RaginMav
Topic Author
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:22 am

F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Tue May 25, 2004 5:42 am

Here's something from AWST

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/05244wna.xml

It's nice to see a few details about such a new program, but the simulated engagements lost by F-15's to Indian fighters concern me. I was always under the impression that the F15 was fairly superior to just about anything.

Also, the F-22 seems to be taking on a fairly broad range of tasks. Cruise missile defense? Talk about new meaning to the phrase 'air superiority fighter'

Any F-15 drivers who might be able to explain the engagements with the Indian fighters?

 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Tue May 25, 2004 6:29 am

Wouldn't get too excited about the Indo-American exercise, it's hard to believe that either side showed off the full scope of their capabilities to a potential adversary. On the other hand, what's there to be surprised about? After all, the Su-30MKI is in no way inferior to the F-15C, to say the least. Its only handicap in this particular scenario was the use of the dubious R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) AAM for BVR engagements.

At any rate, considering the diplomatic issues involved, I would be highly skeptical about any sort of 'score' released by either of the parties in regards to the results of the exercise. This is not to say that the exercise wasn't beneficial, at least those few select Eagle drivers now know what a Flanker looks like...  Big grin


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Tue May 25, 2004 8:22 am

LY744,

More of our fighter boys may have gotten better looks at Russian aircraft, all the programs that involve the testing to Soviet aircraft, are barely gray aircraft (ie. their existence is acknowledged, but the details are still classified), who knows what black programs that are still operating?

RaginMav,

According to the article it was an aircraft to aircraft face-off, that is just one small element of the system involved for the modern air war.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Tue May 25, 2004 8:24 pm

not just that, but I indeed doubt they used the full potential of the F-22 (if they even know it yet).

Of course the full potential of the F-22 depends on stealth and once you get within dogfighting range that is diminished greatly.
I wish I were flying
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Tue May 25, 2004 11:29 pm

Jwenting,

It was a F-15C versus Su-30MK fight. The F-22 wasn't involved.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3159
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Tue May 25, 2004 11:32 pm

There are rumors out there that the F-15s were intentionally handicapped to make them look bad, and therefore garner more support for the F-22 program. From the photos I saw, most of the F-15s were armed with Sparrows, instead of AMRAAMS, that could have played a huge part.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed May 26, 2004 12:26 am

Spacepope,

That might be true, but I doubt it. They might have limited the simulated kill envelope of the AIM-120, from what I understand it's still classified (though our allies that use the missile of course know what it is).
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed May 26, 2004 2:26 am

There's several reasons for seeing Sparrows instead of AMRAAM...
Could be the units involved don't have AMRAAM issued to them (reserve units? Lots of active units are involved in the ME at the moment). Also possible that the missiles are dummies and someone decided to save a bit by not purchasing AMRAAM dummies and just retrofit AMRAAM seekerheads to existing Sparrow dummies instead.
I wish I were flying
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed May 26, 2004 7:26 am

The units involved were active AFAIK (from Elmendorf?) and they did make simulated use of the AIM-120.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3159
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed May 26, 2004 7:45 am

LY744 are you sure of your facts?

Information I have is that it was the non-AESA equipped squadron from Elmendorf that went, and they went without AMRAAM or AIM-9X. Basically they were going up against USAF technology circa 1977.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
AFHokie
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 3:29 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed May 26, 2004 8:35 am

The Elmendorf Eagles were the first to get the AIM-9X and AESA upgrades
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed May 26, 2004 10:15 am

"LY744 are you sure of your facts?"

I distinctly recall a reference to AIM-120 use in one of the many articles I've came accross about the exercise, but I can't seem to find the exact source right now, so let's scrap that comment for the time being.


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3159
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed May 26, 2004 11:54 am

OK 12th and 19th squadron at Elmendorf do have AESA. They also have AIM-9X and helmet mounted sights. Reports are there were AIM-9x dummies on aircraft, but they were used without helmet mounted sights and degraded to AIM-9L standards. Apparently they just brought them since no older dummie missiles were handy.

I am finally coming up with some references to AIM-120 now (amazing what a little research does) and it seems these were used in a degraded mode as well.

Although to the Indian's credit, they did not field the R-77 at all, and theit other AAMs also operated in a degraded mode.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed May 26, 2004 12:08 pm

"Although to the Indian's credit, they did not field the R-77 at all, and theit other AAMs also operated in a degraded mode."

Perhaps the IAF too is looking to squeeze some more funding from their government to finance additional Flankers or what have you...  Smile


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed May 26, 2004 2:24 pm

Yeah, they where out of Elemendorf.

Interesting that the Indians where getting the first shot off.

Not to diss russian equiptment but it always struck me as needing more "manual" intervention to work.

I dont' recall those EDF fighters going with AWAC support, so they wheren't under centeral control.

Edit: maybe we should bring back a modernized Phoneix.

[Edited 2004-05-26 07:24:55]
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed May 26, 2004 4:21 pm

The IAF did NOT field the Su-30MKI in the Cope India exercises, but instead fielded the baseline Su-30K with N001 radars and much older original Russian avionics. The MKI has the powerful N011M Bars PESA radar and much more advanced avionics composed of a combination of French (Thales/Sextant), Israeli (Elta) and Indian components tailormade to the IAF's requirements. The MKIs are not quite "Russian"; the airframes are, but the avionics are IAF custom spec.

The IAF also refused to field the R-77 and used only downgraded versions of the R-27 and R-73s. Similarly the USAF fielded the F15Cs rather than F15Es and AWACS, which IAF initially requested them to bring. Neither side was willing to display their best toys, but it was just the first time the two countries held an event of the sort. Whether more will be seen in future depends on the policies of the new government.

Perhaps the IAF too is looking to squeeze some more funding from their government to finance additional Flankers or what have you...

The IAF has been quietly purchasing thousands of R27s, R73s and R77s in the last few years. Check SIPRI.
 
chdmcmanus
Posts: 372
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2001 12:53 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Fri May 28, 2004 2:10 am

I brought the F-15's home from Gwailor, and according to the Eagle drivers,
they had they're hands tied; but no one stated why. The US participants were very anxious to invite the IAF to Red Flag, so they could take the gloves off. IMHO I would say it was to conceal actual capabilities, as the Indians were extremely aggressive about info collection. It was impossible to have more than a two sentence conversation with anyone without "what is the range of..." or "how much does X weight......". Some of the restrictions I was told of were a half mile difference in engagement range, and a 10 second "no shoot" rule imposed on the US F-15's. There may have been more, but that's all I heard about.

ChD
"Never trust a clean Crew Chief"
 
SuperHornet
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:29 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Fri May 28, 2004 6:19 am

The F-22 is a hole in the ground that actual cost per aircraft is more like $165,000,000 per unit and not $143,000,000 per unit. 2nd where are they going to store all of those countermeasures that the article talks about? The F-22 and the F-35 already have limited space for armament and electronic countermeasures by design. 3rd why didn’t they use the United States latest inventory aircraft (F/A-18 Super Hornet and it is stealthy) against the Red team? I assume it was as suggested previously here they wanted the F-15C’s to loose. Why didn’t they use the F-15E model which was designed to have growth built into it and was designed to work with AESA? 4th Aviation Week has a vested interest to see new aircraft built to maintain its readership and it’s not like Lockheed doesn’t advertise extensively with Aviation Week. In my opinion we should scrap the F-22 and in order to reduce cost and slow development of the F-35 to reduce cost and to design an aircraft that will meet the U.S. security and future threats as they develop. A stop cap measure would be to continue F-16/F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet development including meeting the AF requirements for new aircraft to as its old fleet retires by replacing F-15 with the Super Hornet $50,000,000 is a lot less than $165,000,000 and that doesn’t include fuel and air in the tires.
Watch the ball
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Fri May 28, 2004 9:14 am

My guess is that it will be a cold day in hell before the USAF buys the Super Hornet. Why buy an aircraft that was designed for carrier use? To do so would mean lugging around all that added structural weight for no reason. Then you have to take into consideration the added cost of having a new type in the USAF inventory.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Fri May 28, 2004 9:31 am

Also, the F/A-18E/F is not exactly "Stealthy." All munitions are carried externally (a BIG RCS killer), and there's no changes to the basic structure to make it a stealthier aircraft. While it does have improved ECM and reduced signatures, the Super Hornet, like the B-1 is "low-observable" and not stealth. It'll be able to get closer without being detected, but it will still be detected a lot further away than an F/A-22, an F-117, or a B-2.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
User avatar
vzlet
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Fri May 28, 2004 10:20 am

"A stop cap measure would be to continue F-16/F-15 and F/A-18 Super Hornet development..."

Development of the F-15, F-16, and F-18 has been continuing since the late 1970's. Perhaps the best reason to continue with the F-22, IMO, is that none of those earlier aircraft is what the US wants to rely on for air dominance in 2015, much less 2035. The F-22 is very expensive and has tumultuous software problems that won't be quickly resolved, but it eventually will represent the biggest capability jump ever available to any air force (with the possible exception of Eritrea's aquisition of Flankers!). There is only so much mileage available from 1960s and '70s designs. Delaying development of the next generation of USAF air superiority fighter will not result in an aircraft that is any cheaper or that will have an easier development.
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Fri May 28, 2004 12:22 pm

Why didn’t they use the F-15E model which was designed to have growth built into it and was designed to work with AESA

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the F-15E a BOMBER???


And the Air Force if they had to give up the F-22 would be better served to stick with the F-15 family then switch to the smaller F-18E family.

Oh, part of the reason why you are seeing those F-22 numbers rise is that the knuckleheads in Washington keep cutting the number of airframes planned, so the builder has to spread his development costs, which are fixed, amoung a smaller amount of airframes. So % of that burden shared by each frame increases as the number of frames decreases.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Sat May 29, 2004 12:11 am

The F-15E is both a fighter and a strike aircraft. Though it's being used more as a bomber because it can haul an awful lot of JDAMs/LGBs with an airframe that can be positioned near the front.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
SuperHornet
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 6:29 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Sat May 29, 2004 6:44 am

I would remind you that the F4 was an aircraft designed for the Navy but which found its way into the Air Force arsenal. The F4 was designed to be a bomber but was used quite successfully as a fighter and for many years beyond its planned life.

What I am advocating is to scrap the F-22 because it is currently way behind schedule and way over budget and at the same time development of unmanned vehicles are under budget and under funded are progressing on schedule and will have greater stealth than the F-22 while performing the exact same function. Unmanned vehicles are best suited for this type of warfare and are on schedule with development metrics, all that is lacking is the funding to speed up development.

There is no other air force in the world that can match the mighty trio of the F-16, F-15, and the F/A-18 Super Hornet like the B-52 these aircraft can be modified to accept the new ECM technologies and radar technologies the F-15E which is a fighter/bomber which has already proven itself in that capacity in Gulf War I is already designed to accept the new AESA radar which was originally designed for the F-22 but is now in both the F/A-18 Super Hornet and the F-15.


[Edited 2004-05-28 23:54:31]
Watch the ball
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Sat May 29, 2004 8:17 am

The F-4 is a product of another era, that being the cold war. Back then the services had an almost unlimited budget. Things are different now. Besides, it would make more sense to "upgrade" the F-15 than buy Superhornets.

Can you guarantee that the F-16, F-15 and F/A-18 will be able to maintain their superiority in the future? With aircraft such as the EF2000, Rafale and the latest versions of the SU-27 coming on line I don't think one can. You might say that these aircraft are either built buy countries that are close allies or countries that we are unlikely to go to war with. While this may be true it's not our allies or "associates" that worry me. It's the countries that might end up buying them.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
vzlet
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:34 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Sat May 29, 2004 11:49 am

Superhornet, let me try to make a few points:

-If you go back a few years, you'll fnd that "behind schedule and over budget" is pretty much the norm for supersonic combat aircraft development. I'd list the F-4, F-111, F-14, F-15, B-1 (A&B), and F/A-18 (A&E) as examples of programs that had problems serious enough to have some people clamoring for cancellation. The AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-120 AMRAAM, and probably the AIM-7 Sparrow were in similar situations. With perseverance (another way of saying "time" and "money") all of these except the B-1A became valued additions to the inventory.

-Don't loose track of the issue that what's under development now is a critical component of the US capability to assert air dominance decades into the future. Also, I don't think it's accurate at all to say that the F-15, F-16, and F-18 have no peers in today's world, and certainly "parity" is not the circumstance in which any fighter pilot wants to go into combat.

-UAVs have a long, long, long way to go before they will be "best suited for this type of warfare". For a UAV to have capabilities similar to an F-22 (or an F/A-18, etc.), it would essentially have to be a pilotless F-22 (or F/A-18, etc.). If it's a tough task to develop the F-22, it's going to be quite a bit tougher to come up with an unpiloted version smart enough to utilize the airframe's capabilities.

-And, it's not directly related to this F-22 issue, but I'll point out that by the time the Navy and McDonnell signed the development contract for what became the F-4, the aircraft was specified as an interceptor.

My $.02,
Mark
"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Sat May 29, 2004 12:36 pm

Actually there are some cancellations in that list. The Navy never got the F-111B. The F-14 was developed in leu of the F-111B. The B1A was canceled by Carter, Reagan brough back a modernized 1B version for low altitude penetration. The Sparrow II active homing missile was canceled (Canadian Arrow casualty) the semi-active Sparrow III being the replacement.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Sat May 29, 2004 2:04 pm

The Navy never got the F-111B. The F-14 was developed in leu of the F-111B

Not because of politics, but because of Adm. Tom Connelly's revolt against an aircraft entirely unsuited for what was being forced onto the USN. The contract for the F-111B was politics with McNamara's scheme for commonality.


And no, Superhornet, the F-4 was not designed to be a bomber, it was designed as an interceptor.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Sat May 29, 2004 2:55 pm

Ah McNamara.

Have you ever read the stories about the fit he threw in DaNang when on a tour?

Apparently the Air Force mentioned that they where running low on 20mm ammo for their Vulcan guns on their aircraft. McNamara told them to go over to the Marines he had just visited and get ammo from them, because they had plenty of 20mm.

The problem is that it was for the revolver cannons on their A-4's and is not compatable with the 20mm for the vulcans. (I think the case is about an inch longer for the marine ammo).

When the Air Force told him they couldn't use it, he like I said blew a gasket.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
bsergonomics
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:07 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Sat May 29, 2004 11:32 pm

This is not the only 'loss' for the F-15s recently.

A pair of F-15s bounced the first UK Eurofighter formation training mission out of Warton a couple of months ago. The F-15 pilots were, "very surprised" when the EFAs jinked, split and appeared on their tails a very short time later.

While the F-15 is 40 years old (that's based on design rather than in-service date) and the Eurofighter is still to become operational, it was regarded as a 'triumph' for the Eurofighter, especially in the dogfight role, with a limited flight envelope.

I find Spacepope's comment interesting - make the F-15 look bad to secure additional funding for the F-22. It wouldn't surprise me if the Eurofighter encounter had similar political motivations...

As for the F-22 article, I am distinctly underwhelmed. None of the equipment mentioned, nor the tactics are exactly exciting. The only real piece of interest was the 'radar-bashing radar'. Why would you want to effectively disable your own radar while deep in enemy territory, at the same time lighting yourself up like a christmas tree? I reckon that these are jobs that should be done by two different bits of kit. The directed energy weapons development is fairly advanced and the result of what is described is a very effective radar that performs the DE job adequately. A waste, a risk and not future-proof, IMHO.

The end result is that the 'classified information' aspect is used to cover up how bad the equipment is, not how capable...
The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Sun May 30, 2004 5:56 am

In regards to the article on the F-22 one must remember that not all of it's capabilities are going to appear in print since they remain classified.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Sun May 30, 2004 10:47 am

"There's not enough thrust in all of Christendom to make the F-111 a fighter!"

Or something like that. Adm Connelly was pretty cool.



Here's a very interesting report by POGO (Project On Government Oversight) about the F-22.

http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-000608-f22.htm

Colonel Riccioni is known as the father of the F-16, and today he was speaking at the Old Ebbitt Grill in D.C.

Quotes (since this is, of course, not copyrighted, I can post all that I want):

The dream mission, or the dream for this airplane was really quite good. It was intended to provide the United States with dominance of the air beyond the year 2005 and specifically designed against a very specific enemy. It was meant to do offensive counter-air operations deep in the heart of Russia. And to that end, the airplane was going to perform a very aggressive mission, which was a 100 mile flight to the borders of Russia, then a 400 mile supersonic penetration, supersonic for survivability, and then do its combat and fly 400 miles out and then 100 miles back to the home base. A very ambitious mission.

And along with that it was supposed to have ultra-high performance beyond that of current aircraft. And the other primary reason for the existence of the airplane is the F-15s and the F-16s are definitely wearing out. There is no question about that. So it was meant to rejuvenate an aging Air Force. That would become a subject of conversation.

The beauty of it is that it was all to be done for an airplane that was to cost $35 million, which, in 1982, which is when it was specified, or 1980, that was precisely the cost of F-15. These are unit fly-away costs, by the way, so the $35 million would translate in today’s inflated dollars and in total program costs, it would translate to about $40 [million] to $50 million. So that’s the cost that we’ll compare later.

-----

So the visual signature. You know, one of the things I’ve always prided myself in life is that I see things that other people don’t. And I see things that other people don’t because they’re obvious. The first thing that impressed me about the F-22 is that it’s the largest fighter in the American skies. Now when I was creating the F-16 airplane, a great, great consideration was given to keeping it as small as possible, and I didn’t quite succeed in getting it as small as I wanted because the Air Force wanted to put more goodies in it and the airplane grew and I lost that battle to some extent. But the F-16 is on the upper side of small.

And here’s an airplane that’s at least five times bigger than the F-16 in size. In fact, most people don’t even know how to measure size, but I won’t get trapped into that unless you want that conversation later. But allow me to say that the largest airplanes in the skies today are the F-15 and the F-14, visible at six and seven miles and identifiable, and here’s an airplane that’s considerably larger, about 25 percent larger. So visual signature -- it’s anti-stealthy visually.

-----

This airplane is unique if it’s going to super-cruise. It’s going to ram the air at 1.6, 1.7 Mach number. You'll get inevitable shock waves. You'll get inevitable leading edge heating, and you make a beacon in the sky out of the airplane because the heat contrasts well with the cold surroundings. Now in deference to the F-22, they very intelligently decided to cool the leading edges of the airplane with fuel. That was a very smart decision. You can cool the air frame but you can’t cool the hot air, and you can’t cool the hot air that comes out from the jet exhaust, because the only thing that moves the airplane, the only thing that gives you thrust is extremely hot air going at extremely high speeds out the back end of the airplane.

And they tried by putting sheets of cooling air above and below the two-dimensional nozzle, but the fact is the air tumbles when it gets out and so the jet wake is warm. The hot parts of the rear of the airplane are hot, and the shock waves will give you enough. Besides that, a good IR sensor can sense a subsonic cruise airplane. And who has IR sensors? The Russians have them on all their airplanes. The U.S. Navy has them on all their airplanes. Only the Air Force doesn’t have IR sensors on their airplanes.

-----

The performance of the airplane is not going to be spectacular. Now how do I know that? From public literature. How can you deduce that? If you know F = ma, the laws of physics is very easy to deduce if you know a little bit of aerodynamics on top of it. The thrust of the airplane is a nominal 70,000 pounds, two 35,000 pound engines. The weight of the airplane is 65,000 pounds. That means the ratio of the thrust to the weight, which gives you some idea of the ability of the airplane to accelerate, is roughly that of the F-15C.

-----

The fuel fraction, which I’ll discuss at some length -- oh, I've missed supercruise. Wow! Wow! The fuel fraction is identical to the F-15. The fuel fraction is the weight of the fuel on board, ratioed or divided by the total weight of the airplane with fuel and weapons at takeoff. So it’s the percentage of the airplane that’s energy. It’s the percentage of the airplane that’s fuel. And those two are identical. They’re both 29 percent. So if the fuel fraction is the same, the thrust-to-weight ratio is the same, wing-loading is the same. It’s going to maneuver very much like an F-15.

-----

Okay. So I’ve discussed performance. I’ve got to discuss the centerpiece of supersonic cruise. There are two enormous discrepancies in the supersonic cruise part of the airplane. One is a little bit complicated, but it happens to be the thing that created most of the trouble. The entire country has focused on the wrong definition of supersonic cruise, and the GAO has bitten it off. They have reported that the airplane has demonstrated supersonic cruise. What they reported was that the airplane flew at 1.6 and 1.7 mach number in dry thrust, meaning the afterburner wasn’t being used, just the pure central turbojet part of the engine.

Now that feature bodes well for the airplane. You want that feature. But that feature is necessary and it’s desirable, but it’s not sufficient to give you super-cruise. And besides, what is proof positive of this is if Lockheed and the Air Force know what they’re doing, the airplane will not be cruising supersonically in dry thrust. It will be at low afterburner power settings. That I have to demonstrate to you.

----- (skipped some stuff, the wing's too big for efficient supercruise, not at a high enough altitude, etc)

Efficient supersonic cruise is done in supercruisers at high altitudes with afterburning. When you bite the definition that it’s going supersonic in dry thrust, you’re just talking about a characteristic of the airplane. It bodes well, but that’s not where you should be supercruising. You should be up around 60. And there’s nothing novel about this. The Russian MiG-31 supersonic cruise interceptor does it. The SR-71, which flies very fast and very high, uses only the afterburner. It bypasses the turbojet engine completely. In fact, it goes to idle, and so it’s operating purely as a RAM-jet engine. An afterburner is a RAM-jet engine tied to a turbojet engine. So there’s nothing mysterious about this. Supercruise, properly done, is done in afterburning.

Proof positive that the airplane isn’t going to go very far in supercruise is the fuel fraction. It’s 29 percent. The F-4's fuel fraction is 29 percent, subcruiser, F-15. The MiG-29 is 29 percent, whereas the MiG-31, which is a Russian supercruiser, is up at 45 percent. And if you want a perspective on this from my experience in design, 29 percent and below gives you a subcruiser. That’s the F-22. Thirty-one to 32 percent gets you in the right direction. Above 35 percent you get pragmatic supersonic cruise missions.

-----

Okay. I said I’d discuss the relevance of air superiority today. That’s a very easy problem. I even ran into an advocate of the F-22 and I asked them a leading question. I said, where in this world do we have an air superiority problem today? And I almost fell over. He gave me the right answer. He said, nowhere. The only countries that present any numbers of high performance Russian aircraft are Russia, China and India. I don’t think we’re going to go to war with Russia. China is not going to attack the United States. A sane U.S. is not going to attack China. Benevolent India is not going to attack the United States. So we haven’t got a problem there.

Where are other high-performance fighters? Europe. Well, we’re not going to go to war with Germany, France, Italy, England. So that’s not a problem. A few fighters in Bulgaria, Romania are not a threat to this country. There really is no air superiority threat. And an air superiority fighter is designed to shoot down enemy airplanes. We don’t have any opposition. Now World War II was important. We had to not only shoot down those hordes of German aircraft, we had to shoot down their Stukas, which were bothering our ground troops.

-----

But when you have an airplane that costs $190 million, that’s 339 divided into $64.2 billion, that cost, which is equal to one-third the cost of the B-1, is utterly obscene. Now why is it obscene? Because it’s going to actually degrade the fighting capability of air combat command. And I want to bring you to some history. They wanted 700 to 800 airplanes initially was to be the buy, for about $40 billion. Then they decided that it was going to be $70 billion. After one review, a SAR, selected acquisitions review, they put it down to $64.2 billion and 680 aircraft, 660 or 680 airplanes. And after the next bottoms-up review, they blew it down to 440 aircraft, but still for $64.2 billion. That’s important. And then after the last review they had -- I've got them in reverse order again. Okay. It doesn't matter. The quadrennial defense review. Thank you. The quadrennial defense review was 339 aircraft for $64.2 billion.

-----

COL. RICCIONI: No. And certainly today we have more than enough. You know, today’s air tac command could almost take on the whole known world, almost any coalition in the whole known world with all its fighters. We absolutely don’t need new airplanes to counter the F-15s that we’ve sold to people.

-----

COL. RICCIONI: The F-22 program is really -- it grew out of a desire of the Air Force to resurrect itself, you know. Given that you have a fighter, it becomes axiomatic that you want a new fighter upgraded to the modern technology. I mean that’s a cult. Whether you need it or not. I mean, a replacement airplane for equipment you’ve learned to depend on, okay? And as it grew, I remember -- in fact, I was at the flight dynamics lab at the time. General Dixon ordered my division at the flight dynamics lab to get in bed with the fighter requirements people at tactical air command then and with the engineers at Wright-Patterson, in the engineering part of the base, to evolve the requirements for this airplane.

And in their rush to get a great airplane for the Air Force, they put in this requirement, that requirement, another requirement, without regard to either cost. Cost was not their problem. They didn’t observe cost. And also without regard to the resulting airplane. And I broke up a meeting one time in 1975, where I got to the meeting a little bit late and I listened to all these requirements. I said, do you know what you’re doing? You’re asking for an airplane that’s going to cost one-third as much as a B-1, and it broke the meeting up. They recognized the error of what they were doing.

But the result is, I had no effect on the outcome and we have an airplane that costs one-third as much as the B-1. So the Air Force is just trying to propagate itself, just like the Navy is trying to propagate itself. In fact, that seems to be a rule of life, to propagate yourself.

-----

Q. Your sixth thing that you mentioned.

COL. RICCIONI: Oh, okay, I’m glad you brought that up, my lady. Somebody’s got a good memory; I haven't. If you redefine stealth as how frequently the enemy sees an airplane, or how infrequently the enemy will see the airplane, then it isn’t the technology that gives you stealth on the F-22. It’s a by-product of the technology called the cost. Since you're going to buy so few of them, the enemy will seldom see them. So it’s really the cost that makes the airplane stealthy, not the technology.

[Laughter.]

You know, if you send 70 airplanes out to the Pacific to fight in that area and attack a country as expansive as China, the Chinese commanders will be wondering which province you’re operating against. Cost is stealth.

You know, there was another classic example of unilateral disarmament, and, again, maybe it wasn’t necessary. Strategic Air Command was operating 1,360 bombers -- 1,360 B-47s. Then they bought 680 B-52s to replace them. As the B-52s got older, they were going to buy 206 -- shades of the F-22 -- they were going to buy about 250 B-1Bs. They bought 100 B-1Bs for the total program cost. And then for the total program cost they bought 20 B-2s. They were supposed to buy 135 B-2s for $40 billion. And incidentally, on black programs, when you get a cost number on a black program, be very leery of it. You’re not getting it all. It’s hidden. It’s hidden from the enemy, the people, and their representatives.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:00 am

Very interesting. The colonel raises some good points, but he also partakes in exactly what he accuses the Air Force of doing: manipulating data to prove a point. For example, the thrust/weight ratio of an F-22 is significantly better than an F-15... it appears the colonel is comparing a lightly loaded F-15 with an F-22 at MGTOW.

Theres much more...
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
RaginMav
Topic Author
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:22 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:56 am

Thank You Dw747400!!!!!!!!

I read the colonel's comments, and the same thought occured to me. I didn't have time to check the numbers myself, so I didn't post anything about it.

As far as making the F-22 so large that it is visible from 7 miles, I'd have to say that it isn't always relevent, since the AAMRAM should have done its work long before they approach that range.

Is Colonel Riccioni right in saying that obtaining air superiority via a supreme aircraft is ineffective? I can see his point in that a relatively small number of F-22's is inferior to a large number of F-15's.

---BUT---

The F-15 was extraordinarily overpriced in its day as well, and we have 522 C & D models (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101), and 217 E models; for a total procurement cost of 22.4 Billion 1998 dollars.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3159
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:09 am

What good are BVR weapons when the ROE prohibit you from using them in the way that they were designed? Seriously, there is only one RUMOR of an AIM-54C (or any variant of the Phoenix) being used by the US Navy in combat. Supposedly the Iranians had great scuccess in a few engagements, knocking out 3, then 2 Mig 23s with one missile. But when the ROE require you to visually ID your adversary, manouverability becomes a prime concern. here, the F-15 is losing the PR war.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am

What good are BVR weapons when the ROE prohibit you from using them in the way that they were designed

Exactly, but when the rules allow you to shoot, good things happen.

If memory serves the Sparrow was the Kill leader at the end of the gulf war.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:12 am

If memory serves the Sparrow was the Kill leader at the end of the gulf war.

I would hope so since it and the sidewinder where the only two that went to war during Operation Desert Storm.

But I believe it served quite well, particularly since the version used during ODS was a version that Senator Kerry voted to cancel.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3159
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:36 am

As opposed to it being used from an F-14D which then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheny DID kill...
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8005
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Fri Jun 04, 2004 1:04 am

You know, it would be very interesting to see how the Eurofighter Typhoon matches up against the current production F-16C's.

I think the F-22A will out-fight the Typhoon for two reasons: 1) the F-22A has swiveling engine exhausts so it can turn really tightly and 2) the F-22A is a stealthy warplane, something that the Typhoon is not, which means the F-22A would have launched its missiles by the time the Typhoon detects it.

I wouldn't be surprised that the Typhoon matches up well with the F-15C since the Typhoon was designed to be highly manueverable with its unstable aerodynamic design and the Typhoon has a very modern radar and missile fit (I believe that the Typhoon will carry the ASRAAM short range missile and ramjet-powered BAE Meteor missile as its primary armament).
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:32 am

RayChuang, according to the colonel, the exhaust paddles on the F-22 don't really help for maneuvering. They're there for trim purposes. The F-22 looks like it has plenty big enough elevators to pull 9+ Gs so that the pilot would be on verge of blacking out.

You need 3D paddles, like the experimental X-3whatever had, for extreme maneuverability.
 
RaginMav
Topic Author
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:22 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:00 pm

MD-90

Has Colonel Riccioni (or you, for that matter) flown the plane?
 
jmets18
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:50 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:25 am

SuperHornet,

You've gotta be about as blind as a bat if you think the F-22 and the F-35 have limited space for armament and electronic countermeasures by design. Both the F/A-22 and F-25 have the capability of carrying they're weapons load inside, outside, or both. So, in conclusion, what you see on today's fighters (weapons mounted on the outside of the fuselage), is no where near in comparison to what these two new aircraft are capable of off loading. It's too bad there are critics like you out there; that have probably never seen the aircraft fly. For every disadvantage of the f/a-22 to any other fighter aircraft (if there are any disadvantages), there are 10 advantages. I watch these fly everyday, and it really is a sight to see. Opinion is opinion, but make sure you can back it up. The f/a-18 is a great "carrier-based" attack aircraft. The f-15 is a great "land based" air superiority aircraft. And the f-16 is a great "land based" dog fighting aircraft. Take those three, put them up against an f/a-22, and the fight is over before it starts. If you think I'm kidding, here is a quote from a recent internal article:

-----In one recent war game, a lone Raptor was pitted against five front-line F-15s. The Raptor was invisible to the F-15 pilots and their powerful radar. But the F-15s were easy prey for the Raptor, and it quickly aimed missiles at all of them without the F-15 pilots knowing they were being hunted.

"It was all over in three minutes," says Stapleton, a pilot who was not directly involved in the test but learned the details through colleagues.

The feat is especially impressive since F-15s have a perfect record in actual combat since they went into service in the 1970s.-----
 
jmets18
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:50 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:36 am

and that colonel can kiss my a$$ because those engine nozzles are called thrust vectoring for a reason. no other aircraft can climb like the f/a-22. in order for today's fighter aircraft to climb, they're climb resembles that of half a parabola. the f/a-22 however climbs at about 80 degrees, if not steeper. it's too bad there isn't a poilot on here to back me up.
 
RaginMav
Topic Author
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 5:22 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:43 am

Jmets18

Gotta agree with you on the thrust vectoring. Saw video clip from a buddy that's an intern at Boeing. He shot a clip of the F/A-22 pulling into an unrestricted climb, followed by it's F-15 chase plane. The 22 brought the nose vertical almost instantly. The -15 didn't have the 'instantaneous' turn that the -22 did.

I'd post a link to the vid, but it's not online (sorry)

-BUT-
here's a picture taken by one of the people that witnessed the event:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © William Anthony - AIRFRAMES

 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:45 am

Both the F/A-22 and F-25 have the capability of carrying they're weapons load inside, outside, or both.

Too bad the external racks for the F-22 were canceled by congress last I heard.

Even with the racks it's unlikely that they will be able to hold the strike load of the F-15E. But you can't compare yet because there are no official numbers on what type of bomb dispenser would be compatible for the racks.

Also the main weapons bay can only fit a single 1,000 lb PGM, and a missile.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed Jun 09, 2004 6:05 am

Also the main weapons bay can only fit a single 1,000 lb PGM

Not quite. Last I checked, the main bay can hold two 1,000 pound JDAMs and two AIM-120Cs with a Sidewinder in each side bay. Also - source on the cancellation of external carriage of munitions? I've seen nothing on the Air Force's site or on globalsecurity to indicate such a cancellation and to cancel the external carriage capabilites would mean the F/A-22 wouldn't be cable of carrying auxiliary fuel tanks for ferrying - something I doubt the USAF would be willing to concede to.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
jmets18
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:50 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:09 am

PPGMD, Garnetpalmetto, A-Netters........

Without going into too much detail, i'll give you an example of what the f/a-22 can carry.

Center Bay - (6) AIM-120C Missiles or (2) AIM-120C Missiles and (2) 1,000 lb JDAM's

Side Bay - (2) AIM-9M/X Missiles

External - (4) Missiles (name your poison) and (2) Fuel Tanks (600 gal)

Now of course armament can vary considerably. I shouldn't have ever replied to this topic. Trust me though, and any other individual that know's this aircraft very well. She holds more armament than any other fighter aircraft. Besides that, she can supercruise!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:41 am

Gernetpalmetto,

Sorry I was thinking in rack terms. I forgot it only has a single bay, instead of two bays on the centerline like the F-117. It was a while back, it was when the brass was trying to save the F-22 during it's first set budget cuts. One of the ways they proposed was to add external racks, but they were shot down because it defeats the purpose of paying through the nose for stealth.

jmets,
and that colonel can kiss my a$$ because those engine nozzles are called thrust vectoring for a reason. no other aircraft can climb like the f/a-22. in order for today's fighter aircraft to climb, they're climb resembles that of half a parabola. the f/a-22 however climbs at about 80 degrees,

First off, the nozzles have nothing to do at what angle an aircraft can climb at. All they have to do with is how fact they can change their flight attitude. At this moment an F-15 can pull enough G's to black it's pilot out when pulling into a climb, thrust vectoring won't give it significant change there. Instead it provide better maneuverability in slower flight attitudes, for example near stalling, and during dog fights.

The angle at which an aircraft can climbs at, has to do with entry speed, and the aircraft thrust to weight ratio. I can get a Cessna 172 to do a 90 degree climb, it wouldn't last very long, but it certainly can be done. I have seen 100 ft to 8,000 ft 90 degree climb outs done by both the F-15 and the F-16. It's nothing special.

I am sorry but your posts sound to me, to be the ranting of zealots, and not someone that is willing to debate the merits of the aircraft. No one here doubts that the F-22 is a fantastic aircraft, there are some like me that doubt that it might not be the best direction for the air force to goto with the way that modern wars are fought.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
jmets18
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 10:50 am

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:31 am

PPGMD,

i'm all for debate. that's what forums are for. sorry if i came off as someone who feels they know all there is to know about a particular subject. by all means, i do not. however, what i was trying to state was the approach to the climb. i've seen first hand and fa/-22 climb side by side with an f-15. the angle at which they commence their climb is no where near the same. are you telling me the f-15 was holding back? i'm talking about going from o degrees to 90 degrees in a split second. yes, thrust vectoring nozzles can do much more, i was just trying to point out one of their many attributes.

 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: F/A-22 Secrets Revealed

Thu Jun 10, 2004 8:03 am

RaginMav, that Colonel was the project leader for the F-16. He ought to know a thing or two about fighters.



I doubt that a 172 can ever get to a 90 degree climb. It doesn't have enough power to pitch that far up before stalling. Now, a 90 degree bank and a 90 degree dive are both possible (just don't try to hold your altitude in the turn).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests