F22 Raptor at Airshow

[Copper]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7510364.stm

Mighty fine looking plane.

[Steel God]

It is indeed Shane. I was privledged to see an F-22 fly by in 2006 (it lasted about 1/3 the length of your whole video clip lol) and I was struck by how deathly silent the plane is. There are hints of that silence in the video, but overall I think it generally sounds louder on the video than in real life, probably because of the placement of the recording equipment, but in real time, you do not hear that aircraft until you are within the 90 degree arc directly behind her. In other words, as she is exiting the target area. No after burners makes a huge difference in moe than just fuel consumption.

It is a sweet looking plane.

[Vulture]

It is indeed Shane. I was privledged to see an F-22 fly by in 2006 (it lasted about 1/3 the length of your whole video clip lol) and I was struck by how deathly silent the plane is. There are hints of that silence in the video, but overall I think it generally sounds louder on the video than in real life, probably because of the placement of the recording equipment, but in real time, you do not hear that aircraft until you are within the 90 degree arc directly behind her. In other words, as she is exiting the target area. No after burners makes a huge difference in moe than just fuel consumption.

It is a sweet looking plane.

Steel God

Are you sure the F22 doesn't haven't re-heat ? You may well be right, but I'd be astonished if that was the case. A serious drawback in a dog fight if that was the case.

You could argue of course that with the stealth features it has that no one should get near it. Personally I only buy that argument to a degree however. That said, I recall reading in James Defence Weekly (JDW) that 4 F22s on an exercise ( a penetration mission) took on and 'splashed' 20 F15s for no loss. Given how good the F15 is (even though a bit long in the tooth) it gives an idea of the jump in capability to the USAF that the F22 provides.

Vulture

[Steel God]

Well, yes Ian, actually it does have after burners, but it can (and has) achieved speeds in excess of Mach 1.7 without them. But they're there if needed. Top speed with the burners has not been released.

It is highly maneuverable in a dog fighting situation, partially because of it's design and partially because of vectored thrust.

As for testing against F-15s and others...yes, I've heard the stories of 8 and 10 to 1 odds being overcome, but have nothing to substantiate that. I do know that it's record is unblemished, meaning it has not yet lost a test engagement, no matter what the odds. It also has the ability to function as a mini-AWACS, using it's radar to designate targets for other aircraft, acting as a force multiplier for F-15s and F-16s. And what impressed me the most, it has scored hits with 1000lb JDAMs,on moving ground targets, from 50K feet, at a distance of 24 miles, while traveling at Mach 1.5.

Good luck to the poor AA crews trying to track this baby.

[Vulture]

Well, yes Ian, actually it does have after burners, but it can (and has) achieved speeds in excess of Mach 1.7 without them. But they're there if needed. Top speed with the burners has not been released.

It is highly maneuverable in a dog fighting situation, partially because of it's design and partially because of vectored thrust.

As for testing against F-15s and others...yes, I've heard the stories of 8 and 10 to 1 odds being overcome, but have nothing to substantiate that. I do know that it's record is unblemished, meaning it has not yet lost a test engagement, no matter what the odds. It also has the ability to function as a mini-AWACS, using it's radar to designate targets for other aircraft, acting as a force multiplier for F-15s and F-16s. And what impressed me the most, it has scored hits with 1000lb JDAMs,on moving ground targets, from 50K feet, at a distance of 24 miles, while traveling at Mach 1.5.

Good luck to the poor AA crews trying to track this baby.

A very very impressive piece of kit. I'm sure I read they are thinking of closing the production line (due the ruinously high unit price) unless some more orders are forthcoming, so it looks like the F15s and F16s are going to be around for some time to come.

Any thoughts on how the J35 will shape up compared to it ?

Talking of the J35, the STOVOL variant with that heavy lift fan looks a real goat to me.
I suppose we in the UK will buy some, although given that our two new carriers will be both big enough for conventional landings, the rational escapes me. The extra space / weight saving on the ship (for not having a catapult) seems a poor trade compared to the shortfalls the STOVOL variant will have...

Vulture

[Mike Abberton]

The STOVL version is to replace Marine Harriers (and I suppose RAF/RN Harriers as well) for forward defense. There is also a planned carrier variant that is closer to the Air Force version of the F-35 (i.e. no STOVL but a little heavier internal weight to handle carrier landings). I suspect that the UK might eventually order the carrier variant for their new conventional carriers, in addition to some STOVL versions.

Regarding capability compared to the F-22, the F-35 will not be as good a pure fighter plane, but should be a superior attack plane. I can't remember for sure, but I don't think it has the F-22's supercruise ability (supersonic speed without afterburners) or the thrust vectoring capability. I think the pure stealth aspects are close to, but not quite as good as, the F-22, particularly since they will be much more likely than an F-22 to have external ordinance. The electronics, though, should be pretty close to an F-22, and we have a lot more good, high-precision stand-off weapons now.

[Steel God]

Mike has the details nailed pretty well Ian. It is called the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for a reason, and that is because it is designed as a weapons platform, as opposed to the F-22, which is designed for the air supremacy mission. It's a little bit of apples and oranges comparison.

Unlike the F-22, which by law can not be exported by the US, the F-35 is an international venture and plans for production of over 3000 aircraft to at least 9 or 10 nations (6 European nations, Canada, Australia, and Israel that I can recall) are already laid down. The JSF can be nearly as stealthy as the F-22, but doing so limits it's weapons load to 4000 lbs in the internal bays (half that for the VTOL version).

I have no doubt you've read stories about closing up the production line, a product of the way programs are funded in the US. Don't believe them. The Air Force knows it needs that weapon system more than anything else if it's to maintain the technological edge to assure air supremacy in any future conflicts. It will give up almost anything to keep the Raptor funded.

[Mike Abberton]

Most of the "large unit cost" misinformation that gets spread around on US weapon production contracts (like the $20,000 coffee pots on C-5's or the $400 hammers) has to do with the way the US Government pays for weapon development.

Basically after the prototype competition, they issue a contract to the winner that includes: developing the final product, building the infrastructure to construct the weapon (tooling, dies, etc.), build the initial batch of weapons, build up the initial spare parts, and sometimes even make base improvements to maintain the new weapon (like stealth coating facilities for the B-2s). That entire cost then gets divided by the total number of weapons in the first order batch resulting in very high unit costs. (And not just on a per unit basis, but on a per component basis. So that $400 hammer might be $4 for the hammer and $394 of development/tooling/etc. cost.)

I am not sure of the actual breakdown, but for combat aircraft, the actual manufacturing costs for the planes alone is probably somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the total cost at the start (depending a lot on the number of units). That usually only gets smaller as teething issues drag out development and drive up the overall project cost. As the overall project cost goes up, the typical goverment reaction is to cut the number of units bought in the first batch. So while that saves overall expenditure, it can wildly drive up the contract's per unit cost.

However, if and when there is ever a second order, you have already paid for development, tooling, etc. and the second batch per unit cost drops usually by quite a lot. Also, it usually happens that manufacturing costs per plane drop a bit as the manufacturer gets some experience and figuring out better ways to put things together.

[alaric99x]

Tell me about it.... I worked Army Acquisitions, I was SME (Subject Matter Expert) for the Ordnance Corps at Aberdeen Proving Ground for about 2 years shortly before I retired. They called us SMEs, but if you have a new system that only we are testing and evaluating, then we are "Subject Matter Experts" because we're the only ones who know about it. I could tell you stories, but I'd better not.