Jump to content

F-22 Rulez!!!


Recommended Posts

I logged on today thinking I was gonna get crushed intot he ground. I am glad people can keep this on a mature level. Thanks to the gentlemen who answered each of my questions. As I said, I don't keep up on this stuff like I used to (and never as in depth as you guys have. Truely amazing stuff)

 

Reading up a few posts someone asked about the next generation of stealth as opposed to the old school stuff. Over on metacafe, if you read through their flame war, a person brought up that Russia has a new stealth in the works. (I also read something about this not too long ago in the news)

 

Thats a very interesting question. What is it?

 

On a side note: Read the book "the Minotaur" by Stephen Coonts. He has an interesting take on a stealth technology that I think was explored at one time. Its an active system that somehow intercepted a radar wave and then returned a null signal. I believe heat was a problem as well as the possibility of being overwhelmed. Was this pure fiction?

 

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I logged on today thinking I was gonna get crushed intot he ground. I am glad people can keep this on a mature level. Thanks to the gentlemen who answered each of my questions. As I said, I don't keep up on this stuff like I used to (and never as in depth as you guys have. Truely amazing stuff)

 

Reading up a few posts someone asked about the next generation of stealth as opposed to the old school stuff. Over on metacafe, if you read through their flame war, a person brought up that Russia has a new stealth in the works. (I also read something about this not too long ago in the news)

 

Thats a very interesting question. What is it?

 

On a side note: Read the book "the Minotaur" by Stephen Coonts. He has an interesting take on a stealth technology that I think was explored at one time. Its an active system that somehow intercepted a radar wave and then returned a null signal. I believe heat was a problem as well as the possibility of being overwhelmed. Was this pure fiction?

 

Jeff

 

No, well, there are jammers that filter out (nullify) the radar waves coming towards them, this is actually a function of jamming devices (ECM). The Mirage-something (2000?) has such a jammer on some models. Real ecm systems also 'analyze' the incoming radio frequencies and try putting out a slightly shifted return as to the one being sent towards them (and in that direction only). There are a lot more modes, even ones that 'predict' a pattern. But all we got in lomac is just a flash light kind of ecm. No real system since the invention of radar functions the same as the stupid 'flashlight' ecm mode like in lock on, and there are people thinking ecm is even slightly realistic. All we have is a submode that is rarely used, as it will light you up like a christmas tree.

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion, the Raptor is somewhat misplaced aircraft. It's a true 21century technology with average weaponry, an exploitation of an old stealth system, and a 20-year old airframe design.

 

Average weaponry? The AIM-120 is the most lethal air to air missile in service, almost without argument. :)

And what's an 'old stealth system'? 20 years is how long it takes aircraft to be designed, tested and produced.

 

It's surely gonna kick some ass in the sky, but is it really worth the hype?

Any aircraft with that cost will surely make enemies suffer.

 

Of course it is: It is a deterrent first, and an airspace dominator next.

 

The Flanker and Fulcrum family showed that the airframe is the primary thing on the combat aircraft, as you can always upgrade the technology under the hood.

 

They most certainly did not. You can make the same claim about the F-4 or the F-15 or even the F-111 and F-16. THey all have good airframes for what they were meant to. The Raptor needed a stealth Airframe, which the fulcrum and flanker are -not-.

 

Hell, even the newly upgraded MiG-21s can do extensive BVR with Alamo's and have all the nifty Russian EOS stuff and can carry top-of-the-class closecombat weapons like Archer.

 

No, they can't do extensive BVR. The ability to carry and launch the R-77 is nice, but when it comes to BVR, any aircraft with a similar missile and superior radar will crush them. BVR is a game of set-up and detection. Just bout -anything- can out-detect the MiG-21.

 

Having mentioned weaponry, US doesn't have a true modern long-range weapon. I find this rather weird, considering that current USAF's tactics can be described as stealth-no-contact BVR combat. AIM-120C5's range is approx 110 km. AIM-7s range is 75 km. On the other side, there are R-77M1(175 km), R-33(160 km), R-37(280 km) and production prototype of R-172(400 km).

 

Weird? Why? The AMRAAM has all the reach it needs when launched from a stealth platform. The R-37 is not in service, te R-33 is poor against fighters and mostly used against bombers, the R-77M1 is non-existant. And R-172 is purely an anti-AWACS/ELINT/RIVET JOINT weapon.

 

The stealth system is an advancement of an old type that F-117 and B-2 carries. And both of those types were shot down by guided weaponry in operation "allied force". IMHO, it's just an matter of Raptors combat hours until it's stealth gets decloaked.

 

No B-2 has /ever/ been shot down. The F-117 that -was- shot down was because it was flying the exact same route every time, and that route had been leaked; this resulted in a visual attack with an SA-3 volley against the F-117.

USAF got upset with NATO (the route fas forced by NATO/UN 'regulations') and they started changing the routes and not informing NATO/UN. Since then, no F-117s were hit.

 

The thing that i like very much is AESA radar, and it's fast-shifting. However, i again think that F22 is a mixture of an old and new, and right in the time when that is not needed.

 

Actually, it's all new. There's no mixture.

 

I mean, there isn't Soviet Union anymore, Russia has an rather defensive doctrine and US won't wage wars with any superforce (Russia, EU, China) in the near future. It's not even likely it will fight Iran, not an superforce, but an force. In last two conflicts, the Serbia and Iraq, third generation fighters won the skies. Why not instead concentrate on making an true futuristic aircraft, something like the PAK-FA project? Berkuts, Terminators and 1.44s were technology testbeds for future aircraft design. With an thrust-vectoring Fulcrum, Su-35 Superflanker, the Platypus and Su-25T, Foxhound, all old but genius designs, upgraded with latest technology, Russia is secured, rather up-to-date and can focus on the real new design.

 

All this is IMHO, flamewar not intended.

 

 

What are you talking about? Most of the aircraft you mentioned are not operational. Not only that, butwhen they -become- operational, the F-22 will have them for breakfast because they cannot detect it in time.

The F-22 isn't built to combat the fighters of TODAY. It is built to combat current AND projected future threats. The Su-35 has nothing on the Raptor - maneuverability is matched as much as it needs to be with high off boresight missiles in the WVR arena, and it isn't as if the F-22 is lacking in thrust or thrust vectoring - as for BVR, the F-22 is easily the clear winner.

[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

No, well, there are jammers that filter out (nullify) the radar waves coming towards them, this is actually a function of jamming devices (ECM).

 

No, there aren't. Any jammer that has tried doing that has ended up working poorly - most jammers tr very simple things, like angle and range jamming. An SPJ has little processing power - and besides which, B-52's don't become untouchable by nullifying anything - rather they give you a very clean but very wrong signal ... you can tell you're being jammed if you pay a little attention, but your radar can't ;)

[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

USAF got upset with NATO (the route fas forced by NATO/UN 'regulations') and they started changing the routes and not informing NATO/UN. Since then, no F-117s were hit.
More F-117 was not shut down because of the overwhelming air defense suppression power applied against Yugoslavian air defense ground radars and SAM’s.

 

There were ate least 20 countries against Yugoslavia. Order of battle shows you that in pure numbers there was almost 10 NATO aircraft for every one of Yugoslavian. Damaged NATO aircraft could glide from Yugoslavia to land. That is how high they flew and how close friendly airports were. Even with all of that, Yugoslavia managed to hit one F-117 and one F-16 and to damage few more NATO airplanes.

 

In their own book, A10 Over Kosovo, A-10 pilots admitted that they could not hit almost anything. On the end of NATO military intervention over Yugoslavia, it turned out that ground forces and lots of the air force was intact.

  • Like 1

Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More F-117 was not shut down because of the overwhelming air defense suppression power applied against Yugoslavian air defense ground radars and SAM’s.

 

There were ate least 20 countries against Yugoslavia. Order of battle shows you that in pure numbers there was almost 10 NATO aircraft for every one of Yugoslavian. Damaged NATO aircraft could glide from Yugoslavia to land. That is how high they flew and how close friendly airports were. Even with all of that, Yugoslavia managed to hit one F-117 and one F-16 and to damage few more NATO airplanes.

 

Everyone has an opinion I guess. I, for one, would like to see some facts like...what aircraft was damaged by Serb air defenses?

 

In their own book, A10 Over Kosovo, A-10 pilots admitted that they could not hit almost anything. On the end of NATO unlawful military intervention over Yugoslavia, it turned out that ground forces and lots of the air force was intact. NATO killed more civilians then soldiers.

 

Well, if you really read the book, you would know that the Serbs were using civilians as human shields at times.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*****Abstract: In a nutshell 22 is likely to win in ideal world, subject to equal skill of the pilots*****

 

Full Message

Well, the tread turned out ok after all!

 

Things ppl sayed about german MiGs exersize are true. There is even a video of F-18 with MiG-29 in his sights.

 

I agree that the victor is the pilot who makes his opponent to fight by his rules. In ideal world at least.

 

But then again, war will never happen in ideal world, nor will it go by ideal rules. I know how MiG would preform in random situations (scrambles, field airports etc), but I have no information about F-22 with that respect. In all-equal positions in fight between 29 and 22, 22 will probably win, but equal position fights rarely happen. Partially because fights happen over someones terretory, and that generally gives one side an advantage.

 

Unfortunately, times of knights and duels are passed in most places, it's not how you win it, it's whether you win or lose. And by that theory, methods don't matter.

 

Might seem like a lot of pointless words for most of you, but hopefully, some will understend what I'm trying to say.

 

{REGARDS}

 

BIOLOG

 

BIOLOG, the entire point of the F-22 is to make the world not ideal against enemy fighters. The ability to stealth and supercruise allows it to detect its bandit first, position itself for an ambush, and slip away after the attack. It stacks the odds completely in its favour - it makes its own conditions. And the enemy doesn't have a choice.

 

Some people though don't seem to realize the importance of setting up a BVR battle the way you want it without the enemy knowing about it. BVR battles are won miles before the first Fox 3.

 

Take the F-15 for example - why is it widely regarded as a superior BVR fighter to the F-16? The Viper can carry AMRAAMs too, plus its radar can detect the F-15 before either can get within range of their AMRAAMs. It's because in those precious seconds where the Eagle is tracking the Viper, but it is still outside the F-16's detection range, it's able to set up the engagement the way it wants to. And that's enough to give it a huge edge.

 

Now take the F-22, with stealth. It has years to set up the engagement compared to the F-15.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has an opinion I guess. I, for one, would like to see some facts like...what aircraft was damaged by Serb air defenses?

 

At least one other F-117 (unusable), at least one A-10 (engine replaced), at least one other F-16, and at least two helicopters during pilot extraction.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm about to make a remark about the US president, but I'm not. Let's talk about the F-22, and not about horrible acts done by NATO planes and the Serb military for that matter.

 

Are there any plans on updating the FBW software on the F-22? The thing seems really sluggish with it's 3:1 thrust ratio and l33t pilots, it couldn't even pull off a decent *C-WORD* *beep*, and the F-16 MATV could, so what's the matter with the FBW software? Fat cat dev crews not done enough work, or just some "safe flying" mode (not G and A0A restrictions, just a peacetime mode to minimize maintenance hours)?

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least one other F-117 (unusable), at least one A-10 (engine replaced), at least one other F-16, and at least two helicopters during pilot extraction.

 

Interesting - I remember another F-117 suffering *minor* damage and two A-10s suffering minor damage from MANPADs and AAA. AFAIK no helicopters were damaged at all. The CSAR operations were textbook IIRC.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having no soul is symptomatic of it being a new aircraft. All planes gain their carisma after years of use.
I don't agree, it's more or less the same with old cars versus new cars, old cars have generally more of a soul than new cars, but that has less to do with the actual age than the complexity and design of the vehicle, less complex, more soul.

 

Just as you say below, the F22 has an improved man to machine interface but that is also something that contributes to the craft having significantly less "soul" than other older and less complex aircraft.

But in the end it's just up to how you define soul in a machine I guess... but to me a typewriter has more soul than a computer.

 

The F-22 Epitomizes the efficiancy with the interface between man and machine, this what I find it to be the raptors strong part. When you get into combat you dont want to flip 20 swiches all over the dashboard because not ontly that hampers you but its also too slow to react in time, and degrades your SA.

 

The enemy does this and all I gotta do is aply force to the fingers on the positions thay are at all times and I will know what the enemy is doing and always anticipate his moves. I will have a missile up his tailpipe even before he thinks about doing the same.

...all good reasons why a sim about that plane would be extremely boring.

i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...all good reasons why a sim about that plane would be extremely boring.

 

DID's Total Air War. The way you make an F-22 sim interesting and fun is to (optionally) give the player more to do than just fly the F-22, like being War Room General or AWACS Commander of several HUGE dynamic campaigns, with changing political alliances and time limits to achieve your objectives. Also, stealth planning, management and stalking rank high on my fun-to-do list. TAW is anything but boring, IMO.

 

Even Microprose took the most boring a/c of all, the F-117, and made an incredibly immersive game of it, IMO. It can be done.

--

 

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm about to make a remark about the US president, but I'm not. Let's talk about the F-22, and not about horrible acts done by NATO planes and the Serb military for that matter.

 

Are there any plans on updating the FBW software on the F-22? The thing seems really sluggish with it's 3:1 thrust ratio and l33t pilots, it couldn't even pull off a decent *C-WORD* *beep*, and the F-16 MATV could, so what's the matter with the FBW software? Fat cat dev crews not done enough work, or just some "safe flying" mode (not G and A0A restrictions, just a peacetime mode to minimize maintenance hours)?

 

That's one of the problems with that machine... They invented special language to code in, and now noone knows how to program on it properly (since there are no manuals, and all of ppl who developed it are unavailable). therefore, control system is a bit of a dinosaur. It has an old core, but bits of new code added on for new systems, and ajustments to FBW system. Problem is, it's all not coded very well, plus new bits are in a slightly different language... I guess programmers forgot to allow assembler plugins! :D

Overall, control system on F-22 resambles windows XP - quite new OS, yet has an old core... (P.S. that is before the SP1...:smilewink: )

The bird of Hermes is my name eating my wings to make me tame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IguanaKing

I take it you guys didn't watch those airshow vids of the F-22A? Did you see it basically hovering for several seconds with its nose straight up in the air? Useless in combat, just like the Kobra, but its pretty cool to watch. :P

 

About the software, none of us here know anything about how its coded. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one of the problems with that machine... They invented special language to code in, and now noone knows how to program on it properly (since there are no manuals, and all of ppl who developed it are unavailable). therefore, control system is a bit of a dinosaur. It has an old core, but bits of new code added on for new systems, and ajustments to FBW system. Problem is, it's all not coded very well, plus new bits are in a slightly different language... I guess programmers forgot to allow assembler plugins! :D

Overall, control system on F-22 resambles windows XP - quite new OS, yet has an old core... (P.S. that is before the SP1...:smilewink: )

 

Actually they're using a language that's been around the Department of Defense for many decades - Ada. ADA 83 & 95 are being used for 90% of the code. This language is well developed and the DOD isn't the only source of programmers. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and many other defense contractors have both programmers and instructors to teach and code in the language. Portions of the code are being updated to Ada 95 since the compilers are available.

 

Look, I'm a pilot and I know this stuff. It's not rocket science, that any new system will have its bugs. However in the over 30 million lines of code, to military specifications, I might add, there's not been a software crash that has caused a mishap resulting in loss of aircraft or human life. The pilot who entered a pilot induced oscillation on takeoff caused the crash of his aircraft, not the F-22, because of lack of understanding of the control gains he was in at the time of takeoff. There's much more reliability than WindowsXP or linux (no offense to Microsoft or Linux developers).

 

There's so much misinformation - on both sides of the F-22 debate that people should really think about researching before jumping in with heresay. It's easy to speculate. It's hard to have facts at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I've written some ADA. Solid language with protection for the runtime, though it has its quirks like anything.

 

It is generally used in industry for a lot of control applications.

[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

Guest IguanaKing
Hmm, I've written some ADA. Solid language with protection for the runtime, though it has its quirks like anything.

 

It is generally used in industry for a lot of control applications.

 

Heh...I just test, calibrate, troubleshoot, and update these boxes. The only thing I know about the coding is that, just like any other program, there are bugs here and there. Also, in the avionics world, its also not all that uncommon to break one feature while adding another. Hmmm...sounds just like sim development. :D This exact kind of situation is why I had to go to the AFA so many times one year. The manufacturer only pays warranty on the version of software released in the last 30 days, so doing the AD when we did, on pretty much all of their Katana's (28 of them last time I checked), we were forced to use V3.05. The AD stated 3.03 or above was mandatory. So, we loaded their GTX330s with 3.05, and a month later...it was discovered that 3.05 had broken a few critical functions, so I had to go back down there and install 3.06. Its OK though, that was 1 hour of labor on each aircraft which was paid by the GTX330 manufacturer X 2. So, we got paid for 56 hours of labor, while investing a total of only 12 hours. They paid my mileage too, so it was a good deal...they really take good care of their customers and dealers. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest IguanaKing

 

Your statement doesn't belie any type of nationality, just ignorance. So congrats, we don't know where you hail from but we know how bright the bulb is.

 

That's no joke, Rugg. Hmmm...last time I checked the "American" in question was Canadian. Aren't the uneducated assumptions funny? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you even read the book?
Yes I did. And I see that you read the book as well, because both of us stated that A-10’s “hunting” was not “fruitful” over Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

 

Unless you think civilians in mass graves is a good thing..................
I just don’t know where did you get this idea from? I had never said anything like that. I never implied anything like that. I just don’t understand what is this about Ruggbutt, why are you saying things like that?

Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you really read the book, you would know that the Serbs were using civilians as human shields at times.
Uhhh, no comments my friend, no comments!

Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hard deck for most of the operations was Angels 10-15 while assigned altitudes were above Angels 20.

 

 

Ooooh.... pooy little aiylpayne scayed of ouy poooy litle totaly defeted air defensses.... and still managed to get shot at..

 

civilians were given protection... they kind of needed it with terrorists attacking them from land and air.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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