Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

[flateric]

Thanks, Niko! That's exactly what I've seen. But now explanation seems rather strange - yf-23 had an enormous chord of wing and v-tail, but no one at northrop was worrying of 'tail falling off'. May be it's related to specific fuselage tail config of two a/c. Was asking of that because this decision was replicated on t-50...

 

[Sundog]

Well, technically speaking, you could push the tails back. But if they work fine where they are, pushing them back just adds, weight and drag, and the attendant increase in cost and less performance that comes with the increased weight and drag.

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's a photo.

 

[lantinian]

Was asking of that because this decision was replicated on t-50...

You know, I just noticed that...funny. I was listening to the 2005 Space Shuttle lectures from MIT a year back and one of the speakers had a funny story about how he met with his russian counterpart for Buran program.

The Americas were using the Apollo launch pads for the shuttle, which were not positioned in the best possible way, so the shuttle had to execute this roll maneuver after take off to get in the right inclination.

The funny thing is that the russians were doing the same on Buran, even though that they didn't have to do it. So this american program manager went to the russian one and asked "Why do you execute a roll maneuver on Buran after take off. The answer: "Because you do it" said the Russian, and that is a true story.

Sundog is right though. The horizontal stabs of the F-22 already had tailboom build specifically to hold them. If there was a technical justification for the stabs to be moved even further back, they would have.

 

[LowObservable]

I'm sure it's basically a factor of a near-delta wing combined with an aft tail, plus the fact that the wing TE is swept forward (mostly for LO reasons) and the stabilizer LE has a high sweep angle (same as the wing, also LO). Notching the flaperon (not the wing itself) avoids an awkwardly long tailboom. The N-102 Fang had a similar issue.

 

[flateric]

thanks to everyone once more!

 

[lancer21]

Yep , i always found really interesting that for some reason they couldnt integrate the JHMCS and the AIM-9X on the F-22 when the other legacy fighters still in service have it since 2003!

Also , lets hope it will never come to this, but if theoretically speaking, this year in a war "somewhere" the yankees get "somehow" in WVR in their F-22s, wonder how effective the AIM-9Ms they have atm will be even against a 4th gen oponent , given that 19 years ago , AFTERBURNING iraqi Mig-25s were able to fool them with just few flares???( various sources state that in the Gulf War between 76 and 86 AIM-9M were launched for 12 kills( by 14 hits?), and 71 to 75 Aim-7M launched for 25 kills( 33 hits?).Also the PK of the AMRAAM is aparently somewhere around 50%...)

 

[F-14D]

Yep , i always found really interesting that for some reason they couldnt integrate the JHMCS and the AIM-9X on the F-22 when the other legacy fighters still in service have it since 2003!

Also , lets hope it will never come to this, but if theoretically speaking, this year in a war "somewhere" the yankees get "somehow" in WVR in their F-22s, wonder how effective the AIM-9Ms they have atm will be even against a 4th gen oponent , given that 19 years ago , AFTERBURNING iraqi Mig-25s were able to fool them with just few flares???( various sources state that in the Gulf War between 76 and 86 AIM-9M were launched for 12 kills( by 14 hits?), and 71 to 75 Aim-7M launched for 25 kills( 33 hits?).Also the PK of the AMRAAM is aparently somewhere around 50%...)

A real world Pk of .5 is actually really, really good. I'd be happy with that.

 

[lancer21]

Might be true , but bare in mind that this PK is deduced from the several not so top of the line targets , couple of iraqi Migs shot down after the Gulf war ( 2?), several Galebs(3?) , and yugoslav Mig-29s ( 4)...offcourse the AMRAAM was upgraded continuously , but still would be interesting to be seen the PK against a well equiped ( with active and pasive jamming) ,and well manoeuvered 4th gen oponent..actually i think that between comparable generation fighters and comparable generations missiles, the PK wont be much higher that Vietnam ...the PK imo is important to note because for instance in the case of the F-22 for instance, that would meen a more that expected freqvency of getting close to the oponent(s) to finnish him/them off than envisaged (at least in more ...intense scenarios -higher numbers of oponents -highly unlikley in the real world tho)...hence the importance of the WVR weapons performance...

 

[F-14D]

Might be true , but bare in mind that this PK is deduced from the several not so top of the line targets , couple of iraqi Migs shot down after the Gulf war ( 2?), several Galebs(3?) , and yugoslav Mig-29s ( 4)...offcourse the AMRAAM was upgraded continuously , but still would be interesting to be seen the PK against a well equiped ( with active and pasive jamming) ,and well manoeuvered 4th gen oponent..actually i think that between comparable generation fighters and comparable generations missiles, the PK wont be much higher that Vietnam ...the PK imo is important to note because for instance in the case of the F-22 for instance, that would meen a more that expected freqvency of getting close to the oponent(s) to finnish him/them off than envisaged (at least in more ...intense scenarios -higher numbers of oponents -highly unlikley in the real world tho)...hence the importance of the WVR weapons performance...

Not completely sure I follow you here... The Pk would, I suspect. be better than Vietnam, because our weapons are better designed, our tactics have changed substantially, and our training is better. I don't see how you can infer the 2nd point you're making simply by noting Pk.

 

[BDF]

The Pk is 0.6, which is 15 shots for 9 kills since 1991. I throw out the fratricide kill on the UH-60s that are often tabulated, and one missile attributed to Dozer (M. Shower) was actually a AIM-7 (he fired two slammers and one AIM-7). Also a couple of the shots over deny flight against those Mig-25s were apparently desperation shots outside of the NEZ. So if you throw those out as being outside parameters then you get a Pk of 0.70.

The F-22’s cockpit was incompatible with the JHMCS’ cockpit mapping which is why the HMDS for the F-35 went down a different route. F-22 PO has said recently (last year) that a helmet is possible but unfunded. It’ll be interesting to see where they go with the F-22 upgrade paths after 3.2. The unfunded 3.3 brings more EA toys to the table but so far no HMDS, cheek arrays etc.

 

[aim9xray]

The Pk would, I suspect. be better than Vietnam, because our weapons are better designed, our tactics have changed substantially, and our training is better.

And all of the factors noted could be trumped by an inept, politically directed and micromanaged RoE. Not that this has ever happened...

 

[sublight]

BVR is the reason that F-22 is "BS". There have been less than 10 BVR air to air kills in the entire American history of air warfare. If the F-22's strength is BVR, and we dont do BVR, then what the hell is the point? It sure is an expensive one.

 

[Avimimus]

When was the last time the US adopted a European fighter? Nieuport 17s? ;D

P-51 - developed on British contract & only gained high altitude performance on a British engine...

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia would agree to let the U.S. join the PAK-FA program (after all we're all friends now with the exception of some cold-warriors who've been trying to take out all remaining coldwar regimes that were opposed to us and also chip away at the CIS alliances). Egos and national pride would prevent such co-operation though: Imagine American's being willing to buy a European fighter, let alone a Russian one...

 

[Sundog]

P-51 - developed on British contract & only gained high altitude performance on a British engine...

The funny thing about that, though, was that it was the American integration of the engine to the airframe that was chosen for production. Granted, that's because the designers were able to integrate it better than the British could. The British integration of the Merlin on the P-51 airframe was downright ugly. If you're really into the development of the P-51, I can't recommend this book enough.

As for the T-50 being bought by the U.S., it would never happen. First, because the U.S. already has the best combat aircraft in the world, the F-22. Second, if the U.S. bought the T-50, they would westernize it and put U.S. engines and systems in it and that would greatly outclass the Russian T-50 itself so the Russians aren't about to allow that to happen.

 

[F-14D]

When was the last time the US adopted a European fighter? Nieuport 17s? ;D

P-51 - developed on British contract & only gained high altitude performance on a British engine...

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia would agree to let the U.S. join the PAK-FA program (after all we're all friends now with the exception of some cold-warriors who've been trying to take out all remaining coldwar regimes that were opposed to us and also chip away at the CIS alliances). Egos and national pride would prevent such co-operation though: Imagine American's being willing to buy a European fighter, let alone a Russian one...

I doubt the Russians would actually let the US get involved, because they'd have to disclose too much. Plus, Sundog is right in his analysis about what systems would be changed (love to get the Russian ejection seats, though). Another reason is that if the US was gong to spend that kind of money, they'd get far more bang for the buck by buying more F-22s and continuing development of its systems. Plus it would take travel to a a parallel universe to imagine that Congress would agree to shutting down the F-22 line, but would fund a derivative of a foreign aircraft to perform the same mission.

As far as the US adopting foreign fighters, there is more than just ego involved. Back when there were dozens of competitive aircraft companies, such a thing might be theoretically possible. Now, however, there are only a few companies in the entire West (Lockheed, Dassault, maybe Northrop Grumman, maybe Boeing and Saab-although one wonders if they will do anything beyond Gripen) that still have the capability of taking an advanced fighter all the way from design to production. Buying a derivative a a foreign design would mean that expertise would be lost, and it may be too expensive to get it back.

While the US has liked to design its own, and I don't see that changing on cutting edge fighters, it has become far more open to foreign products over the years. The B-57, the Harrier, the T-45 Hawk derivative, the Slingsby T-3A (it was our fault, not the aircraft's, that it didn't work out), the VH-71 (ditto), the UH-72, maybe the KC-45 (maybe not, but let's not go there), the upcoming APKWS, the British DFCS for the F-14 (can't thank Britain enough for that, even though the Tomcat lost its ability to do its pirouette maneuver once it was installed) and the beat goes on...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

BVR is the reason that F-22 is "BS". There have been less than 10 BVR air to air kills in the entire American history of air warfare. If the F-22's strength is BVR, and we dont do BVR, then what the hell is the point? It sure is an expensive one.

And how many nuclear warheads have been fired by ICBMs? By your ‘use it or loss it’ rationale this capability is unimportant? The lack of US BVR kills has a lot more to do with the lack of engagements these weapons were designed for. Certainly these weapons have had plenty of successful play being used by some export customers like Israel and Iran. However in the real world as opposed to enthusiasts’ limited peak on it based on what happens to be written up in some book or press release or ranting commentators webpage weapons like the AIM-120 are extensively tested in the kind of environment it would face if a major air battle was actually to develop.

As to criticism of the AIM-120’s body of work much of this is just massaging the facts. Air Power Australia and that guy who was fired from RAND used such a dodgy method to lower the Pk it defied general assumptions of mathematics. Such as if one does not want to count a kill as a kill because you believe it does not qualify as BVR then its best to not count that launch as well as the kill, rather than counting the launch and counting that kill as a miss! Great way to lower the Pk as long as no one is actually paying attention to what your saying.

 

[Triton]

Top view comparison of YF-22 to production F-22A Raptor.

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=37

 

[mr.sukhoi]

nice plane..
but it still need 30 hours of maintenance for 1 hour of flight..
and that sucks

 

[sferrin]

nice plane..
but it still need 30 hours of maintenance for 1 hour of flight..
and that sucks

Could be worse:

" Typical of advanced aircraft, early F-105 service life was plagued by problems with avionics and the MA-8 fire-control system, with the aircraft requiring some 150 hours of maintenance for each hour of flying time. "

(Granted, that was Wiki but I read 125 somewhere else.)

 

[mr.sukhoi]

one of my favorite picture

 

[flateric]

this is, obviously, YF-22A

 

[mr.sukhoi]

but it's nice picture..
here is another one

 

[sferrin]

That's an interesting picture there. You don't really think about how big fighter aircraft are. That puts some perspective on it. Thanks!

 

[Steve Pace]

That's an interesting picture there. You don't really think about how big fighter aircraft are. That puts some perspective on it. Thanks!

I recently walked near an F-22A, and close by was a B-25 - roughly the same size except for wing span.

 

[flateric]

quite a rare photo

 

[Matej]

May be also of interest...

 

[sferrin]

That looks setup for two JDAMs and two AIM-120s.

 

[mr.sukhoi]

great shot!

 

[lantinian]

great shot!

Indeed.
Downloading now

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

^I wonder if PAK-FA could have gone with a similar MLG setup could increase storage capacity...

 

[Triton]

Stephen Trimble mentioned the F-22 photographs of Polish photographer Slawek Krajniewski in his The DEW Line blog. These photos were taken at last month's Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) at Fairford, UK and they are just too cool not to share. Enjoy! ;D

URL: http://www.hesja.pl/XPL/galeria/show/181

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/08/photos-f-22-as-high-art.html

 

[quellish]

Stephen Trimble mentioned the F-22 photographs of Polish photographer Slawek Krajniewski in his The DEW Line blog. These photos were taken at last month's Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) at Fairford, UK and they are just too cool not to share. Enjoy! ;D

URL: http://www.hesja.pl/XPL/galeria/show/181

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/08/photos-f-22-as-high-art.html

Very interesting that this aircraft has the rear facing camera mounted. I had thought that was only on the flight test articles at Edwards.

 

[dannydale]

Very interesting that this aircraft has the rear facing camera mounted. I had thought that was only on the flight test articles at Edwards.

Also looks like they flew on a very humid (and at points rainy!) day. I saw quite a few condensation effects like vortices and Prandtl-Glauert clouds. I was wondering when we would solve the RAM-not-waterproof problem I remember from the F117 days.

 

[Matej]

During the Sunday it was very cloudy and cold, but not with a lot of rain.

 

[F-14D]

Stephen Trimble mentioned the F-22 photographs of Polish photographer Slawek Krajniewski in his The DEW Line blog. These photos were taken at last month's Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) at Fairford, UK and they are just too cool not to share. Enjoy! ;D

URL: http://www.hesja.pl/XPL/galeria/show/181

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/08/photos-f-22-as-high-art.html

Very interesting that this aircraft has the rear facing camera mounted. I had thought that was only on the flight test articles at Edwards.

It helps with parallel parking in tight spaces.

 

[sferrin]

Very interesting that this aircraft has the rear facing camera mounted. I had thought that was only on the flight test articles at Edwards.

Are you referring to that thing hanging off the bottom? You sure that's not the RCS enhancement device?

 

[Sundog]

Outstanding F-22 photos here.

 

[Triton]

Outstanding F-22 photos here.

Never know if I should post these things in "The Bar" or "Aerospace" sections:

"F-22 at Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) 2010" from August 12, 2010
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10715.0.html

 

[quellish]

great shot!

If you look near the centerline you'll see a cylinder. On the test force air craft this is definitely a camera - I have close up shots of it. I've seen it on operational F-22s, which had me wondering why the heck they would be carrying a rear facing camera!
Turns out the same mount that Edwards uses for the camera, operational F-22s use to mount a radar reflector:
http://www.mayurakshi.net/luneberg.htm