Reply With Quote
USA ready for "Independence Day". Jeff Goldblum is cheaper.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013572
Team America, Yeah!
USA ready for "Independence Day". Jeff Goldblum is cheaper.
Thanks for the insight croutons.
This is a bad ass plane, now maybe the people who worried about our little mock skirmishes with the Indian Air Force a couple of months ago with our dated F16s will STFU.
What does it do?
Ace Combat 4 & 5, good times.
It looks like any other plane to me.
Where is the MannyIsGod to give us complete specs and costs and all other crucial info
Does it even reach Mach 10?
Cloaking device?
Remote Control capability?
HEM?
Now you're selling those good old F-15 Eagles and that's an interesting match up.
If there are no threats, CIA and other agencies create them for you (actually for the military industrial complex). It's all about money, not security.
the mv22 osprey is about 10 billion times better than the f22.
check it out.
The F22 is a bad ass plane. It is pretty damn stealthy, has the ability to go supersonic without going to burner, and has thrust vectoring which make it pretty sweet in a dog fight.
I'm glad the air force has these planes now.
mannyisgod does not supply the info that he used to i said
Wikipedia says that each Raptor costs 7x more than the next highest priced fighter.
As Manny has said, it is a stealth fighter. It can supercruise at 1.5 mach without afterburner, it is very maneuverable, a high thrust:weight ratio, and has internal weaponry.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 62 ft 1 in (18.9 m)
Wingspan: 44 ft 6 in (13.6 m)
Height: 16 ft 8 in (5.1 m)
Wing area: 840 ft² 78.04 m²
Empty: 31,670 lb (14,365 kg)
Loaded: 60,000 lb (27,216 kg)
Maximum takeoff: 80,000 lb (36,500 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofans, 35,000+ lbf (156 kN) thrust each
[edit]
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0+ (1,300+ Knots) (USAF and Lockheed) 2.42+ (1,600+ MPH) (Paul Metz, chief test pilot)
Cruising Speed: Mach 1.5+ (USAF [7]), 1.72 (Lockheed [8])
Range: about 2000 miles (3218 km) - (other estimates suggest up to 5000 - 6000 km, most likely using drop tanks or perhaps inflight refuelling)
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (18,288 m)
Rate of climb: ft/min ( m/min) - presently not published
Wing loading: 96 lb/ft² (467 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.27
[edit]
Armament
Gun: 1× M61A2 Vulcan 20 mm Gatling gun with 480 rounds
Missiles: 6× AIM-120C AMRAAM, 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder - although there are many possible configurations - another one is 4x AIM - 9 Sidewinders in ventral bays, and 4x AIM-120 AMRAAM's in side bays (or 6x AIM-120)
Bombs: 2× 1000 lb JDAM
Estimated that internal bays can carry about 10, 000 kg worth of bombs, and/or missiles.
4 external hardpoints can be fitted to carry weapons or fuel tanks, each with a capacity of 5,000 lb (2,270 kg), albeit at the expense of stealth.
Armaments are still largely classified by the U.S. government.
Tons of Raptors would have made no difference in Iraq.
Are they being rushed to Iraq now that they are available?
What was missing in the Repub Iraq war was enough ground troops to clear AND hold enough of Iraq so public security could allow reconstruction.
The terror war we're fighting now doesn't have an enemy with fixed installations to bomb, and fighter jets to dogfight with. The stealth of suicide bombers and IEDs are much more effective against the US than Raptors are against the terrorists, and a of a lot cheaper.
The solution to the war on terror is not $100M Raptors.
Regardless, in a conflict it is nessecary and will be nessecary to have planes like the F22. We can't keep the 15, 16 and 18 around forever. Especially when old soviet designs are propogating very quickly. A smaller amount of 22s is nessecary to do the job of more 15s, so while it costs more it will not take as many planes to do the job.
b-2 spirit is still my fav plane
but santa didn't leave one for christmas for me
Some interesting QUESTIONS and answers on the F22 fighter on this web site
Prior to its selection as winner of what was then known as the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) compe ion, the F-22 team conducted a 54-month demonstration/ validation (dem/val) program. The effort involved the design, construction and flight testing of two YF-22 prototype aircraft. Two prototype engines, the Pratt & Whitney YF119 and General Electric YF120, also were developed and tested during the program. The dem/val program was completed in December 1990.
Much of that work was performed at Boeing in Seattle, Lockheed (now known as Lockheed Martin) facilities in Burbank, Calif., and at General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas, facilities (now known as Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems). The prototypes were assembled in Lockheed's Palmdale, Calif., facility and made their maiden flight from there. Since that time Lockheed's program management and aircraft assembly operations have moved to Marietta, Ga., for the EMD and production phases.
A $9.55 billion contract for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) of the F-22 was awarded to the industry team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin in August 1991. Contract changes since then have elevated the contract value to approximately $11 billion. Under terms of the contract, the F-22 team will complete the design of the aircraft, produce production tooling for the program, and build and test nine flightworthy and two ground-test aircraft.
In February 1995, the Air Force customer approved the final design of the F-22 air vehicle and confirmed that the program was ready to proceed to fabrication and assembly. The Air Force plans to procure 339 F-22s, and production is scheduled to run through 2013.
From what I understand of the f22, it was meant to be a "one size fits all" type of craft that means that it was not a "specialist" type of craft meant for certain roles, but rather a good general purpose type of plane that is good at everything but not great at any one particular role.
Meaning:
Simplified logistics and training.
Pay a bit more up front perhaps for the tech, but less in the back end as you only have one type of craft to train on, repair, and supply.
(I dimly remember this bit, as it may be from another strategic debate about the way our air power should be structured and not from this specific plane)
I did however find this interesting bit:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2002/0702fighter.asp....(snip)The Range Issue
Heading the list is range--or the supposed lack of it. Geographic access to the battlespace in major regional conflicts emerged as a possible Achilles' heel for the fighter force. The worry has been that either military attacks by the enemy or political constraints from friends could deprive US fighters of bases from which to launch operations. A 1993 Rand study observed that the "greater the combat range of an aircraft, the more likely it is to find a suitable beddown base in any theater."
As the US drifted away from Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf allies, the question of access loomed even larger. Raids such as Operation Desert Strike in 1996 and Operation Desert Fox in 1998 raised new dilemmas with allies reluctant to grant use of in-theater bases for new offensive strikes. USAF heavy bombers, Navy aircraft carriers, and long land-based fighter missions helped take up the slack.
Critical claims about fighter range deserve far closer scrutiny than they have so far received. It is axiomatic that no combat aircraft can ever have too much range. The new fighter designs make this abundantly clear. The Navy F/A-18E/F multirole Super Hornet was designed with about 25 percent more range than extant Navy fighters. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will more than double the unrefueled combat radius of the fighters that it replaces. The F-22 will triple the combat radius of current fighters.
However, actual combat radius depends on a whole host of variables, ranging from al ude to the amount of ordnance carried and the attack profile.
Today, virtually no combat missions take place without air refueling. In Operation Allied Force, the crowding of in-theater bases compelled Air Force F-15Es to fly seven-hour missions from RAF Lakenheath in England to targets in the former Yugoslavia, but their missions were successful. Moreover, even bombers need prestrike and poststrike refueling. B-2s leaving the target area over Serbia were thirsty for fuel until they met their tankers in the Mediterranean.
The debate about the combat utility of fighters boils down to a narrow band of scenarios where basing concerns and extreme inland ranges stretch out the combat radius and relatively light air defenses take attrition out of the equation. Afghanistan after the first few days was just such a scenario.
Operation Enduring Freedom presented a serious access challenge. In-theater bases were few and not particularly close to the action. Land-based and carrier-based strike fighters had to use multiple air refuelings from Air Force tankers to get enough range. The extreme distance to the target area limited the fighters' time on station.
Bombers operating from Diego Garcia faced no such constraints, loitering for hours at a stretch to provide on-call air strikes. The success of the bombers--which accounted for more than 70 percent of all of the ordnance dropped during the war--led some to question whether fighters would ever be needed again. "Restart the B-52 assembly line," sneered Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and pundit. "We don't need extravagantly priced dogfighting machines."
The focus on range left out the other side of the coin of anti-access scenarios: air defenses....(snip)
Putting the brakes on US fighter modernization is false economy and discards the nation's key asymmetric advantage. The fighters strengthen US air and space power; new ones are needed to help the US stay ahead of emerging capabilities. Already, advanced Russian SAMs can be found in many countries. They are being marketed to many others.
Ensuring that US aircraft can get into a target area and perform their missions--now and in the future--ultimately comes down to whether the fighters can be tasked to take on the total threat of adversary aircraft and surface-to-air missiles. The F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are specifically designed to unravel integrated air defenses. Standoff cruise missiles such as the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile augment air dominance--but TLAMs, too, are vulnerable. One TLAM flying a preplanned route was shot down by anti-aircraft fire during the Gulf War.
(from the same article)
Now that I think about it, the "one size fits all thing" was for the JSF, not the raptor. My bad.
I do agree with the sentiments above. Our current crop of fighters can only be upgraded so far. We do not always have the luxury of being able to see 25 years into the future to see who we will need to be fighting, if at all.
Isn't it also supposed to exist in a version with vertical take off? Or am I confusing it for some other plane?
Plus it's really good in Combat Video Games....
That is the Harrier you are thinking of.
keep in mind wikipedida says that the stealth technology on this fighter isn't good.
personally with russia and china figureing out our stealth technolgy and how to detect planes. I think we better have something else up our sleeve in blackprojects
I knwo this becuase wiki says so and on KLRN they once had a story on the
plane X or soemthing which was the bidding buy lockhead boeing and soemone else for the contract
ended up boeing bought out the company that failed. or something. anyways the JSF is the vertial lauching plane
I belive Slomo is referring to the Joint Strike Fighter. I seem to recall a do entary regarding competing defense contractors to produce a vertical launch aircraft that would be used by multiple military branches.
As is typical with military decisions, it is believed that they went with the lesser of the two options.
In any case, as was referred to by another poster, the consolidation will lead to savings from a logistical standpoint. This will come from training and maintenance although at seven times the price, it will be hard to make up too much savings.
just about everyone here who has posted so far is a moron.
first off the osprey owns the f22. lol.
secondly and all the way to whatever number my points end in. i ahve seen the f22 up close and personal. that thing is badass. it is designed for all the services, usmc, navy and air force. i leave out the army bc the army doenst use or have jets, at elast not fighter jets. the f22 has stol capability, it cannot take off verticlaly like the harrier, which is a piece of and cant even do that vertical takeoff fully combat loaded, but can do short takeoff runs. it is highly stealthy but not as much as the actual stealth aircraft we have such as the b2 and f117.
the aircraft it is primarliy meant to replace the f15, the f15 is from the ing 70s. it will also replace the f18s eventually which themselves are getting kinda old. the russians, if we didnt have the raptor would have the most advanced figher jet in the world and even with the raptor there is debate over which one is better. we simply cannot sit by and let other countries, even if they are allies right now, build better aircraft/military weapons than we have. the raptor will replacde the 15 for sure and most likely the 16 as well, so its a 2 for one deal. and the fact that it can cruise over mach one without afterburners is crazy. the 16 at full afterburner and extra fuel tanks will go thourhg its fuel in less than 1 hr.
also i could be wrong but i dont htink the raptor is operational yet, so no it wont be being rusehd to iraq. the war in iraq is not an air war and im pretty sure right now its primarily marines in iraq right now. i know that in may the raptor wasnt operational and was still in testing phase and i would be shocked if it went from pure test to fully fleet operational in only 7 months. \
and lastly club alienn, i dont think tha tlockheed martin, boeing, northrop grumman or mcdonnel douglas own any of the others.
feel free to correct me on any thing you feel to be wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
