Decent F22 video

[Torch]

http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/index_da.swf?fa=armytimes&wa=armytimes&wd=575&ht=324&cp=21772&bw=&state=vid&em=false&fn=/flv/20080714_rc_f22

 

[herman1rg]

Nice video.

I'm guessing that the thrust vectoring and fly-by wire won't allow it to stall.

 

[red admiral]

I'm guessing that the thrust vectoring and fly-by wire won't allow it to stall.

The point of the thrust vectoring is to allow for control in the post stall region. The problem for aircraft is the loss of aerodynamic control after the stall, the wing is still producing lift in this region. Thrust vectoring gives a controller that is unaffected by wing stall so you can maintain control during this region.

Exactly how useful it is in combat to perform these sorts of manoeuvres? You can turn with a very small radius but will lose very large amounts of speed in doing so making yourself vulnerable to counter-attack, or attack by another enemy.

 

[Butters]

The main advantage of 2D thrust vectoring is that it allows you to substantially reduce trim drag in the supersonic flight regime. The lo-speed airshow stunt manoeuvers are just that. Lo-speed stunts with little tactical relevance.

Still, it's nice that you can get an entertaining show for your $350 mil...

JL

 

[Matt308]

The lo-speed airshow stunt manoeuvers are just that. Lo-speed stunts with little tactical relevance.

Still, it's nice that you can get an entertaining show for your $350 mil...

JL

Blatant jealousy. And beneath you, Butters. If such maneuvers were pure folly, the precious Farnburough/Paris airshows would not be the coveted venue for selling of $Billions in fighter hardware to worldwide militaries. BVR engagements are certainly important. And off-boresight capabilities do compensate for deficient low speed maneuvering. But to totally dismiss these capabilities in an airframe is counter to historical precedence where guns were labeled as passe' and phonebooth knife fighting a thing of the past. The US paid for such decisions with lives and lost equipment. I hope your country does not repeat our mistakes by not learning from the past.

 

[Butters]

Jealous? I'm not jealous of the fact that US taxpayers have paid $65 BILLION dollars for approx 120 combat-coded fighter jets. As for very low speed manouverability, haven't you heard the Northrop Grumman chief tell the JSF critics that, "manouverability is now irrelevant" in ATA combat?

Your hope that MY country does not repeat the mistake of not learning from the past is somewhat ironic given that the TFX AND the F-22 debacle is being repeated in spades, only this time for an inherently flawed airplane that will be far less capable than than the Raptor. Still, the politicians in my country don't have any more smarts or integrity than yours, so I'm resigned to the high probability that they will repeat the same mistakes as your guys.

Anyway,despite the prophecies from NG, I'm all for high manouverabilty in fighters, but fun stuff like tail slides, 80 kt high alpha passes, and Pugachev Cobras ARE tactically irrelevant. They are airshow stunts, plain and simple.

JL

 

[Waynos]

I think the use of off-boresight missiles and HMCS will have a huge impact in negating the manouvering inequalities between opposing fighters in the future. The 'first look, first kill' BVR philosophy of the Raptor is what it truly excels at, in comparison with other fighters, unfortunately this advantage is only of use in an all-out 'declared' war as it is somewhat undermined by the real world ROE's where visual confirmation is demanded. In manouverability, it is definitely very good, but has several equals.

 

[red admiral]

The main advantage of 2D thrust vectoring is that it allows you to substantially reduce trim drag in the supersonic flight regime.

Yes, but I've never seen evidence that that is happening for the current crop of TVC fighters. Its only the TVC for EJ200 where this has been raised as advantage, around 5% decrease in fuel burn.

I think the use of off-boresight missiles and HMCS will have a huge impact in negating the manouvering inequalities between opposing fighters in the future.

I think it'll be pretty good at shooting off missiles that won't hit their targets. Just because you can launch over the shoulder doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good idea. You can keep manoeuvering and wait for a good shot instead.

The 'first look, first kill' BVR philosophy of the Raptor is what it truly excels at

I don't why everyone expects the missiles to work. The F-22 can fire off AMRAAM at 40m or so but the probability of hitting is very small. Its even more of an issue with conventional fighters which have a significantly reduced frontal RCS. The high frequency AMRAAM seeker will have issues locking on until reaching a shorter range - allowing for greater time to get out of the way. Overall its a pretty complicated situation with not much on results being released to the public besides the silly 200:0+ kill ratios for the F-22.

 

[Waynos]

The accuracy and reliability of the missiles is another discussion, I was discussing the airframe itself with my previous post.

 

[Matt308]

 

[red admiral]

They are tied into the same issue. If the F-22 cannot kill at range then it really isn't much different from Typhoon/Rafale/Fulcrum/Flanker apart from lacking an IRST. At short ranges it's much more equal. Being able to fire off missiles at high angles doesn't equate to kills. Sustained manoeuvering ability is still important in getting a good missile shot.

 

[Waynos]

I agree, but in a BVR engagement the missiles are not being launched from an acute angle so this would not be a cause for them to miss, the enemy however cannot launch one back as he cannot see the Raptor yet and the Raptor pilot still gets to dictate the terms of the subsequent engagement if his first shot fails.

If he is unsuccessful, for the second time, in the engagement and the alerted foe turns it into a kinfe fight then the Raptor pilot has failed and deserves to be shot down imho.

 

[Waynos]

ooh, it wasnt double, it was triple. Has the server gone mad?

 

[Waynos]

double post

 

[red admiral]

AMRAAM isn't stealthy so it's pretty easy to tell whether you're being shot at, and where the missiles are coming from (time to get the IRST into action). AMRAAM problems are guidance; in the cruise phase having a pretty small kill box you're launching into so the target can fairly easily move out of the way, an in the active phase with a high frequency seeker that doesn't respond well to newer relatively stealthy planes. It's not really reasonable to assume that the target aircraft will just be milling around having absolutely no idea where the F-22 is given a reasonably competent pilot/airforce.

The issue is that whilst the F-22 is better than other current fighters, there really isn't that much in it when you take into account other factors. The ridiculously high kill ratios often reported are just that; ridiculous.