F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

That article is BS and is intended to show that the F-22 can't be shot down normally, and can only be shot down if the F-22 pilot makes a mistake or doesn't know what they are doing.

The suggestion that the IIR sidewinder needs to see an AB in full power to get a lock is a load of rubbish and lends evidence to the fact that this story is probably just propaganda by a pro F-22 lobby group.

The whole point behind IIR is that you don't even need to see any hot parts of the engine... an imaging IR seeker is like a Thermal Imager that forms an image of its view and can identify and target shapes.

It is a bit like the TV guided model of Maverick where the seeker is directed at the target and then the autotracker locks on and when fired the optics follow that target if it moves and the controls and engine of the maverick missile move the missile towards the target it is looking at till impact.

The differences are that an IIR seeker can see in the dark and all sorts of weather conditions and has an onboard database of IR signatures, or 3D model shapes of targets so when it sees an F-22 from any angle it will identify it as an F-22 and get a lock and home in on it.

Does that mean stealth is useless?

No.

There are DIRCMs.

The only shape that offers a minimal RCS from any angle is a perfect sphere...

RCS diagrams are fairly easy to find on the internet, though the accuracy of such diagrams can be called into question for most of them they tend to show in the horizontal plane that at specific angles there are reflection peaks where the RCS is much higher than average.

Remember how average works? If 0.001m^2 is your peak RCS and 0.1m^2 is your average that means that at some angles the RCS must actually be quite high... if your peak RCS is in the thousanths of a metre and the middle of your bell curve is one tenth of a metre then half your RCS returns will be in the 1 metre range...

And that is at the specific frequency the stealth is designed for.

BTW if the Typhoons detected F-22s at decent ranges because they weren't taped up properly would you stop training (which is important for both sides of course... no point having a new toy if you can't test it... it will certainly be tested in a real war but a failure there has rather more serious consequences so we test in training to try to anticipate any potential enemy move so that counters to it can be developed in peace time ready for war), or you you make sure the aircraft is properly taped up for the next days exercise and show some balls and keep training?

Or is the problem with the tape coming off in air that needs a more fundamental fix that will cost a lot of money?

The friction generated by zipping around at supercruise speeds will likely be bad for tape... if this is a serious problem then maybe Russia defences are already prepared for the F-22 and the F-22 is really a white elephant and that is the real reason they have stopped production at 189 and not allowed export despite the fact that I am sure the Japanese and Israelis and even the Australians would be interested in even a slightly downgraded export model.

The Aussies have already found flaws in the F-35 maybe they will find fundamental flaws in the F-22 and suddenly realise their best chance for a stealth fighter is the PAK FA!!!!

Regarding sawtooth edges on panels that doesn't eliminate RCS, it simply redirects the energy in a different direction.

If you view the sawtooth edges as being a series of triangles, from the front you have the tips of those triangles reflecting right back at the antenna but the edges of those triangles direct the energy out at 45 degree angles... at a 45 degree angle from the front that means all those triangles you were looking at are now the side edges of triangles reflecting radar energy directly back at the antenna with an enormous RCS... that is why they talk about peak RCS instead of average.

Garry, On topic of Australia interested in Pak-Fa...I doubt it will ever happen. They will get F-35 in the end which is not ideally suited to large Australian land mass and northern coastline.

I wasn't seriously suggesting they would, just pointing out it is their only alternative beyond the F-22.

Regarding F-22 production, US could easily have made a little bit downgraded model of F-22 even for themselves. Lets say a model that has maintainence costs similar to F-15.

First of all they have missed their chance... with the Seawolf they admitted it was too expensive with the end of the cold war, and built Virginia class subs, but it is a bit late now to say the F-22 is rubbish and they need something to replace it.

They have the vast majority of their allies committed to the F-35 and if they admit that the F-22 isn't perfect, then what happens to the 3,000 plus F-35s they have planned to make?

The Brown stuff would be flying everywhere... and sticking... and stinking.

They have to wait till deliveries of the F-35 start and planes ordered start arriving.

Second the F-15 was made in the 1970s and is not the cheapest aircraft to operate and maintain. The light fighters (F-18 and F-16) were supposed to be cheap and easy to operate.

The promise of the F-22 was even less maintainence than any other fighter... and in terms of actual maintainence it is actually probably very good, but every access panel you need to open you need a grinder to remove the RAM and tape and paint... open the access panel... do the work... and then replace the panel and repaint/tape/and reapply the RAM and allow each application to cure before applying the next layer/coat etc.

The Russians... understandibly are looking for alternative solutions to the problem...

But I think you cant underestimate JSF lobby either.

Not just the JSF lobby... most members of NATO have committed to basically replacing most of their legasy airforce with the F-35... if the US puts an F-22 junior into production there will be enormous pressure to swap orders from F-35 to F-22... the cheap F-22 would basically replace the F-35, which would make the F-35 the most expensive aircraft in the universe bar none because production facilities are already set up to make about 3,000 of them.

Those same facilities could probably be modified to make F-22 jnr, but enormous amounts of money would have been wasted... not to mention time.

I've heard from a lot of fanboys that the F-22 isnt cancelled at all and the production just stopped and the problems concerning durability are russian propaganda and the F-22 is very durable and operates without problem in moist places such as Guam

Which just shows how effective US propaganda is... anything that might be negative about Russian or Soviet stuff is true, anything positive is propaganda and the reverse for US and western gear.

Russian propaganda on the situation can be read from such biased pro commie sources as the US Congress, who cancelled the funding... driven by John McCain... clearly a left wing hippy if ever there was one.

Must be an absolutely brilliant aircraft if they only made 189 and are intending to produce over 2,500 F-35s for the USAF... in the late 1980s they were talking about 1,000s of F-22s and the F-35 was not even considered necessary.

Then they claimed 750 was a bare minimum number they needed, but as they built them and tested them and realised their purchase and operating costs were going to cripple the airforce... that also needs new tankers and could use a new single strategic bomber to preferably replace all the existing ones to reduce costs.

The number then became 250, and the F-35 was "invented" as a cheaper lighter numbers aircraft... the F-16 to the F-15C. Eventually they decided enough was enough and stopped production at 189.

It really doesn't sound like an aircraft with no problems, because one of its main problems is that it is expensive... and small production runs only make that worse. In fact you will find often that making 600 probably would not have cost as much as you might think because the increased numbers would have allowed the cost of the individual aircraft price to be dropped to more reasonable levels, so it might have cost 50% more to build 200% more aircraft than the 189 they produced.

Why wouldn't you want more of this plane for less if there was little actually wrong with it?

I just am amused by the irony... the US government has rabbited on for years about dangerous dictators that are crazy with access or potential access to nuclear weapons... and now they have one...

Compared with this North Korean kid, Armadinijad, and Chavez are teddy bears.

Funny how a real hot head on one side brings out the the cautious sensible approach from the other side...

They have largely squandered their position of power and dominance, but that is no real surprise.

All the promises of the cold war about what a force for good the US was and how it would do great things for the people of the world if it didn't have the evil Soviets countering all their attempts to spread peace and democracy.

Well it is pretty clear now it had nothing to do with spreading peace and democracy and was actually more about imposing US will on countries of strategic importance to the US to ensure the US remains wealthy and powerful... take away the Soviet Union and they are revealed.

If they practised what they preached then a  massive reduction in arms production and their arsenal could have been matched with an investment in poor foreign countries to help them develop and grow and for the US to get a return on their investments with new allies of like minded UN members that are grateful to the US for their genuine assistance. The problem is that never happened they just continued the old colonial search for resources with bribes at the highest level, with a few low paying dangerous jobs at the lowest level for the locals and nothing else... when the oil is gone the company is gone and the locals can deal with the mess of ruined ground water and half complete infrastructure etc etc.