F-22 Thread

[Griffin]

Sorry off topic. Just a bit on the F-35 laser thingy.

 

I believe the dome on F-35 is just a part of the regular Electro-optical Targeting System (EOTS) package.

 

Here's some kind of research report on the F-35 laser weapon.

 

http://www.google.fi/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afresearch.org%2Fskins%2Frims%2Fq_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153%2Fq_act_downloadpaper%2Fq_obj_90666117-7e52-44c4-b93c-6ae9e4c55fe6%2Fdisplay.aspx%3Frs%3Dpublishedsearch&rct=j&q=HIGH%20ENERGY%20LASER%20ON%20THE%20JOINT%20STRIKE%20FIGHTER&ei=qFnQTPeFCsyXOo-jgKUF&usg=AFQjCNEOAhnJJI6tF-BI2srl3wuIbuULDQ&cad=rja

 

I bet some scifi guys get excited by the laser weapon but honestly, wouldn't that be the lamest thing ever in aerial warfare? :D

To me that would make even the HAWX look cool.

[GGTharos]

Lamest why? I think you're confusing real warfare with gaming.

[robmlufc]

The EOTS is just forward of the nose bay I think? The dome I heard things of lowers out of the weapon bay and is engine/shaft driven, which matches up with what GG knows.

 

Maybe Sopwith Camel pilots thought the idea of BVR was lame? :)

[mikoyan]

I don't recall all the details - yes, there are problems due to miniaturization and heat, there is a limit of the number of shots it can take and how often it can take them. The package is supposed to fit in and take up the entire weapon bay.

 

Let's say it is in prototype stage.

 

Where are the pictures

[LaRata]

Yes, it will do 'limited damage' in that it will not blow up the city block. It will however penetrate bunkers and destroy aircraft or equipment parked within. This has already been tested and proven.

 

To hit the same target in WW2 you would have needed 20 bombers dropping all their bombs and hope for a hit.

 

As for 'MiG-21 come and fly from this destroyed target', I wouldn't be surprise if the GBU-28 cannot penetrate a very deep bunker. There are limits for everything. On the other hand, most of your stuff won't be hiding in such bunkers - instead, those SDBS will sweep your SAMs, your fuel depots, tooling, hangars, control towers, power stations, and so on and so forth.

 

So what about it is like WW2?

 

The F-22 have the same Weapons . 4 x Bombs. Yes more Avanced but the same ...

 

 

" your SAMs, your fuel depots, tooling, hangars, control towers, power stations, and so on and so forth. "

 

All of this are Soft Target . Nothing especial to use 300M $ Tactical Plane. Cruse Missiles, UAV do the same jop.

 

LaRata

[GGTharos]

It can carry up to 8. It doesn't matter if they're soft targets, they're important targets. You may as well claim that you don't need the F-22, you'll send a guy with an RPG there instead. ;)

 

Certainly a lot of action can be taken by the F-35 instead. The F-22's primary role is Air Dominance, but it will happily kick the door down for everyone else, if you catch my drift.

 

Cruise missiles require static targets, and UAVs are slow and very vulnerable. An F-22 with SDBs can attack tactically, not just strategically important targets.

 

And those bombs aren't the same at all. Like I said before ... you needed 20 bombers to hit a single target in WW2. The F-22 needs one SDB, and it will actually do more effective damage to that target while at it. If it has to hit something larger, it can always haul a pair of 2000lbs SWAK JDAMs, though I don't see the point. After the F-22 kicks down any doors than neesd to be kicked down by it, the rest can be done by F-35's.

 

The F-22 have the same Weapons . 4 x Bombs. Yes more Avanced but the same ...

 

 

" your SAMs, your fuel depots, tooling, hangars, control towers, power stations, and so on and so forth. "

 

All of this are Soft Target . Nothing especial to use 300M $ Tactical Plane. Cruse Missiles, UAV do the same jop.

 

LaRata

[LaRata]

. . . :) . . .

[Exorcet]

 

All of this are Soft Target . Nothing especial to use 300M $ Tactical Plane. Cruse Missiles, UAV do the same jop.

 

LaRata

Just top point out, these targets wouldn't be sitting on top of a plateau in the middle of field. They'll be covered by air defenses. I'd like to see a UAV fly hundreds of miles into enemy territory within a few minutes, destroy 8 targets undetected and come back safe. But that probably can't happen.

 

Also, I really question how you can brush SAM's aside so easily. They are SAM's.

 

Here's the important question. Let's start a F-22 with 8 SBD and 4 missiles next to a fully loaded B-17 on the same runway. The control tower says "Go!" and they race off to destroy 4 targets protected by SA-10 and Su-35's. Who will win? Or even survive.

[GGTharos]

The F-22 will bomb the targets, destroy the Su-35's on the ground with the remaining SDBs, shoot down anything that dares slip into range, and be back landing as the B-17 is rotating for take off ;)

[topol-m]

The F-22 will bomb the targets, destroy the Su-35's on the ground with the remaining SDBs, shoot down anything that dares slip into range, and be back landing as the B-17 is rotating for take off ;)

 

It`s good to be a B-17 pilot nowadays. :D They tell you go drop some bombs, but while you`re still on the ground drinking beer preparing for take off someone already has risked his life and completed the mission, so you can turn off engines and go to the bar for more beer. Man I wanna be a B-17 pilot, no a gunner cause I won`t even need to learn how to fly that archaic thing...

[mikoyan]

The F-22 will bomb the targets, destroy the Su-35's on the ground with the remaining SDBs, shoot down anything that dares slip into range, and be back landing as the B-17 is rotating for take off ;)

 

woobs I just forgot that the f-22 was designed by Chuck Norris himself.... you forgot to say that the f-22 will also destroy the star-trek enterprise before landing.

[LaRata]

_ B-17 are WW2 era Bomber. No SAM`s in WW2.

 

_ The F-22 will be " The Last Fighter " ; One agains all Enemy Armed Force`s . ; )

 

LaRata

[Groove]

Pratt & Whitney to deliver last F-22 Raptor engine

 

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-whitney-to-deliver-last-f-22-raptor-engine-381145/

[tflash]

Flying doctor: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123334469

 

Performance-wise the F-22 is breaking new ground, pushing the limits!

[NRG-Vampire]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/dod-air-force-wrong-blame-22-pilot-crash/story?id=18464578

 

R.I.P.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/22/memorial-service-for-f-22-pilot-scheduled-for-monday-afternoon/

[Cali]

That has been a ongoing fight since they first said it was his fault. They came out a few months back and said it wasn't his fault. It's sad that they tried to blame him at first. Aircraft crash investigations are iffy to me and I wonder how they figure out what caused a crash. I know some things may be easy to find out, but other stuff would seem like it would be impossible to find out. I think the B-2 that crashed in Guam, they blamed it on water vapor on a O-ring <---not 100% sure of that, but I remember hearing about it years ago, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[wilky510]

That has been a ongoing fight since they first said it was his fault. They came out a few months back and said it wasn't his fault. It's sad that they tried to blame him at first. Aircraft crash investigations are iffy to me and I wonder how they figure out what caused a crash. I know some things may be easy to find out, but other stuff would seem like it would be impossible to find out. I think the B-2 that crashed in Guam, they blamed it on water vapor on a O-ring <---not 100% sure of that, but I remember hearing about it years ago, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're correct. I remember reading about that causing the B-2 crash too. It's crazy how a little thing such as water vapor in the wrong place caused the B-2 to crash. Then again, that thing basically needs a computer to fly.

[tflash]

That has been a ongoing fight since they first said it was his fault. They came out a few months back and said it wasn't his fault. It's sad that they tried to blame him at first. Aircraft crash investigations are iffy to me and I wonder how they figure out what caused a crash. I know some things may be easy to find out, but other stuff would seem like it would be impossible to find out. I think the B-2 that crashed in Guam, they blamed it on water vapor on a O-ring <---not 100% sure of that, but I remember hearing about it years ago, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I agree: trying to blame the pilot to safeguard LM's image was for me the absolute lowest point in the recent USAF's history. It has backfired sourly on them, the discontent in the pilots ranks eventually leading to the infamous 60 minutes episode.

 

I voiced my disbelief on this sordid, despicable, low-hearted military-industrial collusion already on this forum so won't do it again. But I am very relieved, for the widow and her children that there is some justice in the end.

 

I have the PDF with the report on my PC. Everytime I read how they "squarely (sic) put the blame on the pilot" while it was chrystal clear it all started with a malfunction, it makes me very angry indeed. What an appalling lack of leadership.

[NRG-Vampire]

perhaps the F-23 would have been a better choice

[marcos]

^Now you've gone and done it.:lol:

[GGTharos]

What would it have done better?

 

perhaps the F-23 would have been a better choice

[Groove]

What would it have done better?

 

 

It looks better!

[Jona33]

It looks better!

 

Not saying much, the F-22's F*** ugly! :D

[marcos]

What would it have done better?

Flown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

[NRG-Vampire]

What would it have done better?

 

performance

stealth capability

fuel consumption

range/combat radius

why YF-22 won ?

it's easy: politics