As far as whether or not their statement about not needing longer range radar being valid, that’s not what I was addressing. I was merely pointing out that the F-15/AESA can “see” further than can the F-22, and giving USAF’s rationale for same. Whether that’s valid, especially when you’re out looking for the bad guys, is another story and outside the scope of what I was saying.

Well that, it can’t – Theres absolutely no doubt that the F-15 sensor wise cannot match the F-22 in terms of “seeing far”. The reason for that is the AN/ALR-94. But in terms of radar tech – and seeing far with just the radar – we are clueless. I know the 63 has a slightly higher T/R count but thats not the only determining factor for range. The Power per T/R mod is very important and the tech level of the T/R modules, the cooling system and of course the software. So I dont think we can safely say that since the latest 63 has a higher T/R count it has a longer range. I’d tend to think the latest upgrades of the 77 will out range the 63 with touted ranges in excess of 250 nm.

As far as ramjet AIM-120 goes, they’ve had the ability to produce that for at least 15 years. Avweek even once said a brassboard version was flown in Desert Storm. Who knows? In any case, one of the big reasons USAF has been against long range missiles is partly to justify the cost of the F-22. Also, they wouldn’t have fit in Lockheed’;s weapons bay, and they also were concerned that Congress may have cut funding for F-22 if there were missiles that could shoot and guide at standoff ranges where stealth is not that important for a fighter. Remember also, though, that long range capability can also be translated to powered flight in the end game at lesser ranges, giving a maneuvering advantage.

Any A-A Ramjet will be designed to fit within the bays of the F-22; the Meteor being offered to the F-35 can fit within the F-22. With the development of a new LRAAM with folding fins we may in fact find it carry more than 6 internally.

However, so far USAF has stoutly resisted any moves towards dramatically increased range ramjet or otherwise, saying stealth solves everything. That’s the reason they originally proposed removing AIM-9 capability from the production F-22, saying no one would ever get close enough to use it. It’s also why they said a Helmet Mounted Sight wasn’t necessary. Stealth would solve everything (IMHO, stealth is actually only fourth in the things that makes F-22 good, after altitude, supercruise and its electronics).

I’d say the VLO is more important than its other characteristics – The USAF agree with me – but they are all as you say vital. The fanboys tend to big up VLO – making it invincible and applicable in all situations -whereas the detractos equally play down its importance :).

As far as capability of the APG-77 vs APG-63(whatever), it depends on the internals that we aren’t privy to and when the designs were “locked”. Because of the F-22s glacial gestation, the -77’s technology is at least a decade old. How much in the new -63’s is legacy, and how much is “new”? I don’t know, but that can have a big bearing. And, of course, USAF is going to hold back on how much they allow to go into USAF -15s as long as they think they’re a chance of getting more F-22s.

Agreed on not knowing the classified details – Disagree on the 77 being a decade old in tech; the 77 and the rest of the Raptor is an on going development with newer T/R mods – new software – new cooling systems etc in development throughout its life time. We are already on new 77 blocks and eventually it will adopt the lastest and greatest directly from the development of the 81.

I wonder how what will be in the -15SG will compare?

🙂
________
Black Videos

The F-22 has more potential power – to power the radar, than an F-15, due to the engines. But the big difference in SA is the AN/ALR-94 and its antenna farm. Im pretty sure the 77 is a higher rated radar – power wise than any 63.
________
Lovely Wendie99

That an opinion respectable but just an opinion, a 34500kg weight easily can mean 11500kg and a minimun of 7000kg of payload, of course with this you get a weight of a conventional Su-27, a slightly lighter aircraft is not an impossiblity.

You are trying to imply if it weighs 18000kg only will carry 11500kg in internal fuel and a payload of 5000kg yeah this means the Russians made a heavier aircraft.

That is just wishful thinking new materials at least make the Su-35BM in the same league of a Su-27 in order to slander Sukhoi you need a heavy fighter with less range or less weapons but that is just speculation to fit an theory of a less capable fighter.

Mate what Schorsch is saying is not wishful thinking – I don’t see why he would wish it anyway. Now I dont know what you do as a job or what your technical knowledge is but Schorsch is an Aero Engineer. He has studied the design of aircraft and as such realises that when an aircraft has these considerations: “Considering the advertised rougher landing gear, the increased internal fuel, the 9g load factor and the increased life time, the aircraft must in fact be much heavier than before. A think an OEW of 18-20t is realistic.” – the mass of the jet jumps considerably – materials offer only incremental benefits and any RCS work they may have done to the jet will have increased the weight even more. It is a reality that all fighters have – The F-22 – The Eurofighter – Gripen and any upgrades tend to add weight.

I would like to know why they used canards for a while but now more or less returned to the original Suchoi 27 looking.

I would assume they removed the canards for drag issues – especially if its suposed to supercruise.

I’ve read pretty much everything on F-16.net and Fence Check about it. So much for your “obviously”. I also read some of Dozer’s general F-22 posts on FC before they were pulled and he was muzzled.
We already discussed this once before, but you quickly lost interest in it back then:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1145958&postcount=66
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1145961&postcount=67

Go check it out and tell me what was wrong about:

The contained facts are:

• at 1000ft out the Hornet already had its pipper on the F-22
• the planes were perpendicular to each other
• the Hornet was not pulling lead
• we don’t know what happened after the 900ft shot, because we don’t have any more pictures of the engagement

Tell me, how does that deviate from what the pictures show and leads you to think that I obviously have not read some other account of it.

Also, if there is a very specific post on F-16.net that contradicts me factually and supports your stance, then please provide a link. Perhaps I missed it. Could be interesting.

You made the claim, you tell me. Or are you coming clean that you were just parroting a marketing quote without knowing anything about it? That’d be a shocker.

Satorian at the top of page 2 on this very thread is Dozers account of what happened. That is the account sferrin is refering to.

Its a bit more complex than pitch authority….

So the short answer is when you see a Typhoon nose pitch up its because the FCS missed a split second of work and then it does just enough to stop it going completely out of control to continue the turn..so in effect it runs on a knife edge…

Cheers

🙂 Because the Eurofighter is unstable in the vertical axis like many NG fighters including the F-22/Gripen/Rafale doesn’t detract from the original question. Of course the actual fuselage/shape of the aircraft is unstable – ie like when throwing a rock; you see it spin and roll around in mid flight. So if it has a tendency to pitch up when the FCS “misses work” as you put it – the reactive force – giving pitch authority/control is produced from the canards and elevons – so to put it simply they provide the aircrafts full pitch authority/control. But the canards provide more of it than the elevons due to simple physics. They just generate a reactive force against the natural motion of the aircraft; especially when pitching up as the Eurofighter in subsonic flow has a centre of pressure ahead of the centre of gravity – thus making the canards negative lift surfaces. When pitching down I suspect they do all the work against the natural motion of the jet.

Wow this thread is becoming amsuing at best. I dont know what moderator policy is here but some people either have no clue at all or are intentional wind-ups. :).

1MAN – learn to think before you type bud, I mean honestly; I doubt you have much technical experience in these matters, from some of your posts. I would keep your day job :).

I will say this to you though – aerospace and defense engineering is a world of compromise. Most gains are incremental – and requirments change. Hence the technical specifications change; comparing the starfighters supersonic persistence to an F-22’s is pointless – it shows your complete ignorance in the matter. The starfighter was and is essentially a bullet, a supersonic tube – the F-15 and to a greater extent the F-22 have had new requirements. They are much larger, heavier aircraft, with modern avionics and structural engineering that require bulkier and more g-tolerant designs. The fact the F-22 carries all of its avioncs, is VLO, agile and can supercruise with impressive supersonic persistance for today’s fighter aircraft is a very much greater leap, than the starfighters niche supersonic persistence was back in the day.

One could argue today that an F-22 in an AD role is worth 3 + F-16s. But then one could make the claim if we had the choice of 3 + F-16s in WWII or 1 F-22 in WWII (hypothetically of course), you’d take the 3 + F-16s as they’d still be unstoppable against the opposition but have the greater number of aircraft. Does that mean the F-22 is less impressive than an F-16? No of course it doesn’t – all the example illustrates is that different aircraft have been designed for differenet era’s and different requirements. So please before posting poinless statements mate, think about what your saying, and about its relevance to modern military aviation. Because in my mind you clearly don’t understand the engineering thought processes when you start making those silly ccomparisons.