against that missile's radar. Also let's make something clear: Long wavelength causes the apparent RCS to increase, however, stealth does -still- reduce the detection range. (Think of it this way: RCS 'increase' seems to be linear, so, if your stealth is 0.01m^2 in RCS and you multiply this by 100, it will STILL be picked up much closer than your 4m^2 RCS fighter multiplied by 100)

 

Basically, you have multiple effects that cause this to be a problem. You -could- of course just lob a small nuke at it, too...

 

The RCS *advantage* is irreducible, that's a fact. An aircraft that has an RCS 10 to even 100 times smaller than that of another aircraft will in any scenario have an edge.

 

But back to the long wavelength radar: could you enhance the precision of such radar by triangulation? The wavelength is of course always a limiting factor, but by phasing the waves or triangulating I guess you could compute a more precise course?

 

An important factor then becomes speed. I guess the supercruising speed is an essential component of F-22's stealth, in particlar against long wavelength radar?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Long wave doesn't give very good bearing info though. It works fine for tracking slow-moving things like weather and ocean tides though. Perhaps it COULD be used in multiples to triangulate. The only problem is that the antenna is HUGE, so its definitely not going to be something in use on anything mobile. Such a facility will be quite expensive to build and operate, and all it can do really is provide EWR. If you have any high terrain around that facility, well...whoops, you just spent a whole lot of money on something that can't do much.

[Ukr_Alex]

 

The Lviv situation kinda pisses me off actually. I understand that the flight crew "had to be punished" for killing so many people. But, how could anyone expect a pilot to be proficient enough to fly in an airshow with only slightly more than 20 hours a year of stick time? I spend more time than that every year walking to my mail box. Their government is just making them the fall guys for a collossal failure of their defense program, and that makes me angry.

 

These where test pilots of the grade that only the cold war could produce and you can count these guys on your fingers.

 

The crew might have had only 20 hours flight that year, but they had thousands under their belt. ;) Those where the guys from the Ukrainian Falcons, and they were a top display team ;)

 

 

Anyway, good thing that the last 2 years the Ukranian AF pilots have been going in the air on regular basis.

[Force_Feedback]

The Lviv situation kinda pisses me off actually. I understand that the flight crew "had to be punished" for killing so many people. But, how could anyone expect a pilot to be proficient enough to fly in an airshow with only slightly more than 20 hours a year of stick time? I spend more time than that every year walking to my mail box. Their government is just making them the fall guys for a collossal failure of their defense program, and that makes me angry.

 

^^^ I 100% agree with that, and about a year ago I thought it would get better (more integration towards the US and EU), but, now it seems like going the other, "old" way, ie Russia, and I don't think much good will come from that, just better hidden corruption and even less attention for the military (and it was and is already very, very bad). I think we have a Belarus 2 coming here, and all the fat cats doing illegal business (I've spoken with them at a birthday party, this is first hand experience no news paper would publish) are more than happy that the country is moving more and more towards Russia, because that way they could keep on doing "buisiness" as they call it (and not paying taxes, bribing people, prostitution and sub-standard products sold for too much money). I've lost all hope in the future of that country now, which felt like losing a close relative after a long illness, and knowing there is no hope for recovery.

 

Enough on that. The F-22 is a good weapon platform, but it seems like being highly overrated by its own development department, and for no apparent reason besides justifying the costs (and probably some money that was "lost"). If it were really that high profile and good, don't you think they would be more secretive about it, and not go on shouting, supercruise stealth and 400:1 kill ratio and many other things? And I don't think it has much more in it, technology wise, than the press releases tell the press, so why this open attitude? Why not just say: "Yeah it has stealth, it can supercruise, and it can use its radar without being detected, but I can't confirm or deny that". Why no plusible deniability? Look at China, and their J-10, almost no pics of it, let alone decent specs and all of the sudden there are people saying it has crappy engines and lacks thrust and has inferior systems. How could they know?

Maybe this hype is some kind of psychological attack on the 'probable enemy', but who will that be, seriousely (not in the mind of generals). "Terrorists" are a good excuse now, buy why? They always existed, and were never taken serious (and it's a bad thing to do that, as they will get confident of their cause), and now all of the sudden 'war on terror' is a good excuse. To me it seems like an attempt to keep the largest industry in the world running, without a real enemy to fight anymore. And the idea of 'terrorist goverments' is absurd as all terrorists have their own agenda and will never bow to any country's rule.

Too bad the F-35 couldn't exist without the F-22, otherwise it would be the best choice, if it's performance and efficiency figures are true.

[Guest IguanaKing]

These where test pilots of the grade that only the cold war could produce and you can count these guys on your fingers.

 

The crew might have had only 20 hours flight that year, but they had thousands under their belt. ;) Those where the guys from the Ukrainian Falcons, and they were a top display team ;)

 

 

Anyway, good thing that the last 2 years the Ukranian AF pilots have been going in the air on regular basis.

 

Having thousands of hours under your belt only goes so far though. Piloting a high performance aircraft with that kind of precision is a VERY perishable skill.

[GGTharos]

Yep, that's why there are piloting currencies. It's quite simple: Lack of practice equals lack of skill, period. There's no arguing it, either, there's at least one official study to prove this laying about somewhere.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Heh...GG, I keep asking the guys who doubt that to take a week off from LOMAC and see how that affects them. Nobody has come back with a result yet. Even in a "simple" sim like LOMAC, your skills die rather quickly. I wonder if any of them think that RL is more forgiving. :thumbup:

[GGTharos]

Yep, that's right IK. The study I read refrenced 'peacekeeping missions' where all you do is fly circles - no practice, no real fighting ...

 

So the result was, about two weeks later, Air to Air skills were shot.

 

A little longer and the greenest rookie would mop the floor with you so long as he's had a week's practice.