F22 Raptor Killed !

[gogbot]

I know there are a couple of peaceful Indians out here who want serenity, but I'm sorry, your nation just has WAYYYYYY too many psychos who want an all out war with China, claiming that we're the ones defying some border rule bullshit although they're disregarding the fact that they're not even mentioned in the Chinese Media because we simply don't give a damn about India's arrogant attitude. Perhaps the claim of China wanting war with India was just the latter's best attempt of grabbing the limelight in Chinese Media for a day. But all in all, who knows and more importantly, WHO GIVES A ****. As a side note, the only reason I know of all this Indian crap is because I'm currently residing in the West, and so Gogbot should know how we obtain our info, right? Oh yes, I'm a noob here so I'm going to filter out the dirty words of my first couple of posts, won't be seeing any more of this from now on...

Hey i have always tried to be a peaceful voice on this forum.
I have always advocated for better Indo-China relations.

 

[lockh33d]

Hey i have always tried to be a peaceful voice on this forum.
I have always advocated for better Indo-China relations.

Have you now...Then I pity the other fools who claim to be Indian patriots who subconsciously degrade India without their knowledge, or so to speak. BTW, I'm not degrading China, rather, I'm attacking back at the aggressors who started all this BS in the first place. So don't think I'm anti-India or anything, because I'm not. I'm anti-mofos.

 

[gambit]

A lot of Bull-**** is being propagated in this thread.

You got that right.

Gambit, I know you can never prove your point to the people who don't have insight into what a technological marvel F22 proved out to be.

Regards,
Sapper

It is not so much for these fools that I post the way I do. It is the fact that for each fool there are several silent observers who are wondering the same questions about this issue. They are looking for answers.

 

[desiman]

You got that right.


It is not so much for these fools that I post the way I do. It is the fact that for each fool there are several silent observers who are wondering the same questions about this issue. They are looking for answers.

Good one gambit, your truly one of the only few people that makes true sense and back that up with proper sources and knowledge, keep up the good work Gambit, i know we may disagree at some points but again i have great respect for your knowledge

 

[desiman]

People here who think that the F-22 is just a joke and that there are other planes currently in service or coming up in the near future are better than the F-22 are really out of their mind. Without going into specs, The F-22 is by far, again by far the best in the world currently, the sheer cost and the amount of technology it carries it nothing but amazing. China’s j-10, 11,12,13 or w.e. number they come up with can only dream of making something like the F-22. It will take them atleast 10-20 more years to even come remotely close and who knows where Americans own tech will be by then . Even the Russian who tech I rate 2nd after American, cannot come up with some close to the F-22. Until the PAKFA is actually in service and its spec are released, the F-22 will remain the undoubted champion. All these report and news are nothing but either propaganda by competitors or just a new way of making fun of something you cannot compete with.

 

[gambit]

Gambit,

I am just curious, does the piece of news has any credibility ?

No...Rachel Maddow in this piece has no credibility whatsoever. She may possess a journalism degree, but she is now largely a commentator/entertainer for MSNBC.

I for one thought f-22 are the best and kinda untouchable as far as fighter planes are concerned.

I would not go so far as to say 'untouchable', but for now, even planning for the Russian's PUKE-FA, the F-22 is the proverbial king-of-the-hill when it comes to mano-a-mano air combat.

I mean can you please tell us what are the things she talked about are true and which ones are false. please explain technically like you do in other topics.

Thanks.

As you wish...

First...Maddow talked about how the parts for F-22 is manufactured in several different states and how that is a negative. But did she bother to do any research on the F-16? If she did, Maddow would have found out the F-16 was an INTERNATIONAL affair where different countries, not just states, manufactured under license the aircraft, and look at the three decades the aircraft is still flying and evolving. The F-16 was designed for NATO members. I personally have worked on NATO F-16s and found insignificant differences with US ones. So already Maddow jumped the gun with an assumption that can be easily refuted.

Now come the hammer...

Maddow claimed or 'reported' that the F-22 is 'vulnerable to rain', whatever that mean. If she had bother to do any research like a real journalist should, she would have found out this...

F-22 Stealth

Radar absorbant materials, or RAM is applied sparingly on the F-22 airframe as opposed to the entire airframe on the F-117. This is because designers have incorporated curves on crucial surfaces and edges, which lessens the need for RAM.

Radar absorbent material (RAM) is needed mostly on intake lips and wing leading edges. A real journalist would have informed her audience of this fact and how the F-22 and the coming F-35 is different than the (retired) F-117.

Here is the TRUE reason why we do prefer the F-22 to stay out of inclement weather...

When a radar signal impact a PLANAR surface, if the surface is perpendicular to the incident angle, then the reflection will be back to source. But when the planar surface is angled, no matter how slightly, the signal will be deflected away from source direction. If two or more surfaces or edges meet to create a corner, like in the second illustration above, then we have what is called 'corner reflector' or 'target corner reflector'. On an airliner, where the engine pod pylon attached to the underside of the wing, we have a corner reflector, for example. On an ordinary aircraft, corner reflectors are everywhere. But for a military aircraft corner reflectors are undesirable.

In theory, if we have a perfectly smooth surface, then as long as the surface is angled away from the aggressor radar, the surface is effectively invisible to radar. But there is no such thing as a perfectly smooth surface. Minor and even microscopic surface imperfections create microscopic corner reflectors and these are how a radar detect an aircraft. We have large structural corner reflectors and microscopic corner reflectors, add them all up and we have a 'blip' on the radar scope. Planar deflection is how the F-117 came to be. That is why we see the body of the F-117 composed of many surfaces that are angled away from the viewer.

But the F-22 is not shaped like the F-117. When a radar signal impact a curve, there is something called the 'creeping wave behavior'...

Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In radar ranging, the creeping wave return appears to come from behind the target.

The wave basically travels on the curved surface. Only minor and microscopic corner reflectors on the F-22 return anything to the radar. Remember...No surface is ever perfect. The B-2, F-22 and F-35 exploits the 'creeping wave' behavior with their body shaping and everyone can see the generational differences between the F-117 and its younger brethens.

What 'rain' or water does is create additional and larger corner reflectors, keep in mind that radar signals travels at light speed, and in doing so, those small corner reflectors increased the aircraft's RCS. Water has nothing to do with the RAM on the F-22, which is confined to very specific areas compared to the F-117 where it was covered with RAM. The reason why shoe/boot covers must be worn when working on the F-22 is because of the fear of corner reflectors. This behavior is also on 'non-stealth' aircrafts but because they are 'non-stealth' it is no big deal. But if it is on a 'stealth' aircraft, intellectually dishonest people like Rachel Maddow masquerading as 'journalists' will have readied commentaries on how terrible is the F-22.

The above is a real F-22 in the world's largest RF anechoic chamber.

Edwards Air Force Base, Benefield Anechoic Facility

The original project consisted of an anechoic chamber to support ground testing of electronic warfare systems on full-scale aircraft such as the B-1B and B-2 bombers. The chamber–the largest in the world–is a massive, 250 x 264 x 70-foot steel plate box enclosed in a metal hangar building. The walls, ceiling, and floor are covered in 816,000 pyramidal foam cones designed to absorb radio frequency signals.

The walls are covered with RAM to absorb any RF reflections, leaving only ONE signal -- the one that bounced off the aircraft itself.

It is this kind of investment in R/D that enabled the current US 'stealth' aircrafts...

To have their RCS as that of insects and small birds.

Here is the wiki source for what is an 'anechoic chamber'...

Anechoic chamber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The RAM is designed and shaped to absorb incident RF radiation (also known as non-ionising radiation), as effectively as possible, from as many incident directions as possible. The more effective the RAM is the less will be the level of reflected RF radiation. Many measurements in electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and antenna radiation patterns require that spurious signals arising from the test setup, including reflections, are negligible to avoid the risk of causing measurement errors and ambiguities.

I strongly suggest people read and search for themselves information about these tools. See if the Russians and the Chinese have something similar and ask yourself if whatever they claim to have gone through the same R/D efforts.

So when water is on the surface of an F-22, of course it will increase the aircraft's RCS, from insect to small bird level, not because there is anything wrong with the aircraft but because of how the laws of physics works. Rachel Maddow and MSNBC is too wrapped up in their own political agenda and ratings to bother with these fine technical details. Which is more entertaining, claim that the US military is incompetent and wasteful or that the USAF is flying one amazing aircraft?

Russian and Chinese fanboys are pathetically gullible.

 

[blain2]

Its a great aircraft despite issues with it. However one has to think about the possibility of unmanned aircraft doing the same within the next decade or so with a smaller price-tag. Others like the Russians and Chinese will no doubt come up with their own variations but by then the USAF will be deploying even newer systems.

I still think that the current US aircraft like the F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18 can cater to any existing threat with a bit of modifications. The Raptor and the JSF are actually driving the competitors to look at newer solution. Otherwise the 4.5 generation aircraft would remain current for a while longer.

Even after killing the program, I think we are still looking at some 100+ F-22s. That is a pretty significant capability backed up by AESA equipped F-15s and others.

 

[PAFAce]

Gambit, an incredible post ruined by the last line:

Russian and Chinese fanboys are pathetically gullible.

You didn't have to go there, really.

Also, you, I and a few others here think like engineers. Others may think from a managerial standpoint, others still from an economic one and so on. Technically, it may be the best thing out there, or not, but as far as program management went, you can't dispute the claims of overbudgetting and under-achieving, the RoI just won't be the same as in the 1980s. You may claim that this is largely due to the reduction in numbers from the original 700+ to the now 170+, but its tough to make a credible argument for 700+ F-22s in this century.

The defence industry is all about evolving. The US has proven to be very good at this, DARPA is a fine example of how the US pushes every aspect of scientific R&D with no specific military applications in mind. That is your greatest weapon, not the F-22.

All this said, from the first few minutes of the first video, it was pretty clear that this woman was out to "character assassinate" the Raptor for an audience that would care little to do any independent research. I hold nothing against the Senator, however, as he was doing his job well. We here in Pakistan could do with a few politicians who care more for the economy and people's health.

Lastly, I get government health-care in Canada. It's a tremendous service, just come up here some time and ask around, Canadians love the feature. It has it's issues, but it's great overall. I'm sure the Americans, if they did some independent research, would love it as well.

Its a great aircraft despite issues with it. However one has to think about the possibility of unmanned aircraft doing the same within the next decade or so with a smaller price-tag. Others like the Russians and Chinese will no doubt come up with their own variations but by then the USAF will be deploying even newer systems.

I still think that the current US aircraft like the F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18 can cater to any existing threat with a bit of modifications. The Raptor and the JSF are actually driving the competitors to look at newer solution. Otherwise the 4.5 generation aircraft would remain current for a while longer.

Even after killing the program, I think we are still looking at some 100+ F-22s. That is a pretty significant capability backed up by AESA equipped F-15s and others.

Indeed. Even with their current fleet, including the operational F-22s, they've got the most potent Air Force in the world in all aspects. They also operate the deadliest UCAVs in operation currently, and a many contractors are currently involved in R&D of UCAVs with air-combat capability, carrier-borne UCAVs, Stealth UCAVs etc. And these are not "advanced research" projects, these are very much current research with direct military applications within the next 5-10 years. Money would be well spent in developing these technologies, instead of beefing up where least required.

 

[Sunny4pak]

O My God its really is an eye openning video the damn F22 ...............
i was thinking that it is the best plan in the world today but ............
thanks for sharing man

 

[Wingman]

Ouch!!!

1) Vulnerability to Rain
2) Cannot communicate with other Planes
3) Can be hit with small arms, because armour is light
4) Cannot perform low level operation
5) Needs 30 Hour maintenance after one hour flight
6) Critical failure after 1.7 Hour
7) Quality Issues
8) Never Flown in Afghanistan and Iraq
.
.
.
WHY DID THEY SPEND SO MUCH MONEY $ 3,56,000,000

 

[Haanzo]

3) Can be hit with small arms, because armour is light...

can you believe this ...its not made of tin foil ..to be able to handle 9 G and go supersonic is not a small issue the air pressure pressure around the aircraft while going MACH 2 is more than the pressure exerted by small arms fire

Cannot perform low level operation

you are seriously dumb when the damn plane is invisible to most radar what is the need to go low level ...dont you even know why conventional aircraft go low level .....because the have a BETTER chance of not bieng seen by radar ...whrn the whole plane is invisible to radar ,has VV low RCS whats the need to go low

8) Never Flown in Afghanistan and Iraq

iraqi airforce could not face f-15 f-16 ....so f-222 would be an overkiill ...currently there is nothing that can pose even slightest threat to the f-22 IN BVR so why do the need to deploy it there ...it the iraqi airforce had the PAK-FA ..they might have fielded the f-22

 

[Novice09]

O My God its really is an eye openning video the damn F22 ...............
i was thinking that it is the best plan in the world today but ............
thanks for sharing man

Your thoughts were right, it is the best fighter aircraft flying...

Don't change your thinking by watching such crap and finally go through gambit's thread for better understanding

 

[Insane]

Gambit,

Thanks for explaining the rain part in details.

There are some more questions she raised like for every hour of flight it needs 30 hours maintenance. Is it true ? Give us a little insight about the maintenance of the aircraft and how costly it is. And if possible why and how much maintenance does a high end aircraft does through. And how does the f-22 compare to F-16 for example in operation and maintenance costs ?

And whats the major reason for it to be stopped ? By stopped i guess no further production. Is it just the price per plane or the US already has enough of these Awesome birds ?

 

[gambit]

Gambit, an incredible post ruined by the last line:

You didn't have to go there, really.

No?

O My God its really is an eye openning video the damn F22 ...............
i was thinking that it is the best plan in the world today but ............
thanks for sharing man

Ouch!!!

1) Vulnerability to Rain
2) Cannot communicate with other Planes
3) Can be hit with small arms, because armour is light
4) Cannot perform low level operation
5) Needs 30 Hour maintenance after one hour flight
6) Critical failure after 1.7 Hour
7) Quality Issues
8) Never Flown in Afghanistan and Iraq
.
.
.
WHY DID THEY SPEND SO MUCH MONEY $ 3,56,000,000

I touched on just one topic, the supposedly 'vulnerable to rain' nonsense, and STILL a couple of people chimed in with their willful disregard for genuine technical information that are publicly available. I guess they preferred to be 'educated' by mannish looking ignorant female news bobblehead.

Also, you, I and a few others here think like engineers. Others may think from a managerial standpoint, others still from an economic one and so on. Technically, it may be the best thing out there, or not, but as far as program management went, you can't dispute the claims of overbudgetting and under-achieving, the RoI just won't be the same as in the 1980s. You may claim that this is largely due to the reduction in numbers from the original 700+ to the now 170+, but its tough to make a credible argument for 700+ F-22s in this century.

How do you measure RoI regarding military affairs? How do you measure deterrence? Take business for now, recently I had a very bad experience with Dell and cancelled my order. This is a consumer, not corporate, purchase. How do you, as a business OWNER, measure something as nebulous as 'customer satisfaction'? We know 'loyalty', but that indicator comes only with a second purchase. So how can you credibly quantify 'customer satisfaction' in a way that could lead you to a business program that would raise the odds for second purchases? You cannot. Surveys are unreliable as you would be lucky if 1/10th return your queries as to how happy the customer was in dealing with you.

Any defense policy is based upon the perception, true or false is irrelevant, that when a conqueror come, he come to take, not purchase. Reference Iraq v Kuwait for oil (true) or US v Iraq for oil (false). The US, like every country in the world, has a defense policy that is oriented towards facing an adversary theoretically comparable to self, if not superior. In this respect, the F-22 is no different than the Ohio-class Trident submarine or Minuteman missile or Osprey aircraft or the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, weapon systems that saw no or limited combat actions. Unlike a normal business transaction, the business model for 'the military' for any country is not based upon any mutually beneficial relationship but rather from a business model whose core mission statement is: 'To inflict grossly lopsided destruction to other side while minimizing manpower and material cost to self.' Whether inflicting that grossly lopsided destruction is a response to an aggression or in carrying out an aggression is not the point. This is a nonpartisan mission statement.

If there is an RoI, or more precisely a sentiment that there is an RoI, for 'the military' business model, it would the sense of confident superiority, first AMONG the executors that business model, meaning the members of 'the military' organization, then second FROM the general population who provide the funds and members for 'the military', that should there is a need to execute that business model, be it as a response to an aggression or in carrying out an aggression, it would be the other side who receive the grossly lopsided destruction. I can touch briefly on the parallel issue of whether or not there is a sense of moral righteousness supporting the cause that compelled the execution of 'the military' business model. History have shown that when the two senses are mutually supportive, the execution of 'the military' business model can be extremely successful. Example -- Hitler managed to convince the general German population of the moral righteousness of Nazi Germany's desire for territorial expansion and there was high confidence in the war equipments of the German military. And what a Return-on-Investments (RoI) it was, at least for a time, for Nazi Germany.

Against the US, odds are not very good if not outright dismal for any country. This sense of confidence among US military members, among our allies, and the sense of unease among potential adversaries cannot be measured. Overwhelming techonological superiority in our hardwares compare to that of our potential adversaries contribute to this sense of confidence. Unfortunate that we Americans are plagued with shortsighted policy makers regarding a strong defense.

 

[gambit]

Gambit,

Thanks for explaining the rain part in details.

There are some more questions she raised like for every hour of flight it needs 30 hours maintenance. Is it true ? Give us a little insight about the maintenance of the aircraft and how costly it is. And if possible why and how much maintenance does a high end aircraft does through. And how does the f-22 compare to F-16 for example in operation and maintenance costs ?

That is a very very misleading figure and let us be generous to this news bobblehead and say it is true -- 30hrs.

Example...This is called a 'speed handle'...

SPEED HANDLE 3/8” from Aircraft Spruce

This tool is in just about every flightline box. Not only can I install/remove a fastener five times as fast as I could with a screw driver or ratchet, but if there is a recaltricant fastener, there is a flat plate I could install on the knob, press my chest against the plate, and with the increased pressure on the fastener, I can turn without stripping the fastener. Once I removed the fastener, I can discard it and get a new one.

But against an aircraft whose survivability depends on surface integrity, I cannot take the chance of slipping and having my speed handle gouging the panel, thereby creating those dreaded corner reflectors. So instead of a minute or two to remove a panel, I would need to call a sheetmetal specialist with proper tools to remove the difficult fastener that will not create any surface harm to the panel. Yes...I and the sheetmetal specialist have to be extra careful on the F-22 compared to the F-16, but this is nowhere the extraordinary demands this news bobblehead implied and every flightline has sheetmetal specialists busy with all sorts of problems. So what if now it may take five minutes to remove a panel due to the requirement of maintaining surface integrity? I want to see the pilot return, again and again, each time with empty weapons racks on his ship.

On the EF-111, the 'canoe' contains all the transmitters and antenna elements and we have to be extra careful around this area...

Factsheets : General Dynamics EF-111A Raven

In the 1970s Grumman began modifying 42 F-111A fighters by adding jamming equipment to create the EF-111A. A 16-foot-long, canoe-shaped radome on the underside for the fuselage housed high-powered transmitter antennas, and a fin-tip pod on the vertical stabilizer housed receiving antennas and other equipment, including a processor to detect hostile radar emissions.

This thing does not exist on other F-111 models and therefore require extra efforts and time in maintenance. But so what? It worked very well in combat. Every aircraft has unique items that require extra attention and care in maintenance, no different than automobiles. If I own a Ferrari, better believe it that I will spend more money on exotic wax formulas and more time keeping the chick magnet car looking beautiful.

Another example is in moving the aircraft around. Because we want to maintain surface integrity for the F-22, we want to keep it covered to protect it from dust debris kicked up by other aircrafts or even bird droppings. So instead of keeping it outside in rows of parked aircrafts, say we want to move it into a shelter after every flight, to tow it I need a tow truck driver and four walkers, one to walk in front of the tow truck, two on each wing tip, and one on the rear.

Aircraft Towing | Flying Safety | Find Articles at BNET

Other tow team members include: A brake person in the cockpit, a tow vehicle operator, a nose walker (usually the tow supervisor), wing walkers (in most cases) and sometimes a tail walker.

All these guys' hours are added up in records. So how does this make the 30 hrs figure oh-so-scary if we have to do this for every F-22 instead of every F-15 or F-16? Yes...We have to spend more hours and more guys to move these F-22s...But is it really that terrible to be newsworthy? It is not...So people like Maddow would prefer to be misleading to the public for ratings and entertainment value. Already I could think up of two miscellaneous items that contribute to this 30 hrs figure. Nothing about avionics or hydraulics or about landing gears and have no doubt each one of those items will certainly add up to far more than 30 hrs if the aircraft is as terrible as claimed by these news bobbleheads.

This 30 hrs figure tell us absolutely nothing about F-22 maintenance. Its vagueness is purposely to be inflammatory, not informative.

And whats the major reason for it to be stopped ? By stopped i guess no further production. Is it just the price per plane or the US already has enough of these Awesome birds ?

Yes...That is the reason. Sad thing is that within each Department of responsibility, there is enough Fraud, Waste and Abuse and to add them all we could easily have a thousand F-22s.