Air Force officials breathed a sigh of relief Saturday as at least eight of the first 12 F-22s scheduled to deploy to Kadena Air Force Base, Japan, arrived safely with no reports of pilots suffering the hypoxia-like symptoms that have plagued F-22 pilots.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta agreed to lift certain flight restrictions on F-22 operations to allow the deployment after Air Force leaders told him they had narrowed down the cause of the oxygen problems inside the cockpit. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz blamed the oxygen problems on a valve in the Combat Edge upper pressure garment vest and an air filter that was restricting oxygen volume.
Japanese media reported that eight of the 12 F-22s arrived at Kadena on Saturday. Defense Tech is still awaiting a call back from Air Force public affairs to confirm all 12 arrived safely.
The Air Force restricted the altitude the F-22s could fly from the U.S. to Japan to ensure the problems found with the altitude vest did not put the pilots in danger. Air Force leaders also chose a route that would ensure the pilots could land as quickly as can be expected when crossing the Pacific Ocean. At not point were the pilots more than a 90 minute flight from landing.
This is not the F-22’s first deployment since the oxygen problems were identified in 2010. A squadron of F-22s deployed to the United Arab Emirates’ Al Dafra Air Base in April. In both cases, Air Force leaders said the decision was made to deploy the F-22 even in the midst of the oxygen system uncertainties because they were needed.
“There’s an operational requirement, and the birds are ready to go,” Schwartz said.
On Tuesday, the Air Force will release the results of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board’s study into life support systems on the F-22. Analysts expect to receive more details into the service’s investigation and find out more about the changes the Air Force plans to make to keep F-22 pilots safer.
{ 161 comments… read them below or add one }
Wow, it's great that these F-22s are cured just as there is an "operational need" for them? I hope that "operational need" doesn't have anything to do with them going up against Typhoon fighter jets.
“As soon as you get to the merge … the Typhoon doesn’t necessarily have to fear the F-22,” Gruene said. This is not supposed to be the sort of reaction the F-22 inspires. For years the Air Force has billed the Raptor as an unparalleled aerial combatant. Even former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who in 2009 famously cut F-22 production to just 187 copies, called the stealth jet “far and away the best air-to-air fighter ever produced” and predicted “it will ensure U.S. command of the skies for the next generation.” And it’s slowly getting taken off the probation it incurred after seemingly suffocating pilots. – http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/f-22-germ…
Ironic how the F-15 mafia picked the F-22 over the F-23 because it was the better fighter at the merge, and yet now all they can talk about is how "fast it is" and how great it is "beyond visual range". Hell, even the Air Force concedes the F-23 was faster and stealthier, even though they make up crap regarding how much faster the F-23 was to keep from being even more embarrassed than they already are by their own incompetence. The Grumman ATF entry was clearly the best fighter, and McDonnell Douglas' F-23 was both faster and stealthier, so what the Air Force bought was the worst of all 3, and isn't even up to the standards of the Eurofighter right now in a dog fight. But don't cut their funding…
You are forgetting one of the most important criteria in hardware selection…
cost… like it or not, they are more likely to select a cheaper alternative of the options if the performance degradation is deemed acceptable… ie: the option regarded as more cost effective.
We can argue more on that of course on where it's justified and not, but seriously though, in this age of missiles with hit probability so high that whoever fired first have a high chance of scoring the kill, and with their range going into obscene distance, the argument that a plane's WVR dogfight has more precedence than BVR is…. rather silly.
It's especially relevant since the russians in particular with their aircraft design and weapon loadout are optimized to throw a salvo of BVR missiles in the opening stage of the air combat.
Which is not exactly new since NATO has a similar approach too with differences.
If you are no good in BVR, ur dead… there's no dogfight if you can't even survive the opening salvo of BVR missiles.
The only way ur going into dogfight range without good BVR capability would be to somehow approach them completely undetected till WVR, a notion practically ludicrous in modern air combat.
Being a good WVR dogfighter without sufficient BVR capability in this age where a Sukhoi can carry up to 12 BVR missiles and fire up to 4 missiles in a salvo to different targets or to the same target at once is essentially carrying knife to a gunfight.
Id say dont forget the F-15 is still unmatched in air to air combat 500 to 0 in air to air kills v loses. Id put a F-15 or F-22 against any foreign plane like a Su-27/30 and or even a Mirage of any type.
Whether the plane is better than the Su-27 and more modern series or not is up to debate really (realistically a 5th generation aircraft will most likely win against a 4.5th gen aircraft).
But what's ridiculous is the notion of going into WVR dogfight in an age where BVR missiles have become reliable enough that a salvo of them has an extremely high probability of killing the target.
The russians optimized their aircraft for maximum BVR payload for a bloody good reason, NATO did the same for yet the same reason..
the whole DAMN STEALTH focus of 5th gen fighters were taken with that into account as well.
And in this incredibly lethal age for jet fighter with BVR missiles, someone actually think that WVR dogfight focus is still relevant?
He is either a hopeless romantic tied down with the old notion of dogfight, or absolutely suicidal…
You forget the ROE… Even in modern combat with all of our sophisticated sensors there are still ROE. Depending on the situation, a visual might be required before permission to fire is given. At the very least our pilots are usually required to be fired upon to return fire.
Acctually I posted a report about bad Aim 120D missiles the other day.
The F-22 is underarmed, its pilots readily admit that they will be forced into WRC simple because they dont have enough missiles.
I think it's something more along the lines of 100 to 0.
No doubt BVR comabt have come a long way and given the right circumstances it can be useful. That is assuming the pilots get permission to engage at beyond visual range. The USS Vincennes fired at a target based on radar data and look what happened. What if the next conflict the enemy uses a busy air corridor to get their aircraft into position to attack. How can you distinguish an airliner from a fighter at that point. Will the president be willing to order a strike that could potentially kill hundreds of civilians during a re-election year? It's not that awesome BVR capabilities are useless but WVR capabilities should be just as good.
We got crap. We got the slowest fighter with the shortest legs that did the second worst job of dog fighting of the 3 ATF finalists. Its not even fully operational, still having questions about its life support systems, and it's already getting whipped in dogfights by a not particularly inspired European aircraft. I'm still dumbfounded by the fact the USAF could have a fly-off between the YF-23 and the YF-22 and make the choice they made. The two aircraft aren't even in the same league. Then when they get their asses handed to them by the Typhoon the story suddenly switches to "oh, we picked the F-22 because of its stealth and speed." WTF? Hell, 20 years of Air Force propaganda about how it is the ultimate dog fighter says different. I guess it's a little late to slap a secret classification all that bs. Such incompetence, it is simply beyond belief.
If "beyond visual range" is what fighters are all about today, then bolt the F-22's radar on a C-130 and hang 200 missiles on its wings. There you go, the best BVR fighter ever. Just like an F-22 with 100 times the missiles and a $100 million rebate.
Northrop G lacked the pull of Lockmart in DC…. I thought they had the cooler bird as well.
3???
there were 3 ATF finalists? Lockheed is one, Northrop is another and… whose prototype the other one then? I didn't recall the existence of a third prototype model…
For all intents and purposes there were two ATF finalists, the ones that made it to the prototype stage. Both were extremely capable.
Knowing the technological developments that have occured in the past 20+ years, perhaps the F-23A would have been more capable. But perhaps it would have been cancelled before it even made it to the production stage. In some respects it was more risky than the Lockheed design.
You're still looking at a fighter that can hit Mach 2.4+ in full AB and Mach 1.6+ supercruise. No fighter in service today can match that. And in terms of maneuverability, it's among the best in the world. In the end the YF-22 and YF-23 were very much in the same league.
This isn't dogfighting with guns and rear-aspect heat seekers only. If both aircraft were restricted in such a manner, it's likely the F-22A would win. The reason the Typhoons are sometimes able to best the F-22A is the fact that they have ASRAAM combined with a HMCS. The F-22A does not have such something like JHMCS or HMDS and I'm not certain if AIM-9X has even been integrated.
The Raptor has its problems to be sure, but the design of the aircraft is sound. To dismiss it simply because you think Northrop's design was the better choice is absurd.
See above, on the response to Chris who questioned similar problem.
the point is at least partially valid of course.. though in the event of an actual air combat the notion of 'busy air corridor with neutral air asset' in an airspace designated as hostile zone is… well… not exactly sensible.
I think you forget that at the outset of any engagement with the US, our enemies usually do the unexpected. I would think using a known "neutral airway" as a means of attacking us would benefit an aggressor. They could hide in with commercial traffic and disguise signatures… and also make a firing solution difficult for the US.
You seem to have it all figured out, why don't you go ahead and write the history books.
This is a best fighter Plane in the world, we should continue to build more, After all we spend HUNDRED of BILLIONS in FOREIGN AID right….
i guess thats a good reason………………. eh, uhhhh, wait…. probably not.
Andy, in 20 years how many times have we needed to engage in Air to air combat? We need drought aid for farmers more than jets right now.
The reason for that is because our edge here has kept others from wanting to mess with us. We give that up, and then what?
I'm willing to bet that no country would mess with us even if we had zero F-22s.
Meanwhile, food prices are going to skyrocket and the middle class is going to pay for it.
Just like we pay for everything else… Except no one will take $1 trillion IOUs from us individually, but if the government has a gun to our heads then they get all the IOUs they want. Why should our children inherit the land of their birth or the moon we were the first to explore? Let them inherit the slavery of debt while our schools teach them how ashamed they should be to be Americans.
No……. The threat changed. From Dreams of a next Gen Battle of Britain to Guys with bombs in underwear & IED's. Thus,the drone drivers are doing most of the usefull killing.
Do you even know how much we give to FOREIGN AIDS… HUNDRED OF BILLIONS…..even some countries don't even like US…
@tiger, If you remember we have war just about every 10-12 years…
Since we have left Vietnam…
I remember. But The check book is empty & Obama cares more about Butter Than Guns spending. He wants wind turbines & electric cars. Not flashy Mig chasers. In the meantime, more needed things like a new tanker to fuel these birds gets kicked down the road. I like the toys too. Just playing reality checker…
Do you know Boeing already win Tankers contract for the Airforce ???
we should cut the Foreign Aid and use some of that money for more F22
Not every F-22 that takes off will have a oxygen issue. Give it time and varied flights to see if they appear.
Maintaining an altitude restriction for the F-22 still is not a fix, nor a cure, for what ails this wonderful craft? It must have UNRESTRICTED flight characteristics to be combat ready? It's not much different that each airman must be fit for world-wide assignments to be acceptable in the Air Force??? This article states clearly that a restriction was imposed for the flight to Kadena? Te part that puzzled me is….where in their across the Pacific Flight, did they manage to find a flight pattern that allowed the planes emergency recovery? Must had included aircraft Carriers??? Oops, I forgot inflight refueling at their beck and call….. Time will tell?
see you all in january, after the bonus checks are cashed. that will be around the same time all the problems and limitations of the raptor become public knowlegde.
Our (NATO's) exquisite agonizing over rules of engagement I strongly suspicion is not a problem in large part for those who fly Sukhois and their derivatives(ripoffs). Assume the other guys will sledge down anything in the air in front of them, right, wrong or indifferent with whatever weapon(s) are handy (hanging off the hardpoint). And if it's BVR and you're an A-380 in the wrong place, oops, no apologies.
The only time ROE ambiguity comes up is in peacetime. After the missiles start flying, civilian aircraft are going to stop commuting through it. That poor Iranian airbus that got nailed by the Vincennes thought it was broadcasting appropriate civilian IFF though it took off from a joint military/civilian airport and did not respond to attempts to communicate.
I thought the f22 had partial thrust vectoring. There saying even with thrust vectoring the typhoon is evenly matched with the f22. I fail to believe that, there has to be more to the story.
The F-22s were capable of making great off-angle turns, the problem noted by the Eurofighters was they bled away tons of energy, leaving them rather defenseless in the process.
Good answer. That's been a long time criticism of the F-22, but it's just now being fully realized. Don't worry, though, the USAF can make it all go away with propaganda.
Nope. Thats what happens to every plane that makes high angle turns. It's just a fact of life and physics. Biased much?
Really, tell that to the Typhoon pilots. Hell, you don't even have a firm grasp of the obvious.
There IS more to the story. These demos are rigged for outcome..this was to practice dogfighting, so the F22 was not ALLOWED to launch AMRAAM from BVR. It started the fight with it's stealth advantage removed/altitude advantage removed..it was a practice dogfight that never would have happened in reality…and I haven't seen any information saying that the Euros even got a kill against F22 in this highly rigged situation! Its pretty ridiculous to think the EF is more maneuverable than the F22. Ive seen the caps numbers for AoA and turn rate, and it's just not there. This story is crap.
RC: As I always say, if things don't make sense, look for the sinister. This Typhoon WVR "victory lap" story is mainly a marketing ploy for the Typhoon against the F-35. Things are never as they seem, are they?
Yes, the schills have spoken. Nothing to see here. Move along. We will tell you whatever you need to know.
For the hundred time I said dog fighting becomes obsolete if you can build a 360 degree swivel that can launch missile from any directions including defensive missiles with different charges blast frag and penetration. Darpa or skunk works invent one.
Why do you need to use a swivel for that?
Modern 5th generation AAM with Lock on after launch capability technically can just be fired and slewed towards the target (even if it's behind the aircraft) as long as there is something on the firing aircraft to give the information of where exactly the missile needs to go.
If the aircraft actually have rear sensor capable of giving targeting worthy information of the target behind the aircraft (the russian had one iirc in one of the Sukhoi series variant) then just feed the data to the missile and release it, the missile then figure out how to reach it best based on it's maximum turn capability.
One of the big selling points of DAS on the F-35 was 360° IR targeting.
I don't know if the Sukhois put IR devices in the wings or rear, but the later model 27 derivatives and the PAK-FA have a X-band in the tail (and L bands in the wings in regards to the PAK-FA).
I've always enjoyed the WVR argument, its an interesting point (especially in the F-35 vs SU department), but I'm REALLY glad to see someone else here who can properly understand that modern BVR and IR missiles are not AIM-7 Sparrows and the original Sidewinder. 120Cs and AA-12s hit. Maybe not always, but damn often.
Also, another thing to consider: The F-22 was built to be able to data link information back to the rest of the 22s in the group, and/or 15s with the proper data links.
Your 22s don't need to carry all the missiles when 4 flights of F-15s 25 miles behind them are capable of queuing off the 22s APG-77 data.
A 21st century Boulton Paul Defiant concept? With missiles instead of .303 machine guns?
Hint: Rather than a turret , think vertical launch like a ships VLS system. That seems doable.
Rather than doable, we already have capability that covers this without the complexity of such storage and orientation mechanism.
Considering the extremely limited space on a fighter and especially the physical profile of a missile, changing the missile orientation is going to be troublesome to say the least.
Instead modern AAM have lock on after launch capability with all aspect, all direction attack capability.
The missile can just be dropped, orient itself in the air with either it's control surfaces or it's thrust vectoring system either before or after the motor ignited and orient itself towards the target wherever it is… even behind the firing aircraft.
2 missiles i can remember of memory capable of doing this is IRIS-T and Python 5.
To give you an illustration of what this is supposed to do, this is a promo vid for Python 5… now of course promo vid as usual is full of trashy animation and corporate advertisement claim and what not, but the basic idea is there and is similar to what other AAM with all attack direction capability does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWG2PkwKiaQ
With the damage that Lockheed has done to the USAF you would think they would have the Order of Lenin, and Hero of the Motherland medals by now.
Look at all our defense contractors have done for us. We could once go to the Moon when NASA designed their own rockets. Now we can't even launch a man to the space station we built. We once had a huge, formidable navy when the Navy designed it's own ships. Now we can't keep 280 crappy ships floating.
Sad yet true. I miss the good old days. Speaking of which, did you hear most of the flags are still flying on th moon except the first one. Saw that on the news ….
Yes, I miss the old days too. The part that makes it most frustrating for me, though, is that we could bring them back in a heartbeat if we'd just try. I don't see this nation as fatally flawed, we just fell asleep with the autopilot on and we're a little disoriented right now. It's time to right the ship, figure out where we are, and get going toward where we want to go. There's too many good people in this country for it to be this messed up.
Technically speaking, NASA still designs its own rockets, they just don't have a spacecraft that can accommodate humans that they can fit to their rockets, just satellites and Mars rovers. As for the Navy, I'm not sure if the Navy has ever designed its own ships, they certainly come up with their own specifications and requirements but I'm not sure that the USN ever designed any of their own ship since maybe the Nautilus and the first boomer.
Technically speaking Von Braun's job is gone. If you think otherwise, go ahead and submit your resume.
HAHAHA!!!
Have Dash, save us!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Dash_II#Have_Da…
Hmmmm, better than Mrs. Dash. The idea of a non round flush fit missile body make sense. I wonder how much drag a F-14 had with a full load out? Sounds like a no brainer idea.
pls build more F22 n not e more less value for money F35. F22 is great!
There is no F-22 fairy….. Enjoy what we have.
Can't we all be happy that they arrived safely.
Cheers
Roger that!
You F-22 vs Typhoon people have the wrong idea… you should be thinking who could take on F-22s that are working WITH typhoons.
It is a shame ignorance is bliss. If I had my way, it would hurt like hell.
Great blog here! Also your website loads up very fast!
What web host are you using? Can I get your affiliate
link to your host? I wish my web site loaded up as fast as
yours lol
How is it OK if they were restricted to altitude. So they flew like a commercial jet.
Sounds like the Douglas XF6D-1 concept. A big slow missile truck…… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6D_Missileer
Misguided notion of BVR because your design is a VISIBLE missile carrier that sticks out like sore thumb.
in a BVR combat 2 things are required to win the day:
A. You see him first (impossible in the case of C-130 since your massive radar signature ensures you will be the first to be detected by radar and locked)
B. You fire and hit him first (pretty much impossible thanks to the previous point if you both have similar reach).
Having the missiles is one thing, being able to get into position that you can FIRE it and not be FIRED upon is another.
the whole point of 5th generation fighters being stealth based is to ensure the fighter is in the position to fire at the enemy before he can do the same, and preferably without the enemy knowing where to return fire.
Every single major power right now is pursuing stealth based 5th gen fighters for that very reason, there's no point on having the missiles if you can't see them and they see you bright as a Christmas light in the sky and pulverize you before you get the chance to fire anything.
Good point,
but 2 things:
1. Why use the stealth aircraft to do the visual ID, given the plethora of RF aircraft and drone asset in the modern airspace.
by going close into visual range with your stealth aircraft you effectively negates it's stealth characteristic as well which is a double dubious course of action.
2. But let's say you are in such a desperate bind that this is the case, ie:
You somehow had unknown air asset entering a zone where no friendly or neutral air asset should exist (and they ignore all orders to vacate the area)
You somehow do not have any asset at all that can give visual ID other than the F-22
Now let's say this is the case and despite the unknown asset intruding the airspace we're required to visually ID it by EYE instead of IRST and other signature sign confirmation (so we get even closer to it)
Do we need to use all the F-22 available? Hell no, why send all your fighters straight into WVR and break the stealth cover for all of them? Send a flight towards it if you have to, and have the rest ready and see what they do, the moment they open fire on the bait F-22 naturally it's weapon hot for everyone to assume it's hostile, the bait F-22 shouldn't even be attempting to fight in WVR range where they lose practically all their stealth and where most of their weapons loadout are not suited for, instead of extricating itself out of WVR ASAP.
Ohhh? is that so?
you have a reference on that?
because considering the limited range of F-22 without external tank, seems to me the most logical outcome is that they will be forced to turn back once the missile bank is depleted both to rearm and refuel.
i am not even sure they have enough fuel reserve to conduct air combat maneuver at close range for extended period.
and what the heck is WRC?
Interesting, I had not heard of the XF6D-1. The concept survived and was suggested as a possible mission for Boeing's Blended Wing Body airplane, and I recall Lockheed looking at several different options for an arsenal aircraft (the C-130 not being one of them). The idea became popular again when the Navy started talking about an arsenal ship. The phrase, "all your eggs in one basket" kept coming up.
The final 3 were Grumman, McDonnell Douglas, and Lockheed. Grumman was knocked out of the competition when the Air Force decided canards were nothing but a fashion fad and there would be no canard equipped aircraft in our Air Force. It is nearly impossible to design a fighter with a forward swept wing that does not have a canard. If I recall correctly there were only going to be 2 prototypes anyway, so Grumman's exit made the selection trivial.
You have no idea what you are talking about, William.
The AIM-9X is not integrated with the F-22A. The next Block upgrade will give the Raptor access to the nasty little missile. Helmet Mounted Sights idea have been thrown on the table, but they haven't been implemented. IRST isn't implemented nor planned either.
All of this is on Wikipedia as well if you want to get some more information.
The F22 is our Me -262. Great, flawed & only for a few top guns.
No guns means no dogfight means fail because of Vietnam!
We also had OV's and Skyraiders in Vietnam…and because we're turning our backs on Vietnam, we re-gained guns on our heavy fleet air fighters and forgot the latter two.
There is also a proposal to do something like this with the B-1B. I think they call is a B-1R or S. Basically a fighter radar and a mess of AMRAAMs. Shoot 'em all off at the bad guys, hang around long enough to provide mid-course guidance, then beat feet and let the fighters take care of the leakers. That's the idea anyway. There was a pretty cool show called "Dogfights of the Future" or something like that in History or Discovery or Military Channel. It's on YouTube.
+1
Everyone is pursuing low-observable designs. I wonder if we will see faceted aircraft as a first generation unit or if other nations will jump to more aerodynamic shapes right off the bat.
This why we have E2's & Awacc's flying.
Radar performance is related to array size, the C130 nosecone can hold a MUCH bigger radar array than a slimline fighters, which translates to much further range and far better anti-jamming performance. The APG-79 on the superhornet is a follow on from the F-14 radar, but despite newer technology incorporated, has less range through superior discrimination within that range, due to having to trim the array size due the the hornet having a smaller nose cone than the Tomcat.
The C-130 also has greater lift capacity, i instead of 75 mile range 120D's, fit 150 mile range SM2's under the wings.
AEGIS-130 !!
How so? The stealth contracts were rather even. Northrop had the B-2 Spirit. Lockmart had the F-117.
I suspect it was more about balancing the contracts between mfrs…and this was back when the F-22 would get 700 aircraft and there would be 100-200 B-2's. The factories would be humming and the industry would be happy.
You seem to think you know what your talking about. But all you have
done is give us your opinion and no proof ??. And I am suppose to
believe what you say is correct. How is that .!! Give me substance
not opinion.!
And where am I wrong?
1. Because as of now and the next 5 years, we don't even have a operations-ready drone that can keep up with fighters. To VID any aggressor as you are wanting to say. Drones are cool and all, but they are relatively new technology. They have a long way to go before they REALLY start taking over aviation.
2. Gee, you should be a tactician. Unfortunately, things don't always work the way these "scenarios" want them to.
Must be nice to be so entitled. Believe whatever you want.
Well I'm not really sure why that's a big concern for the Typhoons or the 22s, I don't see Germany and the US going to war anytime soon.
On that note, most 4.5+ and 5th gens feature either 2D or 3D thrust vectoring, so its not like its a problem for just the 22.
Any super-maneuverable plane that does perform a high angle turn (like the ones we're talking about), is going to bleed tons of energy, your basically turning the whole plane into an airbrake.
Are you under the impression that the Typhoon doesn't bleed off a lot of speed doing such maneuvers? Only fools have suggested that the Typhoon "dominated" the F-22 in WVR combat. The F-22 certainly got its own share of kills there. Yet in that area, the F-22 doesn't have the same massive edge it has in BVR combat.
In a dogfight, even an older fighter upgraded with the latest generation of HOBS missiles and cuing systems can pose a serious threat to a F-22, Typhoon, Su-35, or any fighter. In fact, there's a decent chance of both fighters destroying each other. Hence why both the F-22 and Typhoon would rather be firing AMRAAMs or Meteors at long range. There is where the Raptor has racked up such a high kill ratio.
Thrust vectoring is generally advantage, but a pilot can use it to put himself into a bad position. USAF pilots have noted this in the past when exercising with Indian Su-30MKI pilots.
Expecting things to work always as planned is never going to hold…
but that doesn't mean we EXPECT everything without a plan and turn our machine into a Frankenstein that can do EVERYTHING but poorly.
the classic mistake in many military hardware project of the old is trying to make the hardware do TOO MANY THINGS instead of using tactical planning to take advantage of their strength and cover it's weakness.
we don't have a drone that can keep up with fighters? why the hell do we need one? the drones are expected to be there in the first place, their loitering capacity is not there for show… use it.
Which illustrates the point:
every bloody hardware are supposed to be designed with their specific strength, USE THAT STRENGTH in situations where they are suited.
That the enemy do the unexpected is to be EXPECTED in a war, it's a bloody war.
The point is more on the fact that if a war is imminent and an airspace is designated as a NO FLY ZONE, then any aircraft straying into it does so at massive risk to itself and with the ADS slewed and trained at it.
History books? Nah, i think i need to write 'SIMPLE LOGIC' book one of these days.
I mean seriously, there are ppl who still think our missiles are vietnam era based, there are ppl who think modern ADS is some sort of WW2 based AAA network that can be penetrated with ease, and there are ppl who obviously didn't realize air transponder existed.
Yeah, what you know about aircraft would fill a thimble. Ever heard of the X-29?
It amazes me how the world has changed since the ATF proposal. We used to try stuff just because it was cool sometimes. Now no one even remembers what was done or why. The internet if chock full of bs and rewritten history. It's on TV and in books too. Welcome to Amerika! We won the Cold War!
Ok, I've had it with you Dfens. Yes, I have heard of the X-29. The reason you do not see any FSW fighters being proposed is because the X-29 filight test proved there is nothing to be gained and a lot of extra stuff to deal with. None of the promoted unique advantages worked out, NONE. The primary interest in the concept for fighters was because of a theoretical reduction in trimmed drag due to a serendipitous interaction of the close coupled canard with a forward swept wing. It was supposed to give an edge in sustained g's at altitude. There are many technical papers available from X-29 flight test that show there was no aero/proplulsion advantage demonstrated with the configuration. Some clever designer might find it an interesting packaging scheme for an as yet unsolicited mission, but so what. It is inferior for what you say. If you want to have a battle of unsupported rumors, mine is that the ATF SPO people were so sick of marketing hype about FSW from Grumman, it was a laughing stock that lost them credibility as a prime contractor.
??? they made it to final selection? something is wrong there, since i don't recall a prototype from Grumman.
Anti Canards? Sounds like dumb thinking…..
Only one of Grumman's concepts had forward-swept wings. I don't know which design was submitted for the ATF down-select in 1986, but it probably wasn't FSW.
In July 1986, Lockheed, Northrop, General Dynamics, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Grumman, and Rockwell all submitted a design for the ATF program.
In October 1986, the Lockheed and Northrop designs were chosen and further development of those would continue leading up to the YF-22 and YF-23 prototypes.
The Grumman and Rockwell designs simply weren't up to par in terms of stealth.
“Air Force decided canards were nothing but a fashion fad and there would be no canard equipped aircraft in our Air Force.”
I do remember that, but I cant remember where I read or heard that. The
B-1B has canards though, right?
Cough, cough.
The USN/ USMC F8 Crudsader guys still call themselves, "Last of the Gunfighters." They Got many a Mig as well. The Phantom guys get all the glory however. Too bad the guns they had sucked at times. & ammo loads reduced to fit ECM gear.
Only after being burned on the YF-17, F-20, and some others. The merger was not of to strong firms, but two drowning ones. A 20 plane deal does not keep the staff busy & paid long.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/business/25tank…
here is a link for 35 billions tanker deal. Possibly more…BE HAPPY
I'm more worried about the home invasion up the street than any Mig Or Sukhoi threat. The Cold war is over. & Al Quedia has no jets.
True, but as we all know the AEW aircraft itself will be detected to the hostile from even further away in active scanning… the hostile essentially would KNOW that your AEW and something else is in that area.
in normal operation the fighters attached to the AEW can run in passive and rely on the AEW radar while the AEW stays in safe distance, if the hostile fighter running on passive tries to get into range to shoot the AEW, the fighter escort on passive can detect them first effectively acting as a sentry.
But in a C-130 paired with an AEW case, even with the C-130 running on passive it's almost GUARANTEED that the C-130 will be picked up by the hostile fighter when it gets into missile range with the fighter.
So it's a catch 22, if the C-130 screens for the AEW, it'll be picked up and shot by the passive fighter upon which the AEW will have no escort and will be destroyed anyway.
if the AEW screens for the C-130 on the other hand (as crazy as it is), then in best case scenario the hostile fighter will be picked up by the AEW before the hostile fighter can detect the C-130 but that then puts the AEW at extreme risk of being shot itself by the fighter which is JUST AS BAD given the high priority and importance that AEW aircraft have.
On the bright side, We are good at Beach Vollyball……
Limited range on internal fuel compared to what? Carries more internally than an F-15 without CFTs or the F/A-18E/F. Internal fuel load is comparable to the Flanker which everybody praises for its long range.
Perhaps you can call it comparable,
18300lbs of internal fuel (they had to cut a lot of it from the previous 25000lbs in the original plan) which is pretty good especially considering supercruise capability, but not quite the 20700lbs of the old Su-27.
if we suppose they had to fight Su-30MK variant of a sort (exported and sold in significant number around the world in one variant or another) that goes a bit further with their 21250lbs of internal fuel on maximum load on base Su-30MK model).
Plus if we assume both aircraft in the same theater, the F-22 will have to drop it's jugs first if it wants to retain it's stealth characteristic.
On the upside the F-22 theoretically can dash into the AMRAAM range supercruising on the way in as soon as they drop the jugs so the Su-30MK probably will have to drop it's jugs earlier than normal as well (they will have to assume the F-22 dashed it's way into range as worst case scenario).
I see a figure of 20,600 lbs cited a lot for the F-22A too. That seems more likely considering the larger amount the YF-22 supposedly carried.
Indeed the F-22A will have to dump its external fuel tanks to retain stealth, but chances are they would be spent by that time anyway.
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factshee…
so unless if there's a reference with even more credibility, i will have to assume 18000lbs as the base line of the 'official' information released to the public.
And true, we can assume that by the time the F-22 reaches the combat zone the jugs probably would be near empty if not empty.
But that just means that the time it has for ACM is even shorter… consider the prospect, it reaches the combat zone and drop it's jugs, how much fuel is it carrying internally left? It's not likely to be full since planes with full internal fuel tank isn't exactly maneuverable…
So unless it's dashing into the missile range with full internal and burning the fuel on the way in, it's somewhat unlikely that it will last long enough to:
A. expend all it's missiles
B. engage in WVR for some reason
C. maintain this WVR for anything beyond short period
before it has to disengage and return to refuel.
Hence why my original statement that i highly doubt the F-22 will reach the point in which it's WVR combat capability will be a significant part of it's combat duration.
Mk 12s.
I looked this up previously for giggles in response to a previous comment on a previous thread. The F-4 and the Intruder had no guns. The A-4, F-8 and A-8 were armed, though generally with Mk 12's instead of the M61.
Old proposal by mfr trying to ensure that their airframe serves until the end, rather than going to the boneyard early.
That's twenty bombers, plus the immense R&D expense of the ATB program. Northrop got lucky when YF-17 went on to become F-18.
What a bunch of crap! Where do you get this bs?
Seems to me the 262 was ahead of its time and probably that lead to its being misused. The F-22 is way behind the times in its aerodynamics, as one would expect from an airplane that was designed by committee. It doesn't turn efficiently. It doesn't push through the air cleanly. It doesn't carry much in the way of weapons or fuel. Lockheed tried to make up for the lack of design expertise with expensive materials, avionics, and engine technology, because the very expense of those technologies put more money in their pocket where hiring a good airplane designer would have taken more money out of their pocket. Beginning to end, they made decisions that made good business sense, but screwed the pilots and the US taxpayer.
Read the article, William. It didn't say the Typhoon dominated, now did it? It said they were matched. Some aircraft bleed off more speed in a turn than others. That's the definition of "turn efficiency". When you don't turn efficiently, you push a lot of air as you turn. Same g forces either way, but in the less efficient turn, most of the g's go to pushing air. If you turn efficiently, most of the g's go into turning the airplane's velocity vector.
The F-22 does not turn efficiently. Look at those massive horiz. stabs. Think about what they do in a turn. They load the wing more in a turn, right? What do the Typhoon's canards do in a turn? They take load off the wing. It's just physics. All this stuff is right there for you to see if you want to see it.
WC, I think you are the adult in this blog room today, with the only comments I take seriously. I would like to bring up a question that has been bothering me. Is a helmet mounting cueing system and off boresight missile nothing more than a fix for a fighter that can't point its nose quick enough, and if a fighter can point its nose quickly does it give an energy advantage to the missile? Would it be a waste of time and money to equip an agile fighter that can super maneuver as I described with an HMCS? I ask this question because the JHMCS has been proposed and rejected many times for the F-22, and I am curious if it is a technical or financial issue.
Actually they had their reasons, though they didn't say it publically at the time. The Air Force had been convinced that canards caused the front aspect stealth to be compromised significantly. It turned out this was not the whole story, and there are ways around this, but there was enough truth there to trash Grumman's entry and with that went Grumman's continued existance as an airframe manufacturer. They made a few E2-C and C-2s, then hung up doing anything but parts and avionics.
The 20,600 lbs figure came from some fire safety training document or something like that IIRC. Those facts sheets aren't all that accurate and I doubt there would have been *that* much of a drop from the YF-22 to F-22A.
I don't see what about managing the F-22's fuel load would make it that much different from a F-15 or Su-27 pilot doing the same.
http://www.yf-23.net/ATFprogramme.html
That provides a good summary of the ATF program selection. There are some other good sources on the web too. It's not that the Grumman and Rockwell designs were "bad", both would have been damn fast. But neither company had much experience or know-how in terms of stealth.
It wasn't as fast or sleek as the F-23, but to imply that an aircraft that can supercruise at Mach 1.6+ can't push through the air cleanly is absurd. In terms of manueverability it has proven to be excellent.
That same training document that had a completely different internal fuel capacity on the diagram itself you mean? Because i've heard that too… which makes it's validity equally suspect if not more so.
Both AF official public information and Lockheed public spec states 18000lbs so, unless there's a real concrete weight on the claim to the contrary it's really difficult to swallow claim of otherwise.
And we KNOW they made a significant change from the YF-22A to F-22, it's empty weight swelled from 34000 to 43000lbs as more equipment are added and the aircraft final production design is tightened..
And sure they both should be managing their fuel similarly, though the russian T-10 based airframe obviously have an advantage with their larger reserve. In either case though, as a long range fighter it's not likely that there will be enough fuel to really last for a short range ACM anyhow for any extended duration, which is also reflected with the loadout of the russian T-10 based aircrafts… ie: optimized mostly for BVR missiles loadout, which is my original point… by the time they run out of missiles, it's not likely they can linger around for WVR combat before they have to refuel.
You should have just said that to begin with. All that stuff is wrong. If you want to find out what really happened, you need to read old articles from Av Week from the 1984 to 1986 period. Almost everything on the internet is pure revisionist history.
Case in point, the F-23 was a McDonnell Douglas design. It was mostly built by MD. If you look on the internet, it's a Northrop Grumman airplane. That doesn't even make a little bit of sense.
I have long held, and this is my own wild ass conspiracy theory, that Stonecypher was fired from being CEO of Boeing because he gave the F-23 models, drawings, and data to NG. If you believe that, then it might also explain why the history has been revised this way. To me it also explains why the competition for the short range stealth fighter/bomber died suddenly at about that same time Stonecypher was escorted out, but that's all pure speculation on my part.
All of it. The down select was to 3 finalists, not 2. Grumman dropped out because of the statement regarding canards issued by the General in charge of the ATF program. This isn't specialized knowledge. Ask anyone who was around at the time. The industry was lit up with news of the X-29 and everyone fully expected Grumman to win the ATF competiton. I have no doubt that's why McDonnell Douglas outsourced the design of the F-23 to contractors. That was the only thing they could do to compete. They didn't have anything like the X-29 at the time and they never really had any of the white hot fighter designers. Lockheed's skunk works had the hot airplane designers, but they must have given ATF to the F-117 group because it was always a dog. They rode that Skunk Works reputation and their political schmoozing to a win, though. A win for them and a loss for the rest of us. Who knew then it would drag on for 30+ years like it has?
If you knew what was possible, you wouldn't say any of that. Even this thing with the Typhoon points out what a dog it is with regard to maneuverability. If the industry ever gets straightened out, the F-22 will be used as an example of what not to do in fighter design for probably a couple of generations. It is really that bad.
They don't call them that. They are "ride control vanes" according to the Air Force. They look like little canards. With the thin fuselage cross section the B-1 has they can get a lot of flexing up and down, side to side, especially when flying low through thick air.
When I worked on High Speed Civil Transport, they decided to add canards to the baseline configuration because the first sensation the pilot would get when pulling back on the stick was a great sinking feeling as the thin fuselage bent in a U shape around the wing. In retrospect, I doubt he would have actually sunk, it just would have taken a while for anything to happen up front with any sort of elevator input.
Of course there were many changes between the YF-22 and F-22A, but a drop from 23,000+lbs to 18,300 seems a bit extreme.
These same USAF fact sheets used to give the wrong empty and loaded weights and a maximum (not supercruise) speed of Mach 1.8 for many years too.
There is the chance that there is both a normal internal fuel load and a higher maximum capacity which isn't typically used due to the performance hit involved (or perhaps other factors). I believe this is the case with the Su-27.
Either way, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this number.
Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor: Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter gives a similar account to what I said. You had seven airframe contractors submitting proposals on July 28th, 1986. The recently revised plan was to pick the two best proposals, fund them both to build two prototypes each, and then down-select.
Northrop had a deal with McDonnell Douglas where if either of their proposals was selected, the other would team up. Since Northrop's design was selected, they were technically the lead contractor for the F-23 with McDonnell Douglas in support. Given McDonnell Douglas history of building fighters, they may have ended up building the larger portion of the F-23.
However I wonder if there was any friction between the two companies due to the whole F/A-18 vs. F-18L business.
It was 2 finalists, each building 2 prototypes under the revised plan established earlier in 1986. While allowing for an extreme level of maneuverability, forward-swept wings are simply not stealth friendly and that had become a key requirement of the whole program.
Yes a more capable aircraft was possible. At the same time not getting any new fighters from the ATF program was also possible. The flaws of the F-22 are not in its basic design, rather they're the screw-ups like this oxygen mess and software issues it has dealt with for years. It doesn't help how so many involved (especially Congress) have mishandled the program.
The Typhoon hasn't proven the F-22 to be a "dog" like you say. Rather, for various reasons already mentioned, it shows that in a dogfight the F-22 doesn't have the same edge it has in BVR.
Yes we could design some ultra-maneuverable fighter with thrust vectoring and forward swept wings that would put the Typhoon and F-22 to shame in a gun fight. But everything is a compromise. What are you sacrificing for that capability? How much can a pilot even exploit such capabilities?
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The F-22 doesn't go Mach 2.4. Hell, that should be obvious. It has a fixed intake. It doesn't go Mach 1.6+ in supercruise either. You don't know anything about what forward or aft swept wings look like in a radar signature. You are just another internet expert running his mouth.
I'm sure everything to you is a compromise, but it is not that way in aircraft design. There are good designs and bad designs and a clear difference between them. One airplane is not as good as another simply because it exists or because you want to believe in a nanny state that will always take care of you no matter what.
Revisionist history for empty minds.
There wasn't a prototype from Grumman. They pulled out of the competition due to the "no canards" edict from the Air Force. Grumman was the top fighter company in the world at the time. The loss of the ATF was the fatal blow to the company.
I was about to say that if they are gunning for stealth then canard design sounds like a bad idea to win the entry.
I mean hell, tails are bad enough.
And we technically don't go AROUND canard problem with regard to RCS, what we can do is REDUCE it's penalty effect just like we did the other surfaces… since removing the penalty effect is practically impossible (no surface on the aircraft, especially one related with control surface can avoid it's effect on the plane's RCS)
Still… would be interested to see how well with modern tech can they push this down to… which China conveniently picked up with J-20 with canard.
Though unfortunately the design appears to be starting with a significantly less stealth baseline design (rather evident on it's geometry angle) so it's going to be difficult to judge how much worse the canard made it in relation to it's RCS.
The exact numbers are all classified of course, but test pilot Paul Metz said he reached a max speed of roughly 1600 mph, which would be Mach 2.42 or perhaps 2.41 depending on altitude. Even the official specifications now state "Mach 2 class". Supercruise speeds above Mach 1.5 and 1.6 have been recorded multiple times too.
Now you're just being an idiot. I work hard unlike many in this country. The fact that you've got some sort of grudge against Lockheed doesn't magically make their designs crap.
You keep singing the praises of the Grumman ATF proposal but the fact is that Grumman had very little knowledge when it came to stealth. Just compare their and Rockwell's design to the designs of Northrop, Lockheed, and Boeing.
Whatever. Think canard bias ensured Grumman's proposal would lose if you want.
It seems to me like HOBS missiles and HMCS can be a benefit to any fighter, even ones that can pull some very high AOA maneuvers to point its nose at the target like the Super Hornet or Raptor. But doing those sort of maneuvers will bleed off speed rapidly, leaving the pilot without much energy to work with. The Navy made integrating AIM-9X and JHMCS onto the Super Hornet a priority.
There are both technical and financial issues involved with integrating this onto the F-22, plus the fact that the USAF can't seem to decide between a system like JHMCS, or waiting until they can get something like the F-35's HMDS.
Correct, and they're in front where their impact is worse. There's some other stuff too.
Yeah, that's it. It's not like I was in the industry when all this crap was happening. If I'd read it on the internet, then it would be real.
No doubt recorded on the internet too.
I'm doing it, bud. You're the wanna be.
Really, that's what we learned from the X-29? Must be the MIC spin of the day. It took long enough for them to come up with an official position on that one.
Maybe, but putting F119s on the Bone would kick ass. As the latest post on DOD Buzz discloses, that airplane was constantly flying over Afghanistan. It carries lots of bombs and it's fast enough to get them on target on time. F119s would make it both faster and more fuel efficient.
With Raptor production done, I assume that means no new F-119s assembled, just parts support?
So there was this big coverup/revision everybody agreed to in order to achieve what exactly?
When did your supposed down-select to Northrop, Lockheed, and Grumman occur?
The book I referenced gives the same history. So does Bill Sweetman's book on the F-22 (written before he went off the deep end). According to him the evaluation placed General Dynamics came third, Boeing forth, McDonnell Douglas fifth, and Grumman and Rockwell last.
And specifications everywhere stating things like Mach 2+ and Mach 1.5+ supercruise.
Doing what? Sounding crazy by claiming the real history has been covered up by all of the books written on the subject? All part of some devious plot by Lockheed I'm sure. Clearly they knew nothing about stealth despite the F-117, Have Blue, LO features on the SR-71, etc.
They will continue to make the F135 which is a variant of the F119. That plus the spares required to support the existing F-22s should keep that product line on life support.
I remember one of my friends telling me that there were canard equipped versions of all 3 of the finalist designs. I have not seen them, and I can't quite imagine what the canard version of the F-23 would have looked like, although it probably would have been something (not exactly) like this: http://www.ericksmodels.com/gallery/f19/f19.html. The US Air Force edict would have killed all 3. Most likely Lockheed was angling for this exclusion. They had the most problems with intake ringing and the addition of a canard would probably make their intake even longer than it was (longer = more problems with ringing just as was the case with the Ares I).
Many Lockheed ATF artist impressions had canards although this was probably disinformation as it seems none their actual concepts in the late 80s had this feature.
Northrop's F-23 derived NATF had canards, the wing moved back, and instead of the v-tail had two canted vertical stabilizers. Compared to the F-23, their NATF was pretty ugly. The shape of the actual F-23 wouldn't allow for canards in a position that wouldn't result in a bit visibility hit for the pilot.
Could you explain intake ringing?
Further range on the radar array the C-130 carry means jack all nothing when your radar cross section is so massive that everyone can see you in their radar hundreds of miles away at altitude where one wants to be to fire the missiles.
To make it worse, that same powerful radar you mount on the C-130 would only make a difference if it's on active scanning which means they can see you from EVEN FURTHER away since you are emanating signal like a flare in the sky.
Under the assumption that both low RCS fighter and the C-130 uses low intercept radar mode, the C-130 is ALMOST CERTAINLY going to be detected first in the cat and mouse game.
And just to add salt to the wound, long range AAM like R-37 will have no trouble hitting the C-130. These missiles have extreme range but limited maneuverability so normally of minimal use against maneuvering fighter, but will have little trouble hitting a C-130.
So you PRAY TO GOD that your ECM and countermeasures work flawlessly because these missiles are coming at you from 300-400 km away while you can't even see the attacking fighter and even if you could see him as well, you don't have a missile that can realistically hit them from the same range.
The F-135 may be descended from the -119, but they're still not quite the same.
Are you suggesting that it shouldn't cost so much to reactivate a small assembly line to put together F-119 engines because of the F-135 supply chain?
Or perhaps B-1B should be tested with F-135s? However, the -135 may not be the best fit for the job. Though it's mostly known for having impressive wet thrust numbers, I'm working on finding fuel economy numbers that can translate into loiter time…
The main difference between the two engines is in the turbine section.
Oh hell, the internet expert is back.
I have a book that says Hobbits are real too.
Yeah, get back to me when you have a single source for your BS claims other than claims to have "known some guy."
Official Northrop plans of their NATF and images of Lockheed wind tunnel test models are out there.
And Lockheed, despite being a member of your anti-canard conspiracy felt comfortable enough with them to feature them on their original ASTOVL proposals and powered test model.
Or was this – http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/cddr/lockheed/c… part of some coverup?
Since you clearly know the real deal, why don't you share your sources with the rest of us.
You get a standing wave generated in the intake. If you've ever heard the F-22 taxi you'll hear what I'm talking about. It is a very distinctive sound.
Here's a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5EsZF3xABk&fe…
Stealth was the only major card in Lockheed's deck at the time of the ATF contract.
Lockheed has been seriously bruised in the fighter business. After the P-80 and the F-104, it was everything but fighter jets. It was transports, like the civilian Connie, the -130 and the -5. Their mark before ATF was mostly in U-2, A-12, SR-71, then Have Blue because it was the first stealth fighter, which they used to re-enter the fighter business.
The Grumman ATF design was rumored to be similar to this design, which NG submitted a patent on in 1999: http://air-attack.com/page/9. That concept became the basis of 3D computer graphics model that was the star of the movie Stealth.
Makes you wonder if the patent translated into an actual deliverable, or was just patented as an interesting novelty that NG was going to address before patent expiration, but not anytime soon in case someone scooped them.
It's not like the Have Blue shape ever found its way to the patent office…
As far as I know the Grumman design died when they got taken over by Northrop, and they probably wouldn't have been taken over had they received the funds to prototype their ATF entry.
Lockheed's Have Blue and Northrop's Tacit Blue were both prototyped. I've never seen Have Blue, but Tacit Blue is in the Wright Patterson AF Museum. As far as patents for those, I've never looked them up. It is possible they're not still classified.
If Wikipedia tells the truth, there were two Have Blue prototypes, and both crashed.
That said, I wonder if the pole models are still around.
Oh right. It's been too long. Yeah, they had a lot of issues with the verticals on Have Blue.