Delivery of Raptor delayed

[Henry J Cobb]

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
> The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley Air
> Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously planned.

Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still gotten
full scale production?

-HJC

[Tex Houston]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
> > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley
Air
> > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously
planned.
>
> Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still
gotten
> full scale production?
>
> -HJC

What makes you believe 'full scale production'? What is being planned now
is but a fraction of the original 'full scale'.

Tex

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:35:59 -0600, "Tex Houston"
> wrote:

>
>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>>
>http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
>> > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley
>Air
>> > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously
>planned.
>>
>> Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still
>gotten
>> full scale production?
>>
>> -HJC
>
>What makes you believe 'full scale production'? What is being planned now
>is but a fraction of the original 'full scale'.
>
>Tex
>

You *do* know what the term "full scale production" means don't you?

[Tex Houston]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:35:59 -0600, "Tex Houston"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
>
>http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-hea
dlines-topnews
> >> > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at
Langley
> >Air
> >> > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously
> >planned.
> >>
> >> Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still
> >gotten
> >> full scale production?
> >>
> >> -HJC
> >
> >What makes you believe 'full scale production'? What is being planned
now
> >is but a fraction of the original 'full scale'.
> >
> >Tex
> >
>
> You *do* know what the term "full scale production" means don't you?

Yes, a changing figure projected to a fictious date sometime in the distant
future when the final example rolls off the line at a rate to be determined.
You take yourself so seriously you don't seem to have a sense of humor.

Please put my name in your "Blocked Senders" list. I don't want you unhappy
but at least the subject is on topic. Much of the stuff in the newsgroup
isn't which is why I unsubscribed weeks ago and am thinking of doing so
again.

Tex

[robert arndt]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message >...
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
> > > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley
> Air
> > > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously
> planned.
> >
> > Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still
> gotten
> > full scale production?
> >
> > -HJC
>
> What makes you believe 'full scale production'? What is being planned now
> is but a fraction of the original 'full scale'.

And at almost $200 million a piece! But at least this aircraft lives
up to its name "Raptor"- a dinosaur... which should get Congressional
extinction!
By the time full production is achieved the aircraft won't amount to
any significant number, not being able to replace the F-15 by any
means.

Rob


>
> Tex

[Bob Urz]

robert arndt wrote:

> "Tex Houston" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
>>
>>> > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley
>>
>> Air
>>
>>> > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously
>>
>> planned.
>>
>>>Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still
>>
>> gotten
>>
>>>full scale production?
>>>
>>>-HJC
>>
>>What makes you believe 'full scale production'? What is being planned now
>>is but a fraction of the original 'full scale'.
>
>
> And at almost $200 million a piece! But at least this aircraft lives
> up to its name "Raptor"- a dinosaur... which should get Congressional
> extinction!
> By the time full production is achieved the aircraft won't amount to
> any significant number, not being able to replace the F-15 by any
> means.
Well if you look at how many B2's were built to replace B1's & B52's,
What you say may have some truth in it.

Bob

>
> Rob
>
>
>
>>Tex



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Andreas Parsch]

robert arndt wrote:

>
> [...] But at least this aircraft lives
> up to its name "Raptor"- a dinosaur...


Aargh!!

One day, the dictionary editors will just give up, and replace the
'raptor' entry

NOUN: A bird of prey.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin, one who seizes, from rapere, to seize. See rapt.

with

NOUN: a species of dinosaur
ETYMOLOGY: From "velociraptor" (ref: "Jurassic Park", brain-dead
Hollywood blockbuster movie)


Andreas

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tex Houston" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
> > > > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at
Langley
> > Air
> > > > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously
> > planned.
> > >
> > > Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still
> > gotten
> > > full scale production?
> > >
> > > -HJC
> >
> > What makes you believe 'full scale production'? What is being planned
now
> > is but a fraction of the original 'full scale'.
>
> And at almost $200 million a piece! But at least this aircraft lives
> up to its name "Raptor"- a dinosaur... which should get Congressional
> extinction!

It's funny that people who don't want America to be a powerful nation also
want to axe the F-22 (among other things).

Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
by using a direct comparison.

> By the time full production is achieved the aircraft won't amount to
> any significant number, not being able to replace the F-15 by any
> means.
>

You do realize that we only have 342 active F-15C's right now, right? Seems
to me that the 339 Raptors we ordered will be able to take over their role
quite well, all things considered.

[Lyle]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:46:45 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote:

>
>"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Tex Houston" > wrote in message
>...
>> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> >
>http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
>> > > > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at
>Langley
>> > Air
>> > > > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously
>> > planned.
>> > >
>> > > Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still
>> > gotten
>> > > full scale production?
>> > >
>> > > -HJC
>> >
>> > What makes you believe 'full scale production'? What is being planned
>now
>> > is but a fraction of the original 'full scale'.
>>
>> And at almost $200 million a piece! But at least this aircraft lives
>> up to its name "Raptor"- a dinosaur... which should get Congressional
>> extinction!
>
>It's funny that people who don't want America to be a powerful nation also
>want to axe the F-22 (among other things).
>
>Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
>you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
>more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
>by using a direct comparison.
>
>> By the time full production is achieved the aircraft won't amount to
>> any significant number, not being able to replace the F-15 by any
>> means.
>>
>
>You do realize that we only have 342 active F-15C's right now, right? Seems
>to me that the 339 Raptors we ordered will be able to take over their role
>quite well, all things considered.
>
i think people are forgetting that when the initial production is over
with, the cost of the plane should go down,since we are no longer
paying for the jigs and devolopement of the prototype.

[Denyav]

>Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
>you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
>more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
>by using a direct comparison.

Anything that "flies" less than speed of the light is obsolete,and as the funds
used to develop "obsolete" equipment must come at the expense of the
development of "post paradigm shift" weaponry,devolopment of obsolete equipment
is detrimental to National defense of "any" country in long term.

[robert arndt]

..
> >
> > And at almost $200 million a piece! But at least this aircraft lives
> > up to its name "Raptor"- a dinosaur... which should get Congressional
> > extinction!
>
> It's funny that people who don't want America to be a powerful nation also
> want to axe the F-22 (among other things).

Not at all... it's a wasteful, obscene amount of money to pay for an
aircraft the USAF hasn't been able to justify by any means. The
Eurofighter by comparison can fulfill most of the Raptor's job at
one-third of the cost. If Sukhoi built the Su-47 it would still be
less costly, more heavily armed, and more powerful with dogfighting
skills we can't duplicate. Hell, even the Superflanker costs just a
fraction of the F-22. Ansd since the USAF knows its a wasteful program
they have tried to sell other proposed versions, turning it into the
F/A-22, FB-22, and even a more distant X-44 MANTA version. Give us
taxpayers a break- buy the F-35 for all services.
>
> Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
> you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
> more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
> by using a direct comparison.

I was using dinosaur in context of the wasteful overbudget program.
The Europeans and Russians have aircraft that could take the F-22 on:
Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Superflanker, Su-47, etc...
>
> > By the time full production is achieved the aircraft won't amount to
> > any significant number, not being able to replace the F-15 by any
> > means.
> >
>
> You do realize that we only have 342 active F-15C's right now, right? Seems
> to me that the 339 Raptors we ordered will be able to take over their role
> quite well, all things considered.

Uh I believe the DoD only approved 295 back in 2001 and the current
USAF inventory of all F-15s (including the Beagle) is 613 aircraft
plus 116 of the ANG. How many F-22s will be produced ultimately with
the ungodly cost overruns and FY budget adjustments? Nowhere near
enough... destined to follow the B-2 bomber's reduction.

Rob

p.s. Did you know that the reputed cost of the black project ASTRA is
an incredible 4 billion each! How many of those do we have- one maybe?

[B2431]

>From: (Denyav)
>Date: 7/14/2004 11:41 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
>>you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
>>more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
>>by using a direct comparison.
>
>Anything that "flies" less than speed of the light is obsolete,and as the
>funds
>used to develop "obsolete" equipment must come at the expense of the
>development of "post paradigm shift" weaponry,devolopment of obsolete
>equipment
>is detrimental to National defense of "any" country in long term.


Time to get your medications checked again.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Denyav]

>Time to get your medications checked again.
>

HPM weapons as tectonic and climatic weapons already in use,but wait till 2020s
for other uses.period.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:13:55 -0600, "Tex Houston"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:35:59 -0600, "Tex Houston"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>>
>>http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-hea
>dlines-topnews
>> >> > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at
>Langley
>> >Air
>> >> > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously
>> >planned.
>> >>
>> >> Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still
>> >gotten
>> >> full scale production?
>> >>
>> >> -HJC
>> >
>> >What makes you believe 'full scale production'? What is being planned
>now
>> >is but a fraction of the original 'full scale'.
>> >
>> >Tex
>> >
>>
>> You *do* know what the term "full scale production" means don't you?
>
>Yes, a changing figure projected to a fictious date sometime in the distant
>future when the final example rolls off the line at a rate to be determined.
>You take yourself so seriously you don't seem to have a sense of humor.

Hardly. It would be nice to see something original is all.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 14 Jul 2004 16:41:23 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
>>you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
>>more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
>>by using a direct comparison.
>
>Anything that "flies" less than speed of the light is obsolete,


Good thing those Flankers have Warp drive huh? Oh wait, that was the
Klingon cloaking device. . .on the cancelled wannabe. . .oh well.




>and as the funds
>used to develop "obsolete" equipment must come at the expense of the
>development of "post paradigm shift" weaponry,devolopment of obsolete equipment
>is detrimental to National defense of "any" country in long term.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 14 Jul 2004 11:56:06 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>.
>> >
>> > And at almost $200 million a piece! But at least this aircraft lives
>> > up to its name "Raptor"- a dinosaur... which should get Congressional
>> > extinction!
>>
>> It's funny that people who don't want America to be a powerful nation also
>> want to axe the F-22 (among other things).
>
>Not at all... it's a wasteful, obscene amount of money to pay for an
>aircraft the USAF hasn't been able to justify by any means.


You do realize that a significant portion of the total amount has
ALREADY BEEN SPENT don't you? You know that thing called R and D?






> The
>Eurofighter by comparison can fulfill most of the Raptor's job at
>one-third of the cost.

So it's what. . .$40 million. Damn let's buy some.





> If Sukhoi built the Su-47 it would still be
>less costly, more heavily armed, and more powerful with dogfighting
>skills we can't duplicate. Hell, even the Superflanker costs just a
>fraction of the F-22. Ansd since the USAF knows its a wasteful program
>they have tried to sell other proposed versions, turning it into the
>F/A-22, FB-22, and even a more distant X-44 MANTA version.

X-44 "Manta"???? You're an idiot. Do you know what the "X" in X-44
stands for? (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't stand for "X-Men")






> Give us
>taxpayers a break- buy the F-35 for all services.
>>
>> Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
>> you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
>> more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
>> by using a direct comparison.
>
>I was using dinosaur in context of the wasteful overbudget program.
>The Europeans and Russians have aircraft that could take the F-22 on:
>Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Superflanker, Su-47, etc...

The *Gripen*???? A Block 60 F-16 would kick it's ass up around it's
ears let alone an F-22.

[robert arndt]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message >...
> On 14 Jul 2004 11:56:06 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >.
> >> >
> >> > And at almost $200 million a piece! But at least this aircraft lives
> >> > up to its name "Raptor"- a dinosaur... which should get Congressional
> >> > extinction!
> >>
> >> It's funny that people who don't want America to be a powerful nation also
> >> want to axe the F-22 (among other things).
> >
> >Not at all... it's a wasteful, obscene amount of money to pay for an
> >aircraft the USAF hasn't been able to justify by any means.
>
>
> You do realize that a significant portion of the total amount has
> ALREADY BEEN SPENT don't you? You know that thing called R and D?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The
> >Eurofighter by comparison can fulfill most of the Raptor's job at
> >one-third of the cost.
>
> So it's what. . .$40 million. Damn let's buy some.

My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.
>
>
>
>
>
> > If Sukhoi built the Su-47 it would still be
> >less costly, more heavily armed, and more powerful with dogfighting
> >skills we can't duplicate. Hell, even the Superflanker costs just a
> >fraction of the F-22. Ansd since the USAF knows its a wasteful program
> >they have tried to sell other proposed versions, turning it into the
> >F/A-22, FB-22, and even a more distant X-44 MANTA version.
>
> X-44 "Manta"???? You're an idiot. Do you know what the "X" in X-44
> stands for? (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't stand for "X-Men")

And the X-44 is based on what airframe?- the F-22.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Give us
> >taxpayers a break- buy the F-35 for all services.
> >>
> >> Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
> >> you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
> >> more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
> >> by using a direct comparison.
> >
> >I was using dinosaur in context of the wasteful overbudget program.
> >The Europeans and Russians have aircraft that could take the F-22 on:
> >Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Superflanker, Su-47, etc...
>
> The *Gripen*???? A Block 60 F-16 would kick it's ass up around it's
> ears let alone an F-22.

Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
a Raptor!!!
You know you guys only have fun with air superiority when it comes to
striking poor, third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript
pilots... under ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with
no spare parts. I'm so F**king impressed by America's aerial combat
record over the last quarter century. Let's compare it to the Israeli
record or at least try flying air superiority over Russia, China, N.
Korea- nations that will appear in numbers and fight back with modern
equipment.

Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)

<snip>

>Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
>a Raptor!!!

A Fokker Dr.1 could take down an F-15 under the right circumstances.

>You know you guys only have fun with air superiority when it comes to
>striking poor, third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript
>pilots... under ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with
>no spare parts.

Aha, you admit you aren't American!

I'm so F**king impressed by America's aerial combat
>record over the last quarter century. Let's compare it to the Israeli
>record or at least try flying air superiority over Russia, China, N.
>Korea- nations that will appear in numbers and fight back with modern
>equipment.
>
>Rob

[Scott Ferrin]

>> > The
>> >Eurofighter by comparison can fulfill most of the Raptor's job at
>> >one-third of the cost.
>>
>> So it's what. . .$40 million. Damn let's buy some.
>
>My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.


The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero *might*
equal a Ferrari on one specific point (though admittedly I can't think
of one except maybe weight) but the whole package together is an
entirely different deal. Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.
Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department. Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
other areas.



>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > If Sukhoi built the Su-47 it would still be
>> >less costly, more heavily armed, and more powerful with dogfighting
>> >skills we can't duplicate. Hell, even the Superflanker costs just a
>> >fraction of the F-22. Ansd since the USAF knows its a wasteful program
>> >they have tried to sell other proposed versions, turning it into the
>> >F/A-22, FB-22, and even a more distant X-44 MANTA version.
>>
>> X-44 "Manta"???? You're an idiot. Do you know what the "X" in X-44
>> stands for? (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't stand for "X-Men")
>
>And the X-44 is based on what airframe?- the F-22.


And again I say, so what? It was a proposal -years past- for a
modification to ONE prototype to test flight controls. Big friggin
deal. Pretty much every aircraft out there has been used for test
purposes at one time or another. It has absolutley ZERO influence on
whether any of them are bought or not.





>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Give us
>> >taxpayers a break- buy the F-35 for all services.
>> >>
>> >> Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
>> >> you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
>> >> more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
>> >> by using a direct comparison.
>> >
>> >I was using dinosaur in context of the wasteful overbudget program.
>> >The Europeans and Russians have aircraft that could take the F-22 on:
>> >Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Superflanker, Su-47, etc...
>>
>> The *Gripen*???? A Block 60 F-16 would kick it's ass up around it's
>> ears let alone an F-22.
>
>Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
>a Raptor!!!

LOL!! The Viggen lost out to the F-16 for the European sales so I
guess nobody else agrees with you.





>You know you guys only have fun with air superiority when it comes to
>striking poor, third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript
>pilots... under ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with
>no spare parts.

Somebody get me a hanky.




> I'm so F**king impressed by America's aerial combat
>record over the last quarter century.

Me too. How many US pilots have been downed by opposing fighters?
One? Hell Russian flight demonstration teams (the guys who are
SUPPOSE to be good) have killed more of their own than that.




> Let's compare it to the Israeli
>record


And who were they fighting? Remind me I forget. Oh yeah , "poor,
third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript pilots... under
ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with no spare parts"




>or at least try flying air superiority over Russia, China, N.
>Korea- nations that will appear in numbers and fight back with modern
>equipment.


They've never really bee stupid enough to start something with us. (So
far anyway.)

[John Cook]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:21:14 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:

>
>>> > The
>>> >Eurofighter by comparison can fulfill most of the Raptor's job at
>>> >one-third of the cost.
>>>
>>> So it's what. . .$40 million. Damn let's buy some.
>>
>>My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.
>
>
>The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
>compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
>a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero *might*
>equal a Ferrari on one specific point (though admittedly I can't think
>of one except maybe weight) but the whole package together is an
>entirely different deal. Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.
>Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department.

The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors, its has a wider
range of missile countermeasures, just a couple of areas where the
Raptor 'Comes up short'.

>Your
>Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
>other areas.

Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
way tactically there's little in it, BTW Cost is better too!!.


All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor.... one
could argue that for R&D money the Raptor has cost, it should be
better in _all_ areas regardless, and be cheaper to manufacture and
support...

Its not all one sided you know!.

Cheers


>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > If Sukhoi built the Su-47 it would still be
>>> >less costly, more heavily armed, and more powerful with dogfighting
>>> >skills we can't duplicate. Hell, even the Superflanker costs just a
>>> >fraction of the F-22. Ansd since the USAF knows its a wasteful program
>>> >they have tried to sell other proposed versions, turning it into the
>>> >F/A-22, FB-22, and even a more distant X-44 MANTA version.
>>>
>>> X-44 "Manta"???? You're an idiot. Do you know what the "X" in X-44
>>> stands for? (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't stand for "X-Men")
>>
>>And the X-44 is based on what airframe?- the F-22.
>
>
>And again I say, so what? It was a proposal -years past- for a
>modification to ONE prototype to test flight controls. Big friggin
>deal. Pretty much every aircraft out there has been used for test
>purposes at one time or another. It has absolutley ZERO influence on
>whether any of them are bought or not.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Give us
>>> >taxpayers a break- buy the F-35 for all services.
>>> >>
>>> >> Please explain, factually and technically, how the Raptor is 'obsolete' as
>>> >> you consistently assert? Do you not believe that it is an order of magnitude
>>> >> more capable than any other fighter plane in the world? If so, please cite
>>> >> by using a direct comparison.
>>> >
>>> >I was using dinosaur in context of the wasteful overbudget program.
>>> >The Europeans and Russians have aircraft that could take the F-22 on:
>>> >Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, Superflanker, Su-47, etc...
>>>
>>> The *Gripen*???? A Block 60 F-16 would kick it's ass up around it's
>>> ears let alone an F-22.
>>
>>Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
>>a Raptor!!!
>
>LOL!! The Viggen lost out to the F-16 for the European sales so I
>guess nobody else agrees with you.
>
>
>
>
>
>>You know you guys only have fun with air superiority when it comes to
>>striking poor, third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript
>>pilots... under ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with
>>no spare parts.
>
>Somebody get me a hanky.
>
>
>
>
>> I'm so F**king impressed by America's aerial combat
>>record over the last quarter century.
>
>Me too. How many US pilots have been downed by opposing fighters?
>One? Hell Russian flight demonstration teams (the guys who are
>SUPPOSE to be good) have killed more of their own than that.
>
>
>
>
>> Let's compare it to the Israeli
>>record
>
>
>And who were they fighting? Remind me I forget. Oh yeah , "poor,
>third world nations, with little or no AF, conscript pilots... under
>ground control, and flying import stripped MiGs with no spare parts"
>
>
>
>
>>or at least try flying air superiority over Russia, China, N.
>>Korea- nations that will appear in numbers and fight back with modern
>>equipment.
>
>
>They've never really bee stupid enough to start something with us. (So
>far anyway.)

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Brett]

"John Cook" > wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:21:14 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:

<.>

> >The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
> >compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
> >a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero *might*
> >equal a Ferrari on one specific point (though admittedly I can't think
> >of one except maybe weight) but the whole package together is an
> >entirely different deal. Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.
> >Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department.
>
> The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors, its has a wider
> range of missile countermeasures, just a couple of areas where the
> Raptor 'Comes up short'.

It other words the Eurofighter was located before the opposition launched a
missile to destroy it. That means the Eurofighter pilot is left with nothing
but the faint hope that the weapon about to destroy his plane will succumb
to the limited number of countermeasures his plane is equipped with due to
budget constraints at the MoD.

[Scott Ferrin]

>
>The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22. Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
boat. About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
AMRAAM's range.




> its has a wider
>range of missile countermeasures,


So the decoy-on-a-string is better than all-aspect stealth huh? You
must know something the USAF doesn't.




> just a couple of areas where the
>Raptor 'Comes up short'.

How about something tangible?





>
>>Your
>>Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
>>other areas.
>
>Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
>way tactically there's little in it,


Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?




> BTW Cost is better too!!.


No arguement there :-)



>
>
>All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
>Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor


From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.




>.... one
>could argue that for R&D money the Raptor has cost, it should be
>better in _all_ areas regardless, and be cheaper to manufacture and
>support...

There are tradeoffs in where you apply your R&D dollars too. You
figure they built four prototypes of two different designs and two
completely new engines in addition to breaking ground pretty much
everywhere. And sometimes even the mundane ends up costing $$$ when
you factor in the necessity for stealth. I imagine the radome on the
F-22 costs a few bucks more than that of the Eurofighter. Even the
nozzles on the engines are likely significantly more expensive, even
the vectoring aside. None of that stuff comes cheap and it doesn't
help that they stretched the program so long.


>
>Its not all one sided you know!.


Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long. It just seems like
certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.



>
>Cheers

[Denyav]

>The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
>compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
>a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros. Sure, a Camero

Quite correct definition but also unfortunately explains why its already
obsolote.
For example Iowa class Battleships were also in a league of their own,but?

Or lets put this way, could a brand new Ferrari compete with a vintage F86 or
Me262?

[Denyav]

>AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
>to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
>F-22. Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
>boat. About the only time it would

I wonder how F22 is going to do that with its insect size backscatterer RCS
but B-52 size bi-static (forward scatterer) RCS.

Attacking countries with no multi-static radar development capability might be
the solution,but heck,you can attack such countries with B-17s too.

[John Cook]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:17:02 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:

>
>>
>>The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,
>
>AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*.

Yup! it may be an upgrade to the raptor at a much later date, so the
Typhoons PIRATE IRST is infinitely better.

> IF the Eurpfighter's has
>to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
>F-22.

No the Pirate system is capable of cueing the Missle shot all by
itself, the missile may require mid course guidance if required, but
otherwise its totally passive..

> Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
>boat. About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
>help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
>AMRAAM's range.

Well the IRST tracked Venus!, the real question is how stealthy to IR
is the Raptor....
>
>> its has a wider
>>range of missile countermeasures,
>
>
>So the decoy-on-a-string is better than all-aspect stealth huh? You
>must know something the USAF doesn't.

Well if a radar missile is actually launched at a Typhoon or an F-22,
I'd rather have a decoy than not have a decoy;-).
>
>
>
>> just a couple of areas where the
>>Raptor 'Comes up short'.
>
>How about something tangible?
>>
>>>Your
>>>Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
>>>other areas.
>>
>>Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
>>way tactically there's little in it,
>
>
>Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?

As opposed to a cruising Typhoon at Mach 1.5 , its the 0.2 Mach that
has little tactical advantage.

Source

>
>> BTW Cost is better too!!.

>No arguement there :-)
>>
>>All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
>>Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor

>From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.

True, IIRC the Typhoon is better at Supersonic speeds around 1.5 or at
least that seems to be the best.

>>.... one
>>could argue that for R&D money the Raptor has cost, it should be
>>better in _all_ areas regardless, and be cheaper to manufacture and
>>support...
>
>There are tradeoffs in where you apply your R&D dollars too. You
>figure they built four prototypes of two different designs and two
>completely new engines in addition to breaking ground pretty much
>everywhere. And sometimes even the mundane ends up costing $$$ when
>you factor in the necessity for stealth.

Do they include the Costs for the YF-23??.

> I imagine the radome on the
>F-22 costs a few bucks more than that of the Eurofighter. Even the
>nozzles on the engines are likely significantly more expensive, even
>the vectoring aside. None of that stuff comes cheap and it doesn't
>help that they stretched the program so long.
>
>
>>
>>Its not all one sided you know!.
>
>
>Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
>pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long.

Thats not unusual its the same with the Typhoon!.

> It just seems like
>certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.

And others can see no wrong ;-)

Cheers
>
>
>>
>>Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[John Cook]

Ooops missed out the source for thwe !.5 Mach claim

"Much is currently being made about supercruise, that is the ability
to cruise supersonically without the use of reheat (afterburn) for
extended periods of time. Although never stated explicitly (as for
example with the U.S. F-22) the Typhoon is capable of and has
demonstrated such an ability since early in its flight program
according to all the Eurofighter partnets. Initial comments indicated
that, with a typical air to air combat load the aircraft was capable
of cruising at M1.2 at altitude (11000m/36000ft) without reheat and
for extended periods. Later information appeared to suggest this
figure had increased to M1.3. However even more recently EADS have
stated a maximum upper limit of M1.5 is possible although the
configuration of the aircraft is not stated for this scenario (an
essential factor in determining how useful such a facility is). "

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:45:53 +1000, John Cook >
wrote:

>Ooops missed out the source for thwe !.5 Mach claim
>
>"Much is currently being made about supercruise, that is the ability
>to cruise supersonically without the use of reheat (afterburn) for
>extended periods of time. Although never stated explicitly (as for
>example with the U.S. F-22) the Typhoon is capable of and has
>demonstrated such an ability since early in its flight program
>according to all the Eurofighter partnets. Initial comments indicated
>that, with a typical air to air combat load the aircraft was capable
>of cruising at M1.2 at altitude (11000m/36000ft) without reheat and
>for extended periods. Later information appeared to suggest this
>figure had increased to M1.3. However even more recently EADS have
>stated a maximum upper limit of M1.5 is possible although the
>configuration of the aircraft is not stated for this scenario (an
>essential factor in determining how useful such a facility is). "
>
>Cheers
>John Cook


Uh. . . you still missed the source :-). It sounds a lot like the
Airtime Publishing blue book (Airpower somethin-or-other) that had the
Typhoon for the focus aircraft a few years ago though. In it they
mentioned that in turning the Eurofighter could outdo anything except
the F-22 had better sustained turning at both subsonic and supersonic
speed and better instantainious at high speed. The only area the
Eurofighter was better according to the article was instantainious at
subsonic speed.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:43:09 +1000, John Cook >
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:17:02 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,
>>
>>AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*.
>
>Yup! it may be an upgrade to the raptor at a much later date, so the
>Typhoons PIRATE IRST is infinitely better.
>
>> IF the Eurpfighter's has
>>to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
>>F-22.
>
>No the Pirate system is capable of cueing the Missle shot all by
>itself, the missile may require mid course guidance if required, but
>otherwise its totally passive..


But then if the Eurofighter sends an update the F-22s ESM system will
pick it up. Not to mention the missile's terminal radar seeker still
needs to be able to detect the F-22.



>
>> Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
>>boat. About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
>>help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
>>AMRAAM's range.
>
>Well the IRST tracked Venus!, the real question is how stealthy to IR
>is the Raptor....
>>
>>> its has a wider
>>>range of missile countermeasures,
>>
>>
>>So the decoy-on-a-string is better than all-aspect stealth huh? You
>>must know something the USAF doesn't.
>
>Well if a radar missile is actually launched at a Typhoon or an F-22,
>I'd rather have a decoy than not have a decoy;-).
>>
>>
>>
>>> just a couple of areas where the
>>>Raptor 'Comes up short'.
>>
>>How about something tangible?
>>>
>>>>Your
>>>>Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department and a plethora of
>>>>other areas.
>>>
>>>Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
>>>way tactically there's little in it,
>>
>>
>>Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?
>
>As opposed to a cruising Typhoon at Mach 1.5 , its the 0.2 Mach that
>has little tactical advantage.
>
>Source
>
>>
>>> BTW Cost is better too!!.
>
>>No arguement there :-)
>>>
>>>All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
>>>Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor
>
>>From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.
>
>True, IIRC the Typhoon is better at Supersonic speeds around 1.5 or at
>least that seems to be the best.
>
>>>.... one
>>>could argue that for R&D money the Raptor has cost, it should be
>>>better in _all_ areas regardless, and be cheaper to manufacture and
>>>support...
>>
>>There are tradeoffs in where you apply your R&D dollars too. You
>>figure they built four prototypes of two different designs and two
>>completely new engines in addition to breaking ground pretty much
>>everywhere. And sometimes even the mundane ends up costing $$$ when
>>you factor in the necessity for stealth.
>
>Do they include the Costs for the YF-23??.


I guess it depends on who's doing the math. Do you include all costs
for the entire ATF program or do you start the money-clock ticking
once the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23?



>
>> I imagine the radome on the
>>F-22 costs a few bucks more than that of the Eurofighter. Even the
>>nozzles on the engines are likely significantly more expensive, even
>>the vectoring aside. None of that stuff comes cheap and it doesn't
>>help that they stretched the program so long.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Its not all one sided you know!.
>>
>>
>>Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
>>pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long.
>
>Thats not unusual its the same with the Typhoon!.
>
>> It just seems like
>>certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.
>
>And others can see no wrong ;-)

Nah I can see wrong. The wrongest thing in the whole F-22 soap opera
IMO is how friggin' long they're taking to get everything done. I
don't doubt that's been a significant factor in the total cost of the
program.

[bendel boy]

Henry J Cobb > wrote in message >...
> http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
> > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley Air
> > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously planned.
>
> Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still gotten
> full scale production?
>
> -HJC

Define full scale.

Many of the early British jets.
The English Electric Lightning.
The F-111.
Possibly the F-102
Brewster Buffalo.

If wanted or needed badly enough then mere obsolence is not a barrier.

[Henry J Cobb]

bendel boy wrote:
> Henry J Cobb > wrote in message >...
>
>>http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
>> > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley Air
>> > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously planned.
>>
>>Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still gotten
>>full scale production?
>
> Define full scale.
>
> The F-111.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-111-history.htm
> In 1957 the US Navy requested industry responses for the design of a
> low-altitude strike fighter.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-111-variants.htm
> During a 1972 - 1973 tour of duty in Vietnam, F-111As flew more than 4,000
> combat missions.

That's 15 years from inital request to combat operations.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-history.htm
> In 1981, the Air Force developed a requirement for an Advanced Tactical
> Fighter as a new air superiority fighter.

15 years later would be 1996.

What combat missions did the F-22 fly in 1996? ;-)

-HJC

[John Cook]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:29:56 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:45:53 +1000, John Cook >
>wrote:
>
>>Ooops missed out the source for thwe !.5 Mach claim
>>
>>"Much is currently being made about supercruise, that is the ability
>>to cruise supersonically without the use of reheat (afterburn) for
>>extended periods of time. Although never stated explicitly (as for
>>example with the U.S. F-22) the Typhoon is capable of and has
>>demonstrated such an ability since early in its flight program
>>according to all the Eurofighter partnets. Initial comments indicated
>>that, with a typical air to air combat load the aircraft was capable
>>of cruising at M1.2 at altitude (11000m/36000ft) without reheat and
>>for extended periods. Later information appeared to suggest this
>>figure had increased to M1.3. However even more recently EADS have
>>stated a maximum upper limit of M1.5 is possible although the
>>configuration of the aircraft is not stated for this scenario (an
>>essential factor in determining how useful such a facility is). "
>>
>>Cheers
>>John Cook
>
>
>Uh. . . you still missed the source :-). It sounds a lot like the
>Airtime Publishing blue book (Airpower somethin-or-other) that had the
>Typhoon for the focus aircraft a few years ago though. In it they
>mentioned that in turning the Eurofighter could outdo anything except
>the F-22 had better sustained turning at both subsonic and supersonic
>speed and better instantainious at high speed. The only area the
>Eurofighter was better according to the article was instantainious at
>subsonic speed.

Yup your right, its at .65 M the Typhoons a tad better at
instantaneous turn rate, not the 1.6 Mach where the F-22 is a tad
better, the reference was on pages 95/96 of the World air power
journal #35.

Seems the F-22's Thrust vectoring really helps in the sustained
rate!!.

Cheers



John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[bendel boy]

Henry J Cobb > wrote in message >...
> bendel boy wrote:
> > Henry J Cobb > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43362sy0jul13,0,5541344.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
> >> > The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley Air
> >> > Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously planned.
> >>
> >>Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still gotten
> >>full scale production?
> >
> > Define full scale.
> >
> > The F-111.
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-111-history.htm
> > In 1957 the US Navy requested industry responses for the design of a
> > low-altitude strike fighter.
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-111-variants.htm
> > During a 1972 - 1973 tour of duty in Vietnam, F-111As flew more than 4,000
> > combat missions.
>
> That's 15 years from inital request to combat operations.
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-history.htm
> > In 1981, the Air Force developed a requirement for an Advanced Tactical
> > Fighter as a new air superiority fighter.
>
> 15 years later would be 1996.
>
> What combat missions did the F-22 fly in 1996? ;-)
>
> -HJC

In 1957 what was the typical time between design proposal request and
first date of entry?

In 1981, ditto.

Perhaps we should also add 1917 - when the delay was weeks or months.
(But you could argue that the 'new' designs were more derivative than
new.)

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:30:14 +1000, John Cook >
wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:29:56 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:45:53 +1000, John Cook >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ooops missed out the source for thwe !.5 Mach claim
>>>
>>>"Much is currently being made about supercruise, that is the ability
>>>to cruise supersonically without the use of reheat (afterburn) for
>>>extended periods of time. Although never stated explicitly (as for
>>>example with the U.S. F-22) the Typhoon is capable of and has
>>>demonstrated such an ability since early in its flight program
>>>according to all the Eurofighter partnets. Initial comments indicated
>>>that, with a typical air to air combat load the aircraft was capable
>>>of cruising at M1.2 at altitude (11000m/36000ft) without reheat and
>>>for extended periods. Later information appeared to suggest this
>>>figure had increased to M1.3. However even more recently EADS have
>>>stated a maximum upper limit of M1.5 is possible although the
>>>configuration of the aircraft is not stated for this scenario (an
>>>essential factor in determining how useful such a facility is). "
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>John Cook
>>
>>
>>Uh. . . you still missed the source :-). It sounds a lot like the
>>Airtime Publishing blue book (Airpower somethin-or-other) that had the
>>Typhoon for the focus aircraft a few years ago though. In it they
>>mentioned that in turning the Eurofighter could outdo anything except
>>the F-22 had better sustained turning at both subsonic and supersonic
>>speed and better instantainious at high speed. The only area the
>>Eurofighter was better according to the article was instantainious at
>>subsonic speed.
>
>Yup your right, its at .65 M the Typhoons a tad better at
>instantaneous turn rate, not the 1.6 Mach where the F-22 is a tad
>better, the reference was on pages 95/96 of the World air power
>journal #35.
>
>Seems the F-22's Thrust vectoring really helps in the sustained
>rate!!.
>
>Cheers
>
>
>
>John Cook


FWIW the Tomcat could do 7.5g at Mach 2.2 because of those little flip
out canard-like things in the glove. They didn't even have to move,
all they did was bump the center of pressure forward to offset the
effect of increased stability brought on by the higher speed.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Scott Ferrin
> writes
>>My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.
>
>
>The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
>compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
>a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros.

Which is part of the problem. The requirement is to be "significantly
better than the threat": the F-22 may be a Ferrari, but the Eurofighter
is a Porsche. Both leave the competition behind, but one costs over
twice what the other does. Once you've won, "winning more" doesn't help
that much: what do you do, go back and strafe the wreckage?

>Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.

'Reduced RCS' rather than stealth. (Of course, emitting is still a
problem for the F-22 if it wants to stay unobtrusive)

>Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department.

True - it's got PIRATE, the F-22 lost its IRST as a cost saver. Be
interesting to compare countermeasure suites, too.

>Your
>Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department

Where, precisely?

>and a plethora of
>other areas.

Where does the Eurofighter lack against the current and projected
threat? (Unless you're saying you're going to export full-spec Raptors
to hostile nations...)


On the other hand, it's a lot more flexible. (Well, you *can* hang all
sorts of external ordnance on a F-22 - once it's been through clearance
trials - but there goes the stealth). It's demonstrating excellent
reliability: the ground staff at Warton have allegedly been complaining
that they usually catch up on the flight-test data while the aircraft
are downed, but the Typhoon doesn't break much and is quickly fixed when
it does.

And for a given budget, you can get roughly twice the Eurofighters for
the same force of Raptors: which is important, because both aircraft are
"much better" than the current and projected threat, but numbers end up
counting. Can't attrit an enemy raid if there's no CAP available to hit
it.

>>Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
>>a Raptor!!!
>
>LOL!! The Viggen lost out to the F-16 for the European sales so I
>guess nobody else agrees with you.

Sweden had a very restrictive arms export policy, which was one of
several factors. They teamed with BAE to sell Gripen for just that
reason. (The Viggen's a solid aircraft, with some advantages over the
F-16A it was competing against, but some drawbacks too. And the F-16 was
and is a very good aircraft, though sometimes much maligned by the
US...)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Scott Ferrin
> writes
>>The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,
>
>AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
>to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
>F-22.

No, PIRATE's autonomous.

>Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
>boat.

How are you getting the firing solution? Radar? Put out many megawatts
of coherent microwaves and hope that a notional "low probability of
intercept" radar is actually a "zero PoI", because Typhoon has a rather
good RHAWS of its own?

>About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
>help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
>AMRAAM's range.

Where's the Raptor getting *its* targeting data from?

It's a similar problem to the submarine arena: once you get into
stealthy-passive mode, you end up with weapons that grossly outrange the
sensors cueing them. The need to not only find targets, but be
reasonably confident of what you're shooting at and the constraints of
ROE, is a serious problem if you're flying around cold-nosed.

>> its has a wider
>>range of missile countermeasures,
>
>So the decoy-on-a-string is better than all-aspect stealth huh? You
>must know something the USAF doesn't.

Depends on a lot of issues, few of which are suited to a public debate
demanding numbers. Also, how 'all-aspect' is the F-22's stealth? We both
know that no trustworthy RCS plots will be published any time soon.

Some claim it's heavily optimised to reduce its RCS from the front,
others that it's invisible all-around. (I'm willing to believe 'damn
hard to see from the frontal arc' but how do you stealth TV nozzles?)

On the naval side, the USN has worked hard and, I'm told, successfully
to reduce the RCS of its DDG-51s. It has also invested in active
offboard decoys for them (cf. Nulka) and keeps an interest in passive
decoys too: because low signature is a means to an end, not an end in
itself.

>> just a couple of areas where the
>>Raptor 'Comes up short'.
>
>How about something tangible?

'Comes up short' is a real overstatement for the Raptor. Perhaps "fails
to demonstrate a clear relationship between increased cost and increased
capability" would be better.

If four enemy MiG-29s come up to fight each of the UK and the US, and
the Eurofighters shoot down all four, how does the Raptor manage to be
"more capable" than shooting down all four? Shoot them down, rebuild the
wrecks, reanimate the pilots, then shoot them down again?

>>Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
>>way tactically there's little in it,
>
>Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?

Not for escort work - unless your strikers can also cruise at that
speed, no point leaving them behind.

Not for fighter sweeps - you're stealthy, they don't know you're there,
you just supercruise past leaving them blithely ignorant. (Or you
broadcast your presence, and hope they come up to fight... what if they
don't?)

Not for holding station on BARCAP - you're covering a location, who
cares how quickly you go around the racetrack while you're waiting

Not really for interception - you're not worried about loiter, you're
wanting to get to the Bad Guys ASAP.

I'm sure there *is* a current tactical advantage to supercruise, but
it's not immediately obvious against the current threat. (As opposed to
the original problem)

>>All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
>>Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor
>
>From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.

Of course. The F-22 probably does better in most sustained turn arenas
as well, once its thrust vectoring kicks in. (But dodging missiles in a
BVR fight is an instantaneous issue... sustained turn is for WVR fights,
where stealth is irrelevant)

>>Its not all one sided you know!.
>
>Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
>pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long. It just seems like
>certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.

The F-22 is a fantastic aircraft and without a doubt the best air-to-air
platform that anyone's likely to see for some while. It's even better
than the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes, I admit it), though there's a valid
argument about the cost-versus-capability tradeoff if the two faced off
(shades of P-51 Mustangs versus Me-262s... the jet was clearly
individually superior, but was outnumbered too badly by a 'good enough'
opponent to prevail).

The trouble is, it's perhaps *too* fantastic: it dates back to when the
assorted fUSSR fantasy-uberfighters were considered real threats.

There's much less of a credible air threat now, than there was when both
Raptor and Typhoon started life. It keeps coming back to the problem
that, unless you expect them to fight each other, they both thoroughly
overmatch the likely enemy, and one's about twice the cost of the other.


But what do you do with the huge sunk costs (both financial and
political) of the F-22 program? Bin it and buy a cheaper and provably
less capable foreign competitor? Yes, *that* is a sure vote-winner. Cut
the numbers back, like the B-2, and get a silver-bullet force while
seeking a cheaper alternative (like an air-to-air dedicated JSF)?

Damdifino.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Brett]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> In message >, Scott Ferrin
> > writes
> >>My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.
> >
> >
> >The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
> >compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
> >a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros.
>
> Which is part of the problem. The requirement is to be "significantly
> better than the threat": the F-22 may be a Ferrari, but the Eurofighter
> is a Porsche.

A better description based on "where it is built" would be: mid-range GM
model.

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:16:47 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>
>Where's the Raptor getting *its* targeting data from?

AWACS, perhaps?

Wioth stealth aircraft, getting sensor data from other aircraft
makes a lot of sense, because once you turn the radar on, it's not a
stealth aircraft any more.

>Depends on a lot of issues, few of which are suited to a public debate
>demanding numbers. Also, how 'all-aspect' is the F-22's stealth? We both
>know that no trustworthy RCS plots will be published any time soon.
>
>Some claim it's heavily optimised to reduce its RCS from the front,

This would make sense, for the same reason that tanks are more
heavily armoured at the front.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Denyav]

>'Reduced RCS' rather than stealth. (Of course, emitting is still a
>problem for the F-22 if it wants to stay unobtrusive)
>

Well,if you start experimenting with the definitions you must also mention two
more of them:

1)Monostatic (backscatterer) RCS.
This is what you are referrring to and this could be reduced very significantly
by hard body shaping.
Both B2 and F22 (at least as far as frontal threat zone concerned) have
identical and excellent backscaterer RCS values.
There is no way that any conventional bacscatterer radar that positioned
inside of their forward thread zone could possibly detect these two planes
before its too late.

2)Bi-Static (forwardscatterer) RCS
Totaly different story here,as Germans and Brits discovered 60 years ago,hard
body shaping significantly reduces the backscatterer,but NOT
forwardscatererers.
On contrary,agressive use of hard body shaping in order to reduce backscaterers
to absulutely lowest levels actualy increases forwardscaterers.

Thats the reason why the planes with insect size monostatic RCS,B2 and F22,have
B-52 size Bi-static RCS,which makes them very vulnerable to the detection using
low power commercial and military emitters.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:16:47 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Scott Ferrin
> writes
>>>The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,
>>
>>AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
>>to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
>>F-22.
>
>No, PIRATE's autonomous.
>
>>Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
>>boat.
>
>How are you getting the firing solution? Radar? Put out many megawatts
>of coherent microwaves and hope that a notional "low probability of
>intercept" radar is actually a "zero PoI", because Typhoon has a rather
>good RHAWS of its own?

This brings up something I've been wondering. I don't know if this is
urban legend or what. Supposedly workstations dealing with classified
materials have to have the monitors shielded so signals can't be
picked up out the back? I'm wondering, when it comes to your typical
fighter if these same signals are shielded. It seems to me there
would be other sources of electrical "noise" than just an actively
transmitting radar or radio.






>
>>About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
>>help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
>>AMRAAM's range.
>
>Where's the Raptor getting *its* targeting data from?


From it's LPI radar. In that scenario though it really comes down to
can the Meteor or AMRAAM track an F-22. The Typhoon can stare at the
sucker all day long but if it can't guide a weapon to it without firng
up the radar. . .




>>>Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
>>>way tactically there's little in it,
>>
>>Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?
>
>Not for escort work - unless your strikers can also cruise at that
>speed, no point leaving them behind.
>
>Not for fighter sweeps - you're stealthy, they don't know you're there,
>you just supercruise past leaving them blithely ignorant. (Or you
>broadcast your presence, and hope they come up to fight... what if they
>don't?)



The speed gives you a lot more options though. There were many times
in Desert Storm when they saw aircraft running for Iran but couldn't
get fighters there fast enough because either A) The couldn't get the
speed with their external tanks or B) the didn't have the range if
they punched off the tanks.




>
>Not for holding station on BARCAP - you're covering a location, who
>cares how quickly you go around the racetrack while you're waiting


But you can cover a bigger area with the same reaction time.




>
>Not really for interception - you're not worried about loiter, you're
>wanting to get to the Bad Guys ASAP.

Yeah top speed is important but unless you have the tankers flying
around to refuel you you aren't going to get very far without external
tanks which drags your speed down. I doubt the numbers are public but
it would be interesting to see the numbers for a simulated 400 mile
intercept flown by an F-22, Eurofighter, F-15, and Mig-31. They have
to fly out, deal with the target, and fly back to base with no
tankers. Who gets there first and who makes it back to base? The
enemy could have stand off weapons so the further out you intercept
the better. It would be interesting to see the results. My money
would be on the Mig.




>
>I'm sure there *is* a current tactical advantage to supercruise, but
>it's not immediately obvious against the current threat. (As opposed to
>the original problem)


Last time I checked there are still Su-27s and Mig-31s flying. Come
to think of it there are probably more countries flying Flankers these
days then those generals back in the 80's might have imagined in their
worst nightmares. Or are you saying that since Russia never built the
1.42 or Berkut that we should stick with the thirty year old F-15?
The idea is to be *better* than the other guy not wait until he can
kick your ass before you try to achieve parity.



>
>>>All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
>>>Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor
>>
>>From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.
>
>Of course. The F-22 probably does better in most sustained turn arenas
>as well, once its thrust vectoring kicks in. (But dodging missiles in a
>BVR fight is an instantaneous issue... sustained turn is for WVR fights,
>where stealth is irrelevant)
>
>>>Its not all one sided you know!.
>>
>>Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
>>pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long. It just seems like
>>certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.
>
>The F-22 is a fantastic aircraft and without a doubt the best air-to-air
>platform that anyone's likely to see for some while. It's even better
>than the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes, I admit it), though there's a valid
>argument about the cost-versus-capability tradeoff if the two faced off
>(shades of P-51 Mustangs versus Me-262s... the jet was clearly
>individually superior, but was outnumbered too badly by a 'good enough'
>opponent to prevail).


I don't know. It's pretty tough to over rate stealth. If those were
stealthy Me-262s. . .well back in those days I suppose "invisible"
would have been more appropriate. . . how well would P-51s have
faired?






>
>The trouble is, it's perhaps *too* fantastic: it dates back to when the
>assorted fUSSR fantasy-uberfighters were considered real threats.


Actually the ATF came about because the Flankers and Fulcrums were
seen as such a threat. The 1.42 got tacked onto the list when it
became apparent they were working on *something* but it was originally
with the Flanker and Fulcrum in mind. They figured trying to make a
fighter MORE manueverable than those two was bumping up against the
old law of diminishing returns so they went a different direction
altogether with the stealth and supercruise.




>
>There's much less of a credible air threat now, than there was when both
>Raptor and Typhoon started life.

I would say different not less. How many countries have S-300s? How
many have Flankers? And just because it may *appear* to be less now
doesn't mean it will remain that way. The F-22 is intended to be
viable for the next thirty or more years.



> It keeps coming back to the problem
>that, unless you expect them to fight each other, they both thoroughly
>overmatch the likely enemy, and one's about twice the cost of the other.


I don't know. How well would a Typhoon do against Su-37s armed with
KS-172s? There are several nations that are shopping for that combo.



>
>
>But what do you do with the huge sunk costs (both financial and
>political) of the F-22 program? Bin it and buy a cheaper and provably
>less capable foreign competitor? Yes, *that* is a sure vote-winner. Cut
>the numbers back, like the B-2, and get a silver-bullet force while
>seeking a cheaper alternative (like an air-to-air dedicated JSF)?
>
>Damdifino.


Me either. The JSF seems a nonstarter because it's so much slower and
while this isn't the 50's where speed is the be all and end all there
is still a place for it. Also from what I've read the JSF won't
exactly sparkle in a dogfight either. Or carry much of an internal AA
load.

[Mike Williamson]

Scott Ferrin wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:16:47 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>In message >, Scott Ferrin
> writes
>>
>>>>The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,
>>>
>>>AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
>>>to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
>>>F-22.
>>
>>No, PIRATE's autonomous.
>>
>>
>>>Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
>>>boat.
>>
>>How are you getting the firing solution? Radar? Put out many megawatts
>>of coherent microwaves and hope that a notional "low probability of
>>intercept" radar is actually a "zero PoI", because Typhoon has a rather
>>good RHAWS of its own?
>
>
> This brings up something I've been wondering. I don't know if this is
> urban legend or what. Supposedly workstations dealing with classified
> materials have to have the monitors shielded so signals can't be
> picked up out the back? I'm wondering, when it comes to your typical
> fighter if these same signals are shielded. It seems to me there
> would be other sources of electrical "noise" than just an actively
> transmitting radar or radio.
>
>

Untrue- the classified workstations that I deal with use the same
monitors as any other terminals- they do have to be separated (by
either 30 inches or 3 feet, IIRC, which obviously I don't) from
any unclassified system, however.

Some facilities are shielded against signals leaking out- TEMPEST
is the overall designation for the standards which are used to
determine adequate signal attenuation, IIRC. Not sure how many
facilities are using TEMPEST nowadays.


Mike Williamson
EC-130H Compass Call
"In Jam, No One Can Hear You Scream"

[Ian]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >'Reduced RCS' rather than stealth. (Of course, emitting is still a
> >problem for the F-22 if it wants to stay unobtrusive)
> >
>
> Well,if you start experimenting with the definitions you must also mention
two
> more of them:
>
> 1)Monostatic (backscatterer) RCS.
> This is what you are referrring to and this could be reduced very
significantly
> by hard body shaping.
> Both B2 and F22 (at least as far as frontal threat zone concerned) have
> identical and excellent backscaterer RCS values.
> There is no way that any conventional bacscatterer radar that positioned
> inside of their forward thread zone could possibly detect these two
planes
> before its too late.
>
> 2)Bi-Static (forwardscatterer) RCS
> Totaly different story here,as Germans and Brits discovered 60 years
ago,hard
> body shaping significantly reduces the backscatterer,but NOT
> forwardscatererers.
> On contrary,agressive use of hard body shaping in order to reduce
backscaterers
> to absulutely lowest levels actualy increases forwardscaterers.
>
> Thats the reason why the planes with insect size monostatic RCS,B2 and
F22,have
> B-52 size Bi-static RCS,which makes them very vulnerable to the detection
using
> low power commercial and military emitters.
>

Newbie Alert
(My knowledge of radars is very limited cos my course covered them in
3hours!)

Assuming the F-22 is radar stealthy etc due to its shape and materials, is
it possible that you'd get a decent radar return from the radome? After
all, the aircraft radar goes out through it, so whats to stop (a very
lucky!) ground or other airborne radar getting through it the other way? Or
are radomes made of mono directional materials?
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ian" > wrote in message
...

> Assuming the F-22 is radar stealthy etc due to its shape and materials, is
> it possible that you'd get a decent radar return from the radome? After
> all, the aircraft radar goes out through it, so whats to stop (a very
> lucky!) ground or other airborne radar getting through it the other way?
Or
> are radomes made of mono directional materials?

A return is a reflection, since the radome is transparent to
radar you get no reflection and hence no return.

Keith

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Scott Ferrin
> writes
>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:16:47 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>>How are you getting the firing solution? Radar? Put out many megawatts
>>of coherent microwaves and hope that a notional "low probability of
>>intercept" radar is actually a "zero PoI", because Typhoon has a rather
>>good RHAWS of its own?
>
>This brings up something I've been wondering. I don't know if this is
>urban legend or what. Supposedly workstations dealing with classified
>materials have to have the monitors shielded so signals can't be
>picked up out the back? I

No more so than ordinary monitors. There are rules about how close they
can be sited to unclassified machines (no less than a metre, or
thereabouts) but that's to make it difficult to siphon off data with a
null modem cable. (And typically, where you have classified and
unclassified networks in the same office, you'll have one network's
wiring run in the ceiling and another along the floor)

TEMPEST-shielding monitors isn't done: what *is* typical, is putting the
fence far enough out that eavesdropping on screen content isn't
feasible, and having security move any suspicious vehicles along in good
time.

>'m wondering, when it comes to your typical
>fighter if these same signals are shielded. It seems to me there
>would be other sources of electrical "noise" than just an actively
>transmitting radar or radio.

You need to put out enough power, coherent enough, to be detectable at
distance. I'm sure even the F-22 puts out an interesting collection of
low-level EM radiation, but by the time you could detect it you could
*see* it.

>>Where's the Raptor getting *its* targeting data from?
>
>From it's LPI radar. In that scenario though it really comes down to
>can the Meteor or AMRAAM track an F-22.

Good question, and not one with an unclassified answer :)

From the theory, the answer is "yes, eventually, but how close does it
have to be?"

>The Typhoon can stare at the
>sucker all day long but if it can't guide a weapon to it without firng
>up the radar. . .

No need to light up the radar, PIRATE's good enough to let you heave a
missile at the target. But is it good enough for the missile to be able
to acquire, track and home? Good question.

>The speed gives you a lot more options though. There were many times
>in Desert Storm when they saw aircraft running for Iran but couldn't
>get fighters there fast enough because either A) The couldn't get the
>speed with their external tanks or B) the didn't have the range if
>they punched off the tanks.

That's a pretty narrow set of circumstances, and it's worth noting that
the aircraft were running away and not coming back. Even if none had
been intercepted, they were still all losses to Iraq.

>>Not for holding station on BARCAP - you're covering a location, who
>>cares how quickly you go around the racetrack while you're waiting
>
>But you can cover a bigger area with the same reaction time.

Depends how supercruise compares to simple light-burners-and-dash in
terms of fuel consumption, time taken and ground covered, and what
sensor coverage is, and other issues...

>>Not really for interception - you're not worried about loiter, you're
>>wanting to get to the Bad Guys ASAP.
>
>Yeah top speed is important but unless you have the tankers flying
>around to refuel you you aren't going to get very far without external
>tanks which drags your speed down. I doubt the numbers are public but
>it would be interesting to see the numbers for a simulated 400 mile
>intercept flown by an F-22, Eurofighter, F-15, and Mig-31.

What's cuing the intercept at that range?

>They have
>to fly out, deal with the target, and fly back to base with no
>tankers. Who gets there first and who makes it back to base? The
>enemy could have stand off weapons so the further out you intercept
>the better. It would be interesting to see the results. My money
>would be on the Mig.

Don't know the numbers, but it's a Soviet sort of question (honking big
GCI nets backed by large interceptors) and the MiG-31 is a good answer
to it.

>>I'm sure there *is* a current tactical advantage to supercruise, but
>>it's not immediately obvious against the current threat. (As opposed to
>>the original problem)
>
>Last time I checked there are still Su-27s and Mig-31s flying. Come
>to think of it there are probably more countries flying Flankers these
>days then those generals back in the 80's might have imagined in their
>worst nightmares.

True, but how many of those are serviceable and how many hours a year of
realistic training do the pilots get?

>Or are you saying that since Russia never built the
>1.42 or Berkut that we should stick with the thirty year old F-15?

No, you're stuck with the F-22 (whose main drawbacks are its cost and
the reverence in which it's held, hardly catastrophic) as your
next-generation fighter.

>The idea is to be *better* than the other guy not wait until he can
>kick your ass before you try to achieve parity.

True - it's just that the end of the Cold War means that the threat the
F-22 was intended to address, has not materialised. (Hence, among other
things, its reinvention as the 'F/A-22' - is that still being pushed?)

It does have serious potential for tactical recce, mind you. Fast, long
range, low observable, highly survivable: stick an imagery package in
the weapons bay and you've got the RF-22 PhotoRaptor.

>>The F-22 is a fantastic aircraft and without a doubt the best air-to-air
>>platform that anyone's likely to see for some while. It's even better
>>than the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes, I admit it), though there's a valid
>>argument about the cost-versus-capability tradeoff if the two faced off
>>(shades of P-51 Mustangs versus Me-262s... the jet was clearly
>>individually superior, but was outnumbered too badly by a 'good enough'
>>opponent to prevail).
>
>I don't know. It's pretty tough to over rate stealth. If those were
>stealthy Me-262s. . .well back in those days I suppose "invisible"
>would have been more appropriate. . . how well would P-51s have
>faired?

Depends "how invisible". The tactic of simply mobbing their airfields
and ambushing them in the pattern would still be effective even if they
were hard to see.

>>The trouble is, it's perhaps *too* fantastic: it dates back to when the
>>assorted fUSSR fantasy-uberfighters were considered real threats.
>
>Actually the ATF came about because the Flankers and Fulcrums were
>seen as such a threat.

True, but the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen were designed against the
same threat and manage to overmatch it at lower cost.

>>There's much less of a credible air threat now, than there was when both
>>Raptor and Typhoon started life.
>
>I would say different not less. How many countries have S-300s?

That's a nasty beast, but not a driver on your fighter procurement
program (how much of your Air Force will still be non-stealthy? Will the
enemy AD crews resemble Iraqis, or Serbs?)

>How
>many have Flankers? And just because it may *appear* to be less now
>doesn't mean it will remain that way. The F-22 is intended to be
>viable for the next thirty or more years.

As are its contemporaries.

>> It keeps coming back to the problem
>>that, unless you expect them to fight each other, they both thoroughly
>>overmatch the likely enemy, and one's about twice the cost of the other.
>
>I don't know. How well would a Typhoon do against Su-37s armed with
>KS-172s?

Pretty well, would be the short answer :).

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Scott Ferrin]

>You need to put out enough power, coherent enough, to be detectable at
>distance. I'm sure even the F-22 puts out an interesting collection of
>low-level EM radiation, but by the time you could detect it you could
>*see* it.



Makes sense. I suppose if it was detectible from very far you'd have
millions of eletrical motors and millions of lots of other electronic
devices all raising hell with each other.




>
>>>Where's the Raptor getting *its* targeting data from?
>>
>>From it's LPI radar. In that scenario though it really comes down to
>>can the Meteor or AMRAAM track an F-22.
>
>Good question, and not one with an unclassified answer :)


What's got me scratching my head is why they don't put an IR seeker
for the terminal guidance. While the F-22 is a stealth aircraft I
don't think I'd want to put it to the test with say a Eurofighter and
ASRAAM.





>
> From the theory, the answer is "yes, eventually, but how close does it
>have to be?"
>
>>The Typhoon can stare at the
>>sucker all day long but if it can't guide a weapon to it without firng
>>up the radar. . .
>
>No need to light up the radar, PIRATE's good enough to let you heave a
>missile at the target. But is it good enough for the missile to be able
>to acquire, track and home? Good question.
>
>>The speed gives you a lot more options though. There were many times
>>in Desert Storm when they saw aircraft running for Iran but couldn't
>>get fighters there fast enough because either A) The couldn't get the
>>speed with their external tanks or B) the didn't have the range if
>>they punched off the tanks.
>
>That's a pretty narrow set of circumstances, and it's worth noting that
>the aircraft were running away and not coming back. Even if none had
>been intercepted, they were still all losses to Iraq.

Yeah but they weren't suppose to be LOL!





>>>wanting to get to the Bad Guys ASAP.
>>
>>Yeah top speed is important but unless you have the tankers flying
>>around to refuel you you aren't going to get very far without external
>>tanks which drags your speed down. I doubt the numbers are public but
>>it would be interesting to see the numbers for a simulated 400 mile
>>intercept flown by an F-22, Eurofighter, F-15, and Mig-31.
>
>What's cuing the intercept at that range?

Could be AWACs, OTHB, forward-based sensors, or even satellites. That
last brings up another question though. The US wants to get space
based radar but can *existing* elint satellites detect things like
fire control radars? It would seem feasible to have a couple (three
or more I guess) elint satellites listening for nothing but fire
control and search radars and forwarding the locations on to the
shooters.



>
>>They have
>>to fly out, deal with the target, and fly back to base with no
>>tankers. Who gets there first and who makes it back to base? The
>>enemy could have stand off weapons so the further out you intercept
>>the better. It would be interesting to see the results. My money
>>would be on the Mig.
>
>Don't know the numbers, but it's a Soviet sort of question (honking big
>GCI nets backed by large interceptors) and the MiG-31 is a good answer
>to it.

Or the YF-12 back the sixties <sigh>




>
>>>I'm sure there *is* a current tactical advantage to supercruise, but
>>>it's not immediately obvious against the current threat. (As opposed to
>>>the original problem)
>>
>>Last time I checked there are still Su-27s and Mig-31s flying. Come
>>to think of it there are probably more countries flying Flankers these
>>days then those generals back in the 80's might have imagined in their
>>worst nightmares.
>
>True, but how many of those are serviceable and how many hours a year of
>realistic training do the pilots get?


Will it always stay that way? And yeah if Gabon has TWO or some other
rinky-dink country has three or four that's no biggie but when you've
got China with hundreds and counting and working on an F-22 counter
(yeah working on isn't *getting* but a like the saying goes, "a
thousand monkeys with typewriters given enough time. . ." ) and
India's growing numbers of Flankers and their pilots getting MORE
training than the US pilots get. . .well then it's not so cut and dry.
And who's to say what the world stage will be like in twenty or thirty
years? Hell less time then that ago we were selling Tomcats with
Phoenix missiles to Iran. And who knows where Russia will fall?
Right now they seem to be neutral and while China is trying to cozy up
to them I think if it came down to it they'd choose the devil they
know (the US) over the one they don't (China). My point being that
right now in history there are too many unknowns and in some scenarios
you'd DEFINITELY want to have the best you can build. If the next
thirty or forty years were for sure going to be like the last ten then
sure, you could scrap the F-22 and life would be fine. It's those
unknowns that are the flys in the ointment.


>
>>Or are you saying that since Russia never built the
>>1.42 or Berkut that we should stick with the thirty year old F-15?
>
>No, you're stuck with the F-22 (whose main drawbacks are its cost and
>the reverence in which it's held, hardly catastrophic) as your
>next-generation fighter.



Stuck is right. As of a few weeks ago there were 74 F-22s built or
under contract. The R&D is spent and there's no getting it back. The
tooling, facilities etc. are in place. Despite what some would have
the world believe the USAF doesn't pay X amount + an R&D percentage
for each new Raptor. So say Kerry gets voted in and cancels the F-22
to prove he can win a ****ing contest, what then? The USAF adopts the
F-35 as it's premier fighter? A single-engine jet that can't even
break Mach 2? Does anybody really see the USAF accepting this? And
if they funded a NEW aircraft where would they cut corners to make it
cheaper? Get rid of stealth? Not likely. Supercruise? Maybe. So
you'd end up with a big twin-engined fighter with maybe just frontal
aspect stealth and "reduced RCS" everywhere else like the F-35 and
maybe F135s instead of F119s (they're cheaper supposedly). How much
would IT cost to develope and how many years? In the end would the
cost of that scenario really be any cheaper than just continuing to
buy F-22s? Even if you stopped F-22 production at 74 you still need
to keep the system in place to support what there is so you're not
going to save money there. If the USAF was *forced* to accept the
F-35 as it's premier fighter history suggests that in the end they'll
end up with what they *really* want even if they have to wait for a
new administration to get it. What would really be a laugher though
is if they really are dragging that F-23 out of the museum and at some
point someone says "well we don't need them BOTH and that F-22 is up
to $260 million a piece- I'm sure we could bring that F-23 in cheaper.
.. ." Funny not because I think they could do it but funny that
inevitably there will be somebody who thinks they CAN.


>
>>The idea is to be *better* than the other guy not wait until he can
>>kick your ass before you try to achieve parity.
>
>True - it's just that the end of the Cold War means that the threat the
>F-22 was intended to address, has not materialised. (Hence, among other
>things, its reinvention as the 'F/A-22' - is that still being pushed?)

I don't know. ISTR seeing a photo of an F-22 with SDB in one of it's
bays. The latest I've heard is the various incarnations of a strike
F-22. Everything from a basic stetched F-22 with longer main bays to
the full cranked-arrow, tailless job powered by F135s.



>
>It does have serious potential for tactical recce, mind you. Fast, long
>range, low observable, highly survivable: stick an imagery package in
>the weapons bay and you've got the RF-22 PhotoRaptor.

That would be one expensive tactical recon aircraft :-)



>
>>>The F-22 is a fantastic aircraft and without a doubt the best air-to-air
>>>platform that anyone's likely to see for some while. It's even better
>>>than the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes, I admit it), though there's a valid
>>>argument about the cost-versus-capability tradeoff if the two faced off
>>>(shades of P-51 Mustangs versus Me-262s... the jet was clearly
>>>individually superior, but was outnumbered too badly by a 'good enough'
>>>opponent to prevail).
>>
>>I don't know. It's pretty tough to over rate stealth. If those were
>>stealthy Me-262s. . .well back in those days I suppose "invisible"
>>would have been more appropriate. . . how well would P-51s have
>>faired?
>
>Depends "how invisible". The tactic of simply mobbing their airfields
>and ambushing them in the pattern would still be effective even if they
>were hard to see.

Yeah. I have a tough time imagining F-22 bases getting mobbed by
enemy aircraft though. If in a Taiwan scenario they deployed F-22s to
Taiwan though it could be raining tactical missiles. Dead is dead I
guess.





>
>>>The trouble is, it's perhaps *too* fantastic: it dates back to when the
>>>assorted fUSSR fantasy-uberfighters were considered real threats.
>>
>>Actually the ATF came about because the Flankers and Fulcrums were
>>seen as such a threat.
>
>True, but the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen were designed against the
>same threat and manage to overmatch it at lower cost.


One on one is a Gripen REALLY a match for a well flown Su-37?





>
>>>There's much less of a credible air threat now, than there was when both
>>>Raptor and Typhoon started life.
>>
>>I would say different not less. How many countries have S-300s?
>
>That's a nasty beast, but not a driver on your fighter procurement
>program


If the enemy is defending it's airbases with S-300s it does. Without
all-aspect stealth pretty much any area they set up S-300s becomes a
sanctuary for enemy air.





> Will the
>enemy AD crews resemble Iraqis, or Serbs?)

Hell for all we know they could be Israelis. A lot can happen in 30
years.




>
>>How
>>many have Flankers? And just because it may *appear* to be less now
>>doesn't mean it will remain that way. The F-22 is intended to be
>>viable for the next thirty or more years.
>
>As are its contemporaries.
>
>>> It keeps coming back to the problem
>>>that, unless you expect them to fight each other, they both thoroughly
>>>overmatch the likely enemy, and one's about twice the cost of the other.
>>
>>I don't know. How well would a Typhoon do against Su-37s armed with
>>KS-172s?
>
>Pretty well, would be the short answer :).

I don't know, that KS-172 outranges even Meteor by a significant
amount.

[Ian]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ian" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Assuming the F-22 is radar stealthy etc due to its shape and materials,
is
> > it possible that you'd get a decent radar return from the radome? After
> > all, the aircraft radar goes out through it, so whats to stop (a very
> > lucky!) ground or other airborne radar getting through it the other way?
> Or
> > are radomes made of mono directional materials?
>
> A return is a reflection, since the radome is transparent to
> radar you get no reflection and hence no return.
>
> Keith
>

So what about the equipment within the radome?

[Ian]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ian" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Assuming the F-22 is radar stealthy etc due to its shape and materials,
is
> > it possible that you'd get a decent radar return from the radome? After
> > all, the aircraft radar goes out through it, so whats to stop (a very
> > lucky!) ground or other airborne radar getting through it the other way?
> Or
> > are radomes made of mono directional materials?
>
> A return is a reflection, since the radome is transparent to
> radar you get no reflection and hence no return.
>
> Keith
>
So would it be possible to get a return from within the radome, e.g. the
radar RxTx surface itself, or the bulkhead etc...
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:48:46 +0100, "Ian" >
wrote:

>
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Ian" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Assuming the F-22 is radar stealthy etc due to its shape and materials,
>is
>> > it possible that you'd get a decent radar return from the radome? After
>> > all, the aircraft radar goes out through it, so whats to stop (a very
>> > lucky!) ground or other airborne radar getting through it the other way?
>> Or
>> > are radomes made of mono directional materials?
>>
>> A return is a reflection, since the radome is transparent to
>> radar you get no reflection and hence no return.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>So would it be possible to get a return from within the radome, e.g. the
>radar RxTx surface itself, or the bulkhead etc...


The radome is transparent at certain frequencies from what I've read.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:16:47 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> > wrote:
>
> >In message >, Scott Ferrin
> > writes
> >How are you getting the firing solution? Radar? Put out many megawatts
> >of coherent microwaves and hope that a notional "low probability of
> >intercept" radar is actually a "zero PoI", because Typhoon has a rather
> >good RHAWS of its own?
>
> This brings up something I've been wondering. I don't know if this is
> urban legend or what. Supposedly workstations dealing with classified
> materials have to have the monitors shielded so signals can't be
> picked up out the back? I'm wondering, when it comes to your typical
> fighter if these same signals are shielded. It seems to me there
> would be other sources of electrical "noise" than just an actively
> transmitting radar or radio.
>

See
MIL-STD-461 Requirements For The Control Of Electromagnetic Interference
Characteristics Of Subsystems And Equipment
MIL-STD-464 Electromagnetic Environmental Effects, Requirements for Systems
EIA/IS-647 Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic
Interference Emissions and Susceptibility Characteristics of Equipment
Intended to Operate in Severe Electromagnetic Environments

some of the words we live by.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Jim Knoyle]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:48:46 +0100, "Ian" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Ian" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Assuming the F-22 is radar stealthy etc due to its shape and
materials,
> >is
> >> > it possible that you'd get a decent radar return from the radome?
After
> >> > all, the aircraft radar goes out through it, so whats to stop (a very
> >> > lucky!) ground or other airborne radar getting through it the other
way?
> >> Or
> >> > are radomes made of mono directional materials?
> >>
> >> A return is a reflection, since the radome is transparent to
> >> radar you get no reflection and hence no return.
> >>
> >> Keith
> >>
> >So would it be possible to get a return from within the radome, e.g. the
> >radar RxTx surface itself, or the bulkhead etc...
>
>
> The radome is transparent at certain frequencies from what I've read.

Also, timing in the receiver should prevent that as well as variable
gain/distance. STC is what they called it in our old RCA sets.
Amazing how the terms main bang lockout and sensitivity time
control just popped into mind after 30 years. :-)