F22 - Unbelievable

Saw nothing in that vid that the soviets weren't doing in the 90s at Woodford airshow in their Sukhois.

Awesome plane, saw it at Fairford, makes the Typhoon seen so last century (bearing in mind I believe that there was a mock-up of what would become Typhoon at Farnborough in the early eighties).

Impressive , but it can't stop , go backwards or take a bow!

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Impressive , but it can't stop , go backwards or take a bow!

Maybe not - but if you search you tube or the BBC news site for the F35 footage you will find a plane that does all of the above makes the F22 raptor look broken...
Now that is an awsome plane, and from what is being said, almost certainly the last fighter plane to contain a pilot.
The BBC news reporter shows just how much technology makes this plane so, so advanced, from looking at individual hotel windows of Las Vegas from 49 miles out to him landing it oh so easily on an aircraft carrier in a flight simulator.
Well worth looking for if your into planes - if only to see the most powerful jet engine yet produced (in conjunction with RR).
They are even calling it the 'Lightening II'.

Lightning 1 was fine enough IMO.

If a modern combat aircraft gets into a situation where it needs extreme manoeuvrability, the avionics are on their way out. The jockey will know whether his missiles are going to win the fight, or whether he should turn and scarper 200 miles before punches are thrown.
Information technology is what wins.

Tony

F35 is a STOVL, not quite a Harrier that can hover & take a bow, but agreed it does look like it can do stuff that even makes the F22 2nd rate.
But keep in mind the F22 is a conventional plane with not only impossible slow speed manoeuvrability, but top speed & ceiling performance that I don't think the F35 has. Also the F35 is a strike (attack) aircraft. F22 is air superiority, a completely different role.

BigH, I first went to Farnborough when the Air Force was equiped with P-1's & we did not have the green coloured tree hungers objecting to noise & fuel use or even Mach-1+. In those days they had a squadron display - 12 airplanes - taking off in Vic-3 - with the 4 x vic's one behind the other - all got airborne - all gear up ...... Then with all 24 reheats on full power - straight up in 4 x vic-3 to 20k feet.

And the Typhoon is trying to do it all, as usual for the RAF!
I think the main point though, is that they don't have an enemy to be better than.

Tony.

Tony, I have zero experience in aerodynamics, aeronautical or anything related to aircrafts but thinking with simple physics, that F-22 was doing some amazing maneuvers. At least to a lay man like myself, I would assume that loads of thrust/power are needed for such maneuvers. I'd love your expert opinion

Regards...

My point is that an air superiority fighter doesn't need to get involved in dogfights. Modern missiles are fire-and-forget from great distances, and it's missiles that rake out the enemy. If the enemy knows, playing the percentage game, that it will lose, then the enemy simply turns and runs.
I'm guessing that the F-22 will loiter at altitude, radar off, and receiving blasts of data from an AWACS 200 miles away. When the AWACS detects a suitable target it will give all suitable info to the F-22 and off it will go, still with no active radar. Once in position, missile launched (also possibly controlled by the AWACS) and F-22 returns to loiter. The enemy (who? And what are they flying with??) won't know anything until the last seconds.
Why would anyone get involved in a dogfight?

Tony

quote:

Why would anyone get involved in a dogfight?

For fun?

Mike - while it may be designed as SToVL if you take a look at the footage mentioned it most certainly appears to take off vertically without any problems whatsoever and it most certainly can hover!
I admit that I'm somewhat in awe of the mechanical / avionics of the thing - it's almost akin to watching a transformer movie seeing it take off vertically - but agree totally with Tony. This plane is designed to give the pilot total 360 degree vision, and can be fed from just about any source availabe, as well as give information out to whoever needs it. The fact that as many sofware techs are needed as ground crew speaks for itself.You tube video

BBC interview
The two associated video clips from the BBC are also worth seeing - beware big brother.
Note - not certain if the BBC clips are viewable outside of the UK?

Also note that aircraft at airshows are usually configured for a short airshow. So little or no weaponry, and enough fuel for the show. Anyone here seen a fully laden Tornado GR4 take off recently? It's a joke.
One exception was the Lightning. It never had much fuel anyway!

Tony

PS. An old aircraft (actually, the world's oldest flying jet) such as the Sabre based at Duxford has enough fuel for a full-throttle air display for ten minutes and a landing. And that's it!

Was it true the lightning only carried enough fuel for 8 mins on full re-heat? That must have had the pilots looking for pit stops anywhere possible!

My dad took me the first time I went to Farnborough, I was quite impressed when a Buccaneer went supersonic along the flight line seemed to cause a bit of a flap.


This one went a bit wrong though

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen B:

quote:

Why would anyone get involved in a dogfight?

For fun?

Is it 1940 again?

As much as I loved the Buccaneer, it couldn't go supersonic. Transonic all day though!

Tony

[QUOTE
BigH, I first went to Farnborough when the Air Force was equiped with P-1's & we did not have the green coloured tree hungers objecting to noise & fuel use or even Mach-1+.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing that pub you live near isn't the Ham and Blackbird otherwise you'd be cursing the freeking things.

Early 90s at Leuchars I saw a Soviet plane that hung vertically in mid air then flew backwards. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I wouldn't have believed it. It was amazing. How useful it's going to be in the real world is perhaps a different matter.

Impressive and beautiful though the F22 is I'm a little underwhelmed by what I'm seeing on screen here in terms of its manoeuvrability and roll/turn capability. The F22 looks to be considerably less agile for dogfighting than the Typhoon, but then from an airshow display these things are hard to gauge. The F22 however because of its stealth capability is really designed as a stand off weapon platform for air dominance. Its aim is to kill before it is detected, if it ever came to a dogfight within visual range my money would be on the Typhoon, it's an out and out dogfighting aircraft in the same way the F16 is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...13wY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcFZcF17GJk

I wouldn't underestimate the Typhoon, the RAF have currently in service one of the most potent fighter aircraft in the world for the first time since the Spitfire. In simulated air combat tests nothing except the Raptor currently comes close.

Jonathan

quote:

My point is that an air superiority fighter doesn't need to get involved in dogfights.

Wasn't that the prevaining theory in about 1936 or something with modern monoplane fighters?

In fact every time that theory has been advanced I think its been proved wrong.

A slight digression - I'd be interested to know the identity of the jets which zoom around the Lake District at low altitude and scare the willies out of me sometimes if we happen to be in a narrow valley.

Great to be up a Fell & watch them fly below you though!

At a guess, Tornado, Typhoon, Hawk, Harrier or F-15.

Tony

Great technology. How much has this cost? As a species we wast billions making stuff to kill people, just think what good that sort of money spent on finding a cure for cancer would bring. I have problems understanding why people find killing machines so facinating. Sorry if this view goes against this thread but there are more constructive things to spend this sort of money on.

Until the shit hits the fan. We are humans, we fight on occasion.

Tony