F-22 Thread

Proof/source?

 

performance

stealth capability

fuel consumption

range/combat radius

why YF-22 won ?

it's easy: politics

Proof/source?

 

you know it's classified :D but you can find many good and interesting articles on the NET which will give you the 6th sense ;)

All I find are people whining about why the F-23 wasn't chosen, and making things up.

 

I wouldn't doubt that the F-23 may have had certain parameters that were marginally better. But it wasn't the sheer mystical, fairy-tale awesomeness that failed to be chosen and is now being developed for an elite super-secret advanced USAF fighter wing ;)

 

you know it's classified :D but you can find many good and interesting articles on the NET which will give you the 6th sense ;)

Proof/source?

 

 

We'll happily buy the design.

No, you won't. The Eurocanards would just not have it.

I wouldn't doubt that the F-23 may have had certain parameters that were marginally better

 

Northrop has always been only the second-best

same happened with YF-17 vs. YF-16 (and look at the (Y)F-17/18 and its future)

history always repeats itself but fortunately usually compensate

Your downplaying Northrop designs a bit. Their planes were always brilliant ao much so they are still flying 30 yerar later. The selection of planes for US have always been plagued by lobies and politics, usually the real reason behind an aquisition decision.

performance

stealth capability

fuel consumption

range/combat radius

why YF-22 won ?

it's easy: politics

I read somewhere that the YF-22 pretty much came in guns blazing with showing off their workable weapons bays, while the YF-23 was questionable at best. I also heard that the YF-23 didn't even have it's AIM-9/short range bays worked out yet.

 

I could be wrong though.

Your downplaying Northrop designs a bit.

 

no, on the contrary

otherwise i agree with you: usually the real reason behind an acquisition decision

I should be looking at the F/A-18 which has evolved into the superbug and is still being used by the USN and several non-US countries as well?

 

 

Northrop has always been only the second-best

same happened with YF-17 vs. YF-16 (and look at the (Y)F-17/18 and its future)

history always repeats itself but fortunately usually compensate

I should be looking at the F/A-18 which has evolved into the superbug and is still being used by the USN and several non-US countries as well?

 

yes, thats what im talking about, there was a lot more development opportunities in the YF-17 (to to being a superbug or growler) which probably would have been true to the YF-23 especially with vectored thrust

and superbug is too expensive for non-US countries, just like F-22

Edited February 12, 2013 by NRG-Vampire

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

 

..

 

The Raptor is seriously good looking. (Nasty looking!) Only 4.5/5th generation aircraft that belongs on the truly ugly list is the Eurofighter. Deserves the nickname "Catfish."

The Raptor is seriously good looking. (Nasty looking!) Only 4.5/5th generation aircraft that belongs on the truly ugly list is the Eurofighter. Deserves the nickname "Catfish."

What about the F-35 "Fatfish"?

What about the F-35 "Fatfish"?

And talking about fish - T-50 Flatfish.:)

And talking about fish - T-50 Flatfish.:)

That was a good one :thumbup:

It looks to me, the YF-22 choice was less risky, more prudent; this aircraft seems to have better classic fighter capabilities, which is very important if the stealth and other high tech factors are diminished somehow (facing equal stealth capabilities on the other side).

I find the F-35 and T-50 attractive in their own right.

 

 

And talking about fish - T-50 Flatfish.:)

F-35 - Twat (Pregnant Fish)

Edited February 14, 2013 by marcos

Flight Manual of the yf-23... HERE

 

Interesting stuffs

I.E.: Page 1-60: "At low speed, the control stick commands AoA. At high speed, the pitch axis is a G-command system. Full aft stick provides limit AoA or load factor depending on center of gravity and gross weight. At light gross weight, an angle of attack command limiter is employed. A high stick force gradient breakout allows exceeding limit load factor in an emergency"

 

Page 1-121: There is a "Flutter Exciter Panel": "The control surfaces can be excited by three flutter modes. The flutter modes use program parameters to control surface oscillation"...

 

Oh, and about the F-22, I've posted a while ago this interview... Deserve the read:

http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

 

Title:

JUST HOW GOOD IS THE F-22 RAPTOR?

Carlo Kopp interviews F-22 Chief Test Pilot, Paul Metz

Edited June 4, 2013 by Cedaway

I read somewhere that the YF-22 pretty much came in guns blazing with showing off their workable weapons bays, while the YF-23 was questionable at best. I also heard that the YF-23 didn't even have it's AIM-9/short range bays worked out yet.

 

I could be wrong though.

 

I've seen months ago a documentary on youtube called 'Web of Secrecy: Black Widow II Declassified' Can't find it anymore on YT, anyway, it's downloadable (payware) on amazon (1.99$ for 1 day rental or 9.95$ to buy - it largely worth it in my opinion)

Whatever. In this doc, it was stated that the yf-23 was much faster than the yf-22 but the yf-23 project had problem at crucial point. The yf-22 project took the lead.

The eval commission chose the yf-22 because of two things:

- The project was much (slightly) advanced in schedule than the yf-23

- Yf-22 has thrust vectoring and generally better handling capabilities and is more maneuverable.

just found something about L-band radars, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART-L

 

if this ship can track a "stealth" missile at 65 km, does that mean it will track Raptor at 150km??.. i'm assuming the stealth missile will have drastically lower RCS than Raptor, considering the size, materials, and other advanced stuff to make the missile less visible to radar..

 

Have L-band radars progressed so much stealth is only good for fighting 3rd world nations? .. if so, wow, what a good pyramid scam US did and got Russian and China on board and spending billions of $ on steath.. )) Maybe Europe was the smartest sticking with Tiffy..

Funny thing, your assumption is wrong. A stealth fighter is actually much stealthier than any missile out there :)

A stealthy missile may have an RCS of 0.1 or 0.01 ... Raptors are 0.0001.

 

You are also making the mistake of thinking of the L-Band (or any other band) as a magical anti-stealth thing. It is not. Even if a raptor is optimized for X-Band radars for example (I think it covers a lot more bands than that though, because the threats to it are just that varied :) ) it will still be stealth against other bands.

 

This whole stealth defeating radar business in reality is about money and tactics; there is no stealth-defeating radar ... that magical radar is the product of wishful thinking of forum populations and raptor and lightning haters.

This whole stealth defeating radar business in reality is about money and tactics; there is no stealth-defeating radar ... that magical radar is the product of wishful thinking of forum populations and raptor and lightning haters.

Not having any particular degree of knowledge in this field, I'll still post the question:

 

How can the race between stealth and detection be the only match-up in the history of military technology where the rhetorical shield is forever and absolutely mightier than the sword? Won't some sort of radar inevitably be developed to negate current stealth technology?