Comments on: Raptor … or Turkey? (Part Four)

By: MELANIE

MELANIE — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:21:37 +0000

GIVE ME AN SR 71 DECKED OUT WITH NEW AVONICS AND MISSILES ANYDAY .

By: chuckm90

chuckm90 — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:18:53 +0000

Thank you for accepting my apology. That in itself is a hard trait to obtain and hold onto in these times.
Maintain those climbing turns mate!

By: extremebio

extremebio — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:12:38 +0000

Thank you for being big enough to apologize, truly something rare in the world today and especially with the anonymity of the internet. No worries and here’s to many more lively discussions!

By: extremebio

extremebio — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:48:34 +0000

Thank you for being big enough to apologize, truly something rare in the world today and especially with the anonymity of the internet. No worries and here’s to many more lively discussions!

By: chuckm90

chuckm90 — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:04:47 +0000

extremebio; Please accept my sincere apology for making you feel unwelcome. You made some valid points and I was truely inconsiderate of your opinions and observations.
I hope you will forgive my shortsighted and rude manner. It is not indicative of this forum and the people that frequent it. I was out of place in my comments and hope you will feel welcome once again to participate in the discussions here. We are all here to share ideas, thoughts and experiences with an open mind.
Kind Regards
Chuckm90

By: chuckm90

chuckm90 — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:58:14 +0000

1st: extremebio needs to do his homework before involving himself in these discussions. If you were at AFRL during that time, all you saw of the flyoff was these beasts passing overhead at your remote mountain site.
2nd: The YF-23 was not a Boeing product, It was a Northrop-McDonnell Douglas team product. Boeing and MacDac were not merged yet. Boeing is teamed with Lockheed on the YF-22 (now the F-22A). They make the center body section and ship to Georgia for final assy. Flt test is still ongoing here at EDW. Boeing is a still involved here with the program.
3rd: I am reluctant to think that a FB-22 acft will ever be capable of putting more than 2 ea. 1K lb. JDAM warheads on target. As well the weapon bay can also accomodate 8 ea. 250 lb SDB’s. The wing hardpoints are only 5K lb max rated and are designed to carry only A2A armament (AIM ordinance). Only option would be to design and manufacture a larger midbody and wing for the design. This would increase your internal payload and maybe up the hardpoints to 10k for external stores. But when you use external stores you sacrifice your stealth elements.
The basic doctrine of the bomber is to put a LARGE amount of explosives on a single or multiple number of targets(JDAMs — cruise example)and as deeply into enemy territory as possible. I can see only some variations to this doctrine which is evident by how the B-1 and B-2 baseline doctrine has evolved to their current multi-mission roles. Can a FB-22 ever be capable of doing that?
4: A single seat fighter bomber acft creates some problems. You have range limitations, single crewmember resource, ordinance payload and type limitations, subjection of many more highly skilled pilots committed to a target in a hostile enviornment/region/territory, than you would have with a single large/mid scale manned bomber. The F/B-111 had a 2 man crew and had a large payload capability that the F-22 just dont have right now. We should just resurrect the FB-111 (tongue in cheek).
I agree that a supersonic manned bomber is still needed that can provide stealth capabilites and get the payload on target quickly and effectively as well as provide as safe as possible passage to and from target for our sky warriors as possible.
Finally, I dont think Al Queda has the funding to buy or build 21st generation fighters and bombers. Last I recall, they just highjack very large and slow commercial aircraft. We can use a P-51 to bring down one of those if need be. Think we should put in a call to the Confederate Air Force?

By: extremebio

extremebio — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:01:51 +0000

I was stationed at Edwards starting in January of 1991 at the Air Force Research Laboratory (Then Phillips Lab). Contract for F-22 was awarded April 91. Not that I feel the need to defend myself to you by any means, but you do the math there. Besides, I’ve got no reason to lie. ::shrugs:: Take it for what it’s worth, an opinion.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:56:40 +0000

Yeah, I’m sure you saw them both. Riiiiight.

By: extremebio

extremebio — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:48:22 +0000

Speaking as someone who saw both the YF-22 and YF-23 fly, I think the Boeing plane was a much better option than the 22. In my mind, it was political concerns that lost the 23 the contract. Boeing already had received contracts for the B-2 and Lockheed couldn’t afford to be shut out again. Everything I saw flying, the 23 was just as good if not superior. In addition, it was simply a better looking, more elegant design.
I would love to see a resurrected F-23

By: Yuri

Yuri — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:58:15 +0000

Oof. Forgive me for the 3X post. I had thought it didn’t go through.