If the missile is lofted and just decends during the terminal phase I see no reason why the range would reduce by 30%. While air density is higher at low heights increasing drag, lift is also better at that altitudes and it should be easier for a missile to maintain energy while decending than keeping in level flight or even climbing to the target.

Of course, scorps, the only sensible explanation for Cola’s little rant is that the F-22 itself was low down – ie 500ft as he puts it and fires from there. Additionally I find it amusing that he understands the technical intricacies of US DACT or how he is an authority on what makes the F-22 superior or not – despite not really understanding the particular ROE. Additionally I love how he gives an AMRAAM a pk thats based on a different variant of the missile. Not to mention the fact that he knows the F-22 becomes visible on radar at 30km – universally. Its a pitty he doesn’t realise that a lot of literature written on anti-VLO tactics adopted by F-16s and F-15s have shown pilots using ground hugging tactics have failed almost as miserably as those using different tactics. Now I can understand being impartial – which is what I expect – but the poor chap has a chip on his shoulder – probably from digesting to much F-22 fanboy nonsense.

No one ever said anything was “invented” for the F119 – and where thats relavent to operational performance I don’t know? No one cares if a real design is conventional and offers or exceeds the required level of performance. You need to learn to differentiate between meeting/exceeding operational requirements through use of innovative techniques and just using innovative techniques for the sake of using them – taking with you the complexities they entail…. Also don’t compare the invention of variable cycle/bypass engines with thrust vectoring on a stable aircraft like the Harrier – its laughable. The F-35 which could have actually benefited from the use of VBR turbofan didn’t incorporate the technology in the 21st century… it obviously went through cost benefit analysis/tradeoff studies/trades to our yankie friends in both concept development and detailed design phases of the F-35 whereby it was duely rejected.

F119 – incorporated BLISKS, Hollow fan blades, counter-rotating spools, two stage combustors and 2D TVC – with an exceptional TWR – seeing as its dry weight including the heavy TVC nozzle is only 3900lb.

Cheers

While i consider the 119 an interesting piece of technology, the engine itself is quiet conventional, is big, yes, powerful, yes, but is nothing out of this world, the F120 was the real SC engine

Wrong! The F120 was definitely more unconventional, more innovative and more risky with its variable bypass solution…. but that does not translate into being the “real SC engine” or even a better engine in any paramter… only for fanboys, but not for any engineer who has to make a solution work or be as reliable and effective in every situation as the more conventional version.

Of course it is. All we know are the current/revised requirement specifications! These are the legal requirements that the LM/subcontractor team are obliged to meet as a minimum.

Cola1973 gave the answer already. 😉

Sorry – I haven’t read the thread – so I don’t know what his figure was – but unless he’s found a publically released figure – I would be exceptionally cautious of taking an estimate – especially if he got his figures from any marketing types.

Flex that question will always remain – espescially if your not in the industry – unless however you choose to believe USAF reports that state the F-22 is stealthier than the Nighthawk. While it may defy your “cold logic”, it sounds fairly reasonable to many; the problem being your comparison of the different VLO philososphies – ie continous curvature vs aligned flat surfaces.

If a Nighthawk of the 21st century was designed with its current VLO solution it may well be stealthier and more relavently so than the F-22. However we aren’t comparing this hypothetical jet with the F-22 – but rather a 70s design with an F-22 design which has been refined well into the 21st century. The Raptor benefited from much greater computing power, a vast budget, a wealth VLO experience and knowledge and perhaps most importantly the greatly improved manufacturing processes and advances in materials engineering that came with time.

Right now they’re to bulky to be fitted to FJs – unless they manage to fuse a sensor system like DAS/MLD with the laser itself.

I was under the impression that congress cut $10 – $15 billion from the “congressional cap”, resulting in the 183 figure. This raised the price of each jet.