Jump to content

F/A-22:improved version of F-15 or what???


anivanov

Recommended Posts

Well personnally I think both the F-22 and F-117 have a very 'cool' design. If you want something ugly, try out the delta wing EF2000. That one appearence is uncreative.

 

So the people who spent then $$$ weren't creative?

 

Sorry, you're grasping for straws, and wishful thinking ... I do realize every opponent of the F-22 /desperately/ wishes stealth to not work and to be so easily defeated.

 

Get over it - it works, and it works well ... and it's proven.

 

Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the people who spent then $$$ weren't creative?

 

Sorry, you're grasping for straws, and wishful thinking ... I do realize every opponent of the F-22 /desperately/ wishes stealth to not work and to be so easily defeated.

 

Get over it - it works, and it works well ... and it's proven.

 

No, the people who use it aren't.

 

Ask Wiz how good it works ;) And those other two guys.. don't know their names..

 

It definitly is a nice thing to have, but it's SO overrated. And it just can't be tested properly until you go in a real combat situation.

-It doesn't remove reflection, it REDUCES it. Russian radars may have less computing power, but their emmiters are way more powerful than anything US has. MiG-25 radar for instance is more powerfull than any American GROUND radar.

-The other thing is different radar wavelenght. As I mentioned before, the known downings of f-117's were done with a 50 year old Neva system. Different radar bands were used then, so it has lower resolution and is less acurate (so only proximity detonation is used), but the plus side is that stealth aircraft light up like xmass trees

-Aaand the things we don't know..

Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the people who use it aren't.

 

Ask Wiz how good it works ;) And those other two guys.. don't know their names..

 

Great references ;)

 

It definitly is a nice thing to have, but it's SO overrated. And it just can't be tested properly until you go in a real combat situation.

 

And it has been.

 

-It doesn't remove reflection, it REDUCES it. Russian radars may have less computing power, but their emmiters are way more powerful than anything US has. MiG-25 radar for instance is more powerfull than any American GROUND radar.

 

Ah, okay. So you know the (most likely classified) power outputs of various US ground radars, and the MiG-25's radar. And somehow, you also think that the weight/power limitation on an aircraft make it no issue at all to have the radar more powerful that a ground radar. Okay.

 

-The other thing is different radar wavelenght. As I mentioned before, the known downings of f-117's were done with a 50 year old Neva system. Different radar bands were used then, so it has lower resolution and is less acurate (so only proximity detonation is used), but the plus side is that stealth aircraft light up like xmass trees

 

One downing, one damaged. And it wasn't all thanks to the neva, either: That was used to verify the flight of an F-117 at a /previously/ known location and time (when you know what and when you're looking for, it's much easier!) at short range, and the /guidance/ was EO, /not/ RADAR. Even then a volley of some three missiles was used, and generally the shooter pretty much had all the stars and moon lined up to pull this one off.

How's that going to help when the routes are /not/ known, or against Air Superiority fighters?

Better yet, radar guided air to air missiles will have issues tracking a stealth target, and that's something that the US has already studied.

Yes, stealth /is/ a tool, but it certainly isn't overrated. It reduces information, and thus reduces available reaction time, and it makes a lot of weapons not work so well.

Opponents of stealth -still- desperately wish that didn't work, but wishing simply does not make it so ;)

 

 

-Aaand the things we don't know..

 

Which aren't even worth mentioning since we don't know them.

[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, okay. So you know the (most likely classified) power outputs of various US ground radars, and the MiG-25's radar. And somehow, you also think that the weight/power limitation on an aircraft make it no issue at all to have the radar more powerful that a ground radar. Okay.

 

Americans sayed it them selves after studying the 25 that flew over to Japan (think it was Japan). Why do you think that US civil radar manufacturers mostly use Russky radar tubes ;)

 

I don't see your point with 3 missiles being used.. that is standard procedure against any other plane to better the odds

 

 

Which aren't even worth mentioning since we don't know them.

 

Well, to the guy that gets blown out of the sky they are ;)

 

 

To sum it up, if they'r using it, they better do it spot on.. I would rather sit in a plane that isn't stealth, but gots the moves than in a plene that is but can't evade the thing rushing towords me once it gets me locked.

Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to the guy that gets blown out of the sky they are ;)

 

 

To sum it up, if they'r using it, they better do it spot on.. I would rather sit in a plane that isn't stealth, but gots the moves than in a plene that is but can't evade the thing rushing towords me once it gets me locked.

 

Okay, to stop this debate, fine, we all think that the F/A-22 has no "moves", that stealth cannot be relied on because its fake American propaganda, and that the Su-47 "pwns" all. Awesome - glad you straightened that out nscode.

 

Now, I seem to recall that this thread was about the F-15 and the F-22...

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not fake American propaganda, it's just not magic. Americans know very well what it can do and what it can't. That is why present stealth bombers get escorts. I was just talking about the public perception of it.. kind of like that one of the cobra.

Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But /I/ am not talking about the public perception of it. /I/ am talking about results of studies but the USAF from simulating engagements against their own stealth aircraft, using their own, quite advanced missile seekers.

 

No duh you need support, but then so what? A stand-off jammer will completely blind any SAM battery to a stealth aircraft, which will promptly and happily lay some nice DEAD work on it. Enemy aircraft will find their BVR weapons mostly innefective, escort -not- required for the Stealth Air Superiority fighters.

 

See where this is going?

[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

I don't think you understand what a military simulation entails then ... everyone can get up and say 'it's like playing chess with yourself', but anyone with half a clue knows that this is bull.

 

The US posesses several MiG-29's to test against for one thing, and Russian AAM seekers wont' be any better than US missile seekers.

 

You don't authorize huge spending on the basis of 'playing chess with yourself'.

[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

It's not fake American propaganda, it's just not magic. Americans know very well what it can do and what it can't. That is why present stealth bombers get escorts. I was just talking about the public perception of it.. kind of like that one of the cobra.

 

I've learned to pretty much stay away from this kinda discussion because

NONE OF US will ever.. I repeat.. EVER have the true facts at hand....

 

But I have to bite a bit on your statement of stealth and escorts... (if I read you correctly)

I'm sorry.. but what possible other aircraft can survive over bahgdad other the a F117?

They went in alone and got the job done. Period.

...and of course .... to and from target.. they had escorts... it's a bomber.

Remember it has a radar sig of a medium/small bird and 1 craft getting shot down out how many sorties?

Attrition is a plain and simple fact of war.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry.. it sounds like your too "pro" on Russian technologies (and they are not to be trifled with either) and listen way to much to web forum educations or other type of propoganda..

Thanks,

Brett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No dude, I'm too "pro" on the stuff that was falling on my head 78 days.

 

The thing about escorts comes from a F-15 pilot.

 

They can test it against any ol' (just the saying, I mean old and new) Russ or other hardware, you can buy that on the web these days.. but that is just what I sayed - playing chess with your self. You know exactly what are someones assets, but you never know what he's gona do with 'em. You destroy somebody's supply of shoulder launched and think "ooo I'm safe to go a bit lower level now.." and he gets you with a ground launched R-73. You test your pretty new stealt bird against any SAM thingis, and he tracks you no problem with A BLODY WEATHER RADAR. That thing might not have a data link to a launcher but it can let him see a threat that was never supposed to be detected and take preservation action accordingly.

 

But ok, I see you'r not interested so I'm not gonna go any further with this..

 

 

Oh, and the thing is way prettier than the F-15 :)

Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest BoCfuss

This much I know, Stealth does exactly what it was designed to do. 2,000 plus COMBAT sorties should prove this(and that is just the F117 with only 2 losses,the F-15 doesn't even have a record like this). It reduces the ability for your enemy to see what you are doing. Its not magic and no one here has said that it was except some blowhards. Granted it flew against an inferior enemy, but that includes everyone in the world, including Russia. Money does win wars along with how cunning you are. Have both and you dominate, its not an either/or situation. Stealth is not overated nor is it invinsible, no one ever said it was. nscode, please explain to me how a Mig, Tu or Su would have faired flying around Baghdad in 90-91? How quickly would Russia have rolled over Iraq? Would it have been as quickly as the U.S. or not? Not picking on you I just wonder if you think Russia would have dominated Iraq as the U.S. lead coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No dude, I'm too "pro" on the stuff that was falling on my head 78 days.

 

The thing about escorts comes from a F-15 pilot.

 

They can test it against any ol' (just the saying, I mean old and new) Russ or other hardware, you can buy that on the web these days.. but that is just what I sayed - playing chess with your self. You know exactly what are someones assets, but you never know what he's gona do with 'em. You destroy somebody's supply of shoulder launched and think "ooo I'm safe to go a bit lower level now.." and he gets you with a ground launched R-73. You test your pretty new stealt bird against any SAM thingis, and he tracks you no problem with A BLODY WEATHER RADAR. That thing might not have a data link to a launcher but it can let him see a threat that was never supposed to be detected and take preservation action accordingly.

 

But ok, I see you'r not interested so I'm not gonna go any further with this..

 

 

Oh, and the thing is way prettier than the F-15 :)

 

Right, and at teh same time you're saying that the other side is stupid, not innovative at all, and incapable of adapting. Really, that IS what you're saying.

 

The R-73 on a stick might be a surprise ... ONCE. And it is certainly far less a danger than MANPADS, which is -extremely- portable compared to your R-73 on-a-stick.

Weather radars won't track stealth fighters very well either ... they're tuned to detect vapor rather well ... wrong frequency. And they can easily be jammed since they don't really have eccm.

 

As I said ... one-time trick. That's it.

[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

  • 11 months later...
Well the f22 has better rcs, and payload and it also uses shock wave tec.

 

But mach 2.5+ the raptor falls short at 1.8+.

 

I could give you the long version but thats for another time.

 

Cool t

 

 

I guarantee the F-22 has a higher top speed then mach 1.8+ reguardless of what is publicised. It would be naive to believe that lie...

Althlon X2 6400+ 3.2 ghz

EVGA 8800GT SC - 512mb

X-45

MOMO pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guarantee the F-22 has a higher top speed then mach 1.8+ reguardless of what is publicised. It would be naive to believe that lie...

 

Exactly.... in fact, no one here knows the top speed of the F-16, F-15, etc. just to prove a point. For those who don't think the Raptor is all that and a bag of chips, well, you really are mistaken, because it is. In SO many ways ya'll can't even imagine. This goes for everything... from sensor(s), to systems, to engines, to construction to even fixing the damn thing. This isn't some "American propoganda," and I know I can't say much, but you don't want to mess with it. I know I am going to catch crap for this, but there is nothing the Russians, Brits, or anyone else has that can rival it, and a clear indication of that is that we are not interested in selling it. Oh, and much can be said of the F-35 also. That is one truly amazing aircraft to boot.

I love my job :pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Living and workign right by Nellis I get to see all the birds mentioned above. The F-22 is the only aircraft "known" to be able to cruise supersonic with no afterburner, and it is a hell of a sight to watch it land in the high desert winds compared to an F-15. The vectored exhaust truly is a plus on this aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-15

 

--Two pratt & whitney F100-PW-229 low-bypass turbofan engines each developing approximately 29,000 pounds of thrust. (asuming the aircraft has 299 engines)

 

--Empty weight approximately 31,700 lbs

 

--Top speed mach 2.5 (1,875 mph)

 

F-22

 

--Two Pratt & Whitney F119-100 low-bypass turbofan engines each developing approximately 35,000 pounds of thrust.

 

--Empty weight approximately 31,670 lbs

 

--Top speed mach 1.8+ ....hmm, just doesn't add up

 

 

 

I know there are some math wiz types on this board, somebody do some rough calculations on the Raptor's top speed. My guess would be around mach 2.6-2.7... of course after all this, top speed is not as important as we make it. :)

Althlon X2 6400+ 3.2 ghz

EVGA 8800GT SC - 512mb

X-45

MOMO pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no math wizzard but i do know how calculate stuff (roughly hehe)

 

here's what i came up with

 

             F15

29.000            Single engine speed
58.000            total engine thrust
31.700            approx. weight
------------------------------------------------
1.875              given speed by mikoriad ( mph )
1,829652996        calculated speed ( mph )




             F22
35.000            Single engine speed
70.000            total engine thrust
31.670            approx weight
-------------------------------------------------
2,210293653        Caclulated speed ( mph )

just can't explaint where mikoriad's extra 50 miles of the f 15 wen't

 

and no mach calc as i don't know how :cry: but i think the 2.6 / 2.7 could be right ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no math wizzard but i do know how calculate stuff (roughly hehe)

 

here's what i came up with

 

             F15

29.000            Single engine speed
58.000            total engine thrust
31.700            approx. weight
------------------------------------------------
1.875              given speed by mikoriad ( mph )
1,829652996        calculated speed ( mph )




             F22
35.000            Single engine speed
70.000            total engine thrust
31.670            approx weight
-------------------------------------------------
2,210293653        Caclulated speed ( mph )

just can't explaint where mikoriad's extra 50 miles of the f 15 wen't

 

and no mach calc as i don't know how :cry: but i think the 2.6 / 2.7 could be right ;)

 

 

That 1875 mph number is listed all over as the F-15's "top" speed so, + or - 100mph would be ok to asume in my book. One strange part is that top speed as advertised, came about with the older F-15 engines that have much less thrust then the -229's and is as follows..

 

--Two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-100 turbofan engines with afterburners, each rated at 25,000 pounds engine ( 11,250 kilograms)

 

... I've also seen 23,000 lbs listed. Sadly what it comes down to is that we don't really know for sure, but the F-22 has to be faster then the F-15

Althlon X2 6400+ 3.2 ghz

EVGA 8800GT SC - 512mb

X-45

MOMO pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-22 cruises around at mach 1.7 ... well, to be more accurate ...

 

The F-22 has no fuel issues with cruising around at M1.7 to get tot he enemy or on station or wherever FAST.

 

In this respect, it is a BETTER long range interceptor than the F-15 or Su-27, though under certain distances both of those will be 'better' than the F-22 due to top speed. Thing is, top speed takes a long time to attain.

 

In any case, the F-22 is listed as topping out at M1.8

 

The reason for this is rather obviously not lack of thrust ... rather, the issue at hand it none other than structural - first of all, the F-22 doesn't have the all moving inlets that protect the engines from poor shockwave shaping at high speeds. Secondly, the RAM coating isn't indestructible.

 

Lastly, it may be entirely possible that the IR stealthing becomes ineffective at higher speeds.

 

All in all, we're talking about a fighter that'll do a 700nm radius mission at M1.7 as opposed to 0.8-0.9. It does it job at effectively twice the speed!

[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

Well the f22 has better rcs, and payload and it also uses shock wave tec.

 

But mach 2.5+ the raptor falls short at 1.8+.

 

I could give you the long version but thats for another time.

 

Cool t

 

1)mach 1.8 is a safeguard limitation due to stealth and thermoplastics skin maintenance. It has been tested at faster speeds, though these are classified.

 

2)Even at mach 1.7 supercruise the F-22 will outrun every aircraft in existence. You can be faster in other fighter but only for a few minutes. Furthermore F-22 T/W ratio does enable it absolute faster climb to intercept altitude whereas others would be still trying to keep up.

 

EDIT: Shucks..GG beat to it by seconds. :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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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