JwcookThe aircraft’s engines are major signature contributors in the rear of the aircraft. The F-22 uses two Pratt & Whitney F119 engines coupled with 2D thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles. Integration of these powerful, high-temperature engines into the airframe was an extremely difficult design challenge. The rear end of the engine is largely exposed to radar. The multi-bounce effects caused by the nozzle cavity and nozzle flaps, and the large gaps required for thermal expansion and for nozzle movement complicate the situation. An extensive test program was conducted on a full-scale twin nozzle model to make design trades and to generate a final design
Source Page 3
Happy now?
JwcookI think the Gripen NG has a lot to offer, its cheap and effective, a superb choice for those countries that are not intending to fight out of their home area, I’m not saying the Gripen couldn’t fight outside its area…
Its really the entry fighter of choice, its capabilities are being extended and its networking is also excellent, I’d expect a few orders for it because the NG solves some of the quirky bits from the old version..
Rafale is a bit stuck at present, it doesn’t look too good even if a few foreign orders come in, the French are not cashed up to really keep the Rafale ahead, best they can do is creep along slowly, get a few exports and wait till times are better, which is a shame because its a really good airframe, foreign orders will help but not much
Typhoon is having a fair run at the moment, a few exports and the AtoG coming along (still too slowly IMHO), its awaiting tranche 3 negotiation results and I hope news of that comes out at Farnborough airshow, along with some more good news.:)
If it gets CAESAR and Conformal tanks then it is very looking good till the JSF arrives, if Eurofighter Tranche 3 is completely canceled (very very unlikely) then things look a bit grim… but If the JSF is delayed and/or the price goes up (very likely) then further exports and enhancements will follow, especially anti shipping weapons in which there seems to be a bit of a hole in its offerings….
Norway was to be involved with that area but things changed:( The Norway situation deserves a thread all of its own, they seem to have painted themselves into a corner.
Cheers
Jwcookprovided the claims are based on facts and not “the dog ate my homework” when asked to back claims. Stop trying to be such the martyr.
So where did you get the 5 deg cone info for the F-35??
If you look at the back end of the F-22 it received every bit as much attention as the rest of the aircraft. Hell, even the doors that cover the TAIL HOOK have serrated edges to the rear.
Just as a matter of interest take a look at the rear of the F-22, notice a few more gaps etc than the front???:-
Cheers
JwcookAn evaluation of the complete F-22 radar signature using computer
models and a scale version of the aircraft concluded that the
aircraft’s radar signature did not meet the Air Force’s operational
requirement. Although DOD advised us that these problems were not
considered major, design changes, such as reducing the number of
aircraft maintenance access panels and fuel drain holes, and
reshaping the airframe were evaluated through December 1994 to
determine if these changes were successful in reducing the signature.
DOD further stated that the contractual specifications are being
revised.
JwcookIts really hard trying to have a reasonable discussion on the F-22, If you ever mention any reduction/omission the program is suffering from you always get people who can’t see any problems at all..
I read a document where it stated the RCS specification was ‘relaxed’ at the rear (not canceled, not removed, but relaxed) all I can do at the moment is find supporting documentation that builds the case but not the actual quote.
There are over 200 hundred RCS measurement points but they only report on one and that is in percentage terms.. for example “Golf ball sized” is from that one angle.
Frontal RCS in a fighter is important, but in an “All aspect” aircraft its not a good indicator and requires some wriggling on possible explanations as to why its used as a single measurement point, and not an overall figure.
The US Airforce since ~1998 have only been reporting on the one measurement and that is from the front sector only, do a search on “F-22 Front sector only”.
Hmm quick question for you – If you were buying a car and it was described as “really good paintwork at the front”, as opposed to “really good paintwork” what would you think???.
In short lets just wait till I’ve gone through some paperwork, and I’ll see If I can find the quote.
Cheers
JwcookRelax? :rolleyes: Because I corrected you? And what source are you quoting anyway? Also, just because an IR sensor might be able to detect you from 30 miles from the rear doesn’t mean you want to give a radar-guided SAM a free shot if you don’t have too.
You say its “all aspect” and I say its “all aspect” So what exactly are you correcting?.
As for a source, For now its from memory as I can’t find a link/reference.
ISTR its was in a report GAO/POGO but that could be wrong… I will try to get it as there was some other stuff that was interesting in regard to design changes.
the gist if it is:-
The nozzles went through several problems from 1995 page 32and indeed some of the cost escalations on the program are attributable to the nozzles Page 21, (even from the YF-22 the nozzles had been reshaped to be more curved to reduce weight.)
The redesigns and changes coupled with the expense led to compromises, one of which was a relaxation of the radar cross section requirement, it doesn’t mean its not stealthy anymore – just the requirement was moved to a more acheivable position.
Interesting tidbit – One of the FB-22 design goals was to be much more stealthy than the F-22, especially in the ‘all aspect’ region one of the ways this was to be achieved was by the removal of the vectored thrust exhausts which is a RCS problem area and fixed exhausts were to used instead.
Cheers
JwcookThat’s actually incorrect. The F-22 has all-aspect stealth. Google it, there are about a thousand entries on it including Lockheed Martin’s site (of course their site couldn’t possibly be true. :rolleyes: )
Calm down now…relax… Here’s a couple of quotes for you ..
“Raptor was designed according to the concept of “balanced observables.” Mandating the Raptor’s signatures be reduced so that IR and radar sensors would have a similar detection range.”
“This rule says that a stealth aircraft should be designed so that every detection system arrayed against it has roughly the same range. There is no point in building an aeroplane that is invisible to radar at five miles if optical sensors can see it at ten miles.”
Yes it is all aspect stealth, but the F-22 requirements were ‘relaxed’ from the rear aspect due to the cost of making the rear of the F-22 as radar stealthy as the front, especially when an IR sensor could detect it by an order of magnitude further, its just been downgraded from the original specs.
Just as the requirement for thrust reversers were dropped as the landing distance was ‘relaxed’ from 2000′ to 3000′ and the vulnerability requirement was relaxed by about 30 percent when it didn’t meet the specs etc etc.
So don’t worry you can still call it ‘all aspect stealth’, just its a more relaxed all aspect from the rear.:D
Hmmmmm is the Typhoon all aspect LO:rolleyes:
The 5 degrees would probably come from the conical area behind the F-35 where one could actually look up the tail pipe.
IMHO 5 degrees looks pretty narrow that must be from a view exactly on the beam, as from other angles it looks more like 40%.
Cheers
JwcookThe F-22 has all-aspect stealth, it is the F-35 that does not, and even then it’s only a 5 degree cone.
The rear of the F-22 has ‘a relaxed RCS reduction’ measures, this was part of the balanced approach to RCS and IR signatures.
Its was a nice way of saying there wasn’t much point busting your balls/budget on the rear RCS when the IR was the big give away.
The only rumours I’ve heard are the F-35 might be stealthy coming but you can certainly see it going, so where does the 5 deg cone quote come from?
Cheers
john
Jwcookheres a couple of interesting ones:-
From this website http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/Museums/Monino/Highlights/index.html
You have to wonder if the NATO code names are ramdomly picked, this is the C0CK
and this one for laughs
JwcookBy that logic one could make the same case about the Typhoon or Rafale. If insurgents are the only ones to be fought I dont see what benefit the tiffy brings to the fight that the Tornado cant handle? So relatively speaking thats just as big a waste of money.
Cost is the key here, these are multirole aircraft, replacing older multirole aircraft in sufficient numbers to deploy and use and even lose. This is not the case with the F-22.
I have seen a few journo’s take the line that TLAMs/Cruise missiles are the best way to shut down an IADS. While surely crucial to the anti-IADS effort, they have some serious limitations that make “stealth” SEAD/DEAD aircraft essential.
Yes but do they have to be manned??, is that in anyway sensible?. no one in a stealth aircraft is going to actually eyeball the missile site… are they??.
One of the main issues with a TLAM is the mobility integrated into the newer S-300/400 systems. I dont see how a TLAM with set co-ordinates traveling at subsonic speeds can combat the mobility of such systems. Not to mention launching cruise missiles at the target requires knowledge of where the target is; will we always have that information and will it always be there?
Having an F-22 as the sensor is dumb, unmanned systems are far better to send, they are much more expendable.
I would far rather have the stealthier F-22 as opposed to an F-35/EF Typhoon combined with cruise missiles than just having cruise missiles when combating an advanced IADS.
Cost wise would you rather have 20 F-22 with a few hundred SDB or 40 cheaper aircraft with 100 Cruise missiles?.
Whats more tactically useful, having F-22/F-35 fly within 30KM of these missiles/radars or cheaper aircraft having long standoff capability.
Cheers
JwcookSo it did work then? which makes me wonder why you wrote:
“shock and awe’ that patently hasn’t worked in Afghanistan and Iraq”
So it either worked or it patently failed? Which one was it?
Depends on your definition of worked!!. seems your suffering from reality gap, how would you describe Iraq and the situation post war?, I guess the populous have remained shocked and awed in Iraq and it seems to be fueling the problem.
But if it makes you happy then ‘Shock and Awe’ won the war in Iraq, and clearly the world is a safer place now Iraq its a haven for peace and democracy in the middle east… :rolleyes:
You think the F-22 will remain top dog?
It doesn’t matter if its top dog or not, cheaper more effective assets will continue to provide the capability the F-22 does now and in the future.
If the F-22 is the answer then its a very strange question.!:confused:
And if you ever “fight a proper war” with Russia or China I doubt the F-22 will make one iota of difference to the outcome.
For example if the PAK-FA is produced and if its better than the F-22 and if its bought in numbers greater than 400, does that mean the US loses in any conflict against it?? or does the PAK-FA need anything else to back it up?
I’ll ask again – can you not think of something better the USAF could spend its limited budget on????
Cheers
JwcookJust look at the last large conflict against a foreign country with IADS airforce and an army… Hmm IRAQ!!
Now look at what happens, the initial campaign lasted weeks, the losses on the Coalition side were extremely light, Shock and Awe did indeed work to remove the government.. then what? remember the saying “won the battle but lost the war??”
How about comparing what happened after GW Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’ and then tell me the air component is the one with the problems!!, if only the US had had a few hundred F-22’s that would have made a huge difference, I think not.
The US is suffering from being equipped with the wrong equipment mix…
You seem to have this notion that total air dominance is the only requirement to avoid casualties.. IraqAfghanistan proves the point, where are most of your casualties.
The F-22 does not bring anything to the fight in the two biggest theaters the US has been engaged it in since Vietnam.
It is of no value in the age of cruise missiles for the bombing role, why send in manned fighters to a dense IADS.. thats just foolish why take the risk because the F-22 is not totally invisible to radar.
It only has the niche role of uber fighter to keep the it from being eclipsed by the F-35, and this is only by a small margin, plus the F-35 is ahead of the F-22 in several other areas.
I would suggest there are bigger problems in the US military than getting 300 odd uber fighters…Honestly – can you not think of something better the USAF could spend its limited budget on?
What sort of conflict are you imagining where the F-22 is indispensable or where other assets couldn’t do the same tasks?
Cheers
JwcookI think you have got it wrong.. the addition of an uberfighter like the F-22 does not put off insurgents..
If the US were to put that sort of money into logistics and equipping ground forces then the airborne ‘shock and awe’ that patently hasn’t worked in Afghanistan and Iraq could be replaced with adequately supplied and equipped ground forces that can take and hold ground.. this is a far more terrifying prospect for those that wish to threaten the west.
Apparently flying over places and dropping bombs doesn’t really win you friends among the locals, but ground forces who keep law and order and stability do…
Which one do you think Al-queda would fear the most.. the removal of its recruitment grounds or a sky full of F-22’s..
Don’t go quoting the rise of China or North Korea, or even Iran – none would have its foreign policy swayed by having the F-22, However a US military with the capability to attack and resupply is a much larger concern..
I think the US would be a much stronger war fighting ability if those sort of niche weapons were abandoned.
cheers
JwcookThe official numbers used by US government agencies up to 2013 are here –
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/hist.html
Scroll down to Section 10, table 10.1 – 37 kb spreadsheet.
Or look here – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/summarytables.html
and scroll down to table S10, which summarises economic assumptions. Basically, they’re assuming roughly steady 2% inflation (GDP deflator, not consumer prices – i.e. the average price increase over the whole economy).
Roughly steady ‘High’ 2%’s…and are these figures a little dated?
The JSF price has always been vague because they quite simply don’t know, promising a price now is very brave, I wonder what the caveats are?.
They are trying to sell something, with a set price before development is finished… I guess there would be a clause for either party to exit if the price went over the ‘fixed’ price, but by then its too late the ‘partners’ will be wedded to the JSF, this is great marketing strategy.
Please excuse the cynic in me but its similar to a confidence scam called ‘salting the mine’ on a huge scale:-
1. The ‘partners’ are promised a ‘too good to be true deal’ (a US$31M stealthy fighter bomber).
2. But the seller require a deposit/entrance fee to participate, (Thats called the Hook).
3. The seller then strings the ‘partners’ along with excuses/delays and changes to original promised deal (JSF international version!), the ‘partners’ will not leave as they have a stake in the business (the Hook) despite the excuses and delays.
The options are:- the Partner to exit the deal and loses the deposit and loses face or to carry on to the end and finally get something back thus justifying the payment (the Hook).
4. The seller finally sells the product at a price higher than it could ever have been sold for at the beginning.
The ‘Partners’ will defend the seller in this, as not defending him admits you’ve been conned.:diablo:
We are at stage 3 now…
Its absolutely fantastic marketing!!
Anyone ever tempted by the “Sea Monkeys” in the back of marvel comics??
🙂
Cheers
JwcookNot sure where you get the idea that there is “limited interest” in increasing the number of F-22s. The USAF would sell it’s soul to get more.
I think he’s referring to ‘limited to The USAF’, and then ‘limited to the USAF fighter community’, the Logistics side of the USAF will have a different priorities, as would the entire US Army who would prefer the money elsewhere, as would the entire US Navy.
When you look at it from a a different perspective it is quite limited, that different perspective is now been enforced with a the sacking of the fighter orientated guy and replacement with a transport orientated guy at the top.
The USAF has just stopped the ~20,000 reduction in staffing (these were to pay for the big ticket items).. Seems the big ticket items are taking a back burner for a while.:eek:
Cheers
Sign In
