l certain key F-22 specs inferior to the F 15? And other concerns.

urmomma158 · 06-19-2007, 20:35 PM

all specs are from Aerospaceweb.org | Reference for Aviation, Space, Design, and Engineering
well fuel fraction is calculated by:fuel in lbs/total weight(lbs) of aircraft+weight of fule in lbs

for the F 22 I got approximately .28

for the F 15 I got .21

so the F 22 wins in fuel fraction which means more range

Drag for the F 22 is obviously less due to better aero design and no external weapons.

I got a higher thrust to weight ratio for the F 15 though

1.38 for the F 15 vs 1.14 for the F 22

I'm starting to think that althugh the F 22 is great for what we have right now I know it can outmaneuver the F15/16/18and Su 27/30 etc etc etc but I think some of the specs are overstated such as supercruise which would no doubt decrease its range.

I know F 22's have exceeded expectations in excercises like Red flag/northern edge in BVR,WVR, ground attack,ECCM etc and are excellent in SEAD against the latest sams but I'm skeptical if they can perform effectively while going up against a layered defense with long range VHF surveillance radars(inaccurate for targeting and immobile) with the surveillance radars protected by the latest S300P/V and S400 units further backed up by SA 11's, Tor M1's, and finally tunguskas coordinated by 83M6E/83M6E2 command posts and interwoven with fiber optic cables.

Quote:

The 83M6E2 command post (CP) is intended for operational control of multi*channel SAM system S-300 PMU, S-300 PMU1. S-300 PMU2, S-200DE and S-200VE and cooperation among SAM system groupings and with higher command. The 83M6E2 is a highly mobile automated control aid pro*viding the above SAM systems with designation of targets including modem and future aircraft, cruise missiles, ballistic targets and other air attack means over the entire range of there practical employment, cooperation between SAM sys*tems (also under intensive jamming conditions). To control the SAM systems, the 83M6E2 uses its own radar data and data received from the controlled SAM systems, as well as information derived from higher control aids, elec*tronic reconnaissance troops and neighbouring SAM sys*tems groupings

S-300PMU2 Favorit SA-10 GRUMBLE

correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is the 83M6E2 allows targeting and other data from the S300/VHF radars to be transferred to other sams like SA 11's,Tor m1's, and tunguskas to provide a robust point defense against stealth cruise missiles like JASSM and SAMS can easily take care of PGMs like SDB's, JDAMS etc. Those VHF radars which can be robustly protected by the above SAM network can then vector fighters into the F22's and perhaps the missiles can be datalinked to the VHF radars to fly out to the general position of the aircraft and be mounted on cheap SU 35's. Perhaps 5V55K's which are still available and are comand link guided can be upgraded with a terminal IIR/active radar or maybe even a dual mode seeker and be guided from the VHF radar's information. The SU 35's run at $35 mil and maybe have it upgraded with the AL41F to allow it to supercruise giving it similar kinectematic capabilities. Mig 29's although they are horrendous aircraft and have high maintenance requiremnts are quite robust and cheap to manufacture.

Not to mention MIg 31's armed with R-33's can also datalink with ground stations.

Then you have ECM to deal with and i'm not sure how robust those datalinks and the radar on the AMRAAM are and how much they will be degraded(note i used the word degraded) by tactical EMP delivered from Iskander TBM's.

Forgive any spelling errors I forgot to fix g2g eat dinner.

Jimmy · 06-19-2007, 20:57 PM

Fuel fraction means nothing, unless both aircraft are running identical engines. And even then it wouldnt be a level playing field due to other factors (drag, etc).

VHF is easily jammable, and frankly it wont do them any good to have VHF or LW towers to detect inbound Raptors...you cant target based on it, and you'll have a helluva time trying to run an intercept using that data...and even if you COULD, your plane would likely be shot down before he ever got any indication from his own radar.

But anyway, a layered defense such as you describe is typically reserved for a SERIOUSLY important location...say, Moscow. If the US has no desire to march past Lenin's tomb, then there's no reason to try to defeat such a defense. You wont see a system that thick lining the border.

gunnut · 06-19-2007, 21:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urmomma158

I got a higher thrust to weight ratio for the F 15 though

1.38 for the F 15 vs 1.14 for the F 22

I'm starting to think that althugh the F 22 is great for what we have right now I know it can outmaneuver the F15/16/18and Su 27/30 etc etc etc but I think some of the specs are overstated such as supercruise which would no doubt decrease its range.

Some small problem with your calculations.

1. You assume the listed figure for F-22's total thrust is accurate. If I were the air force, I'd give you a low figure and let you speculate for a good long time.

2. Thrust to weight ratio isn't everything. Highseas showed that the Gripen can supercruise with a thrust to weight ratio of only 0.91 simply due to superior aerodynamics. Elegant and efficient design is as important as the brute force available.

3. Supercruise might decrease some range, but it can get you there a lot faster than not using it. The trade off is probably more than worth it. Supercruise just means hitting supersonic speed without using afterburners. Jet engines are quite efficient at military thrust. So supercruise might not decrease range enough to be a concern.

urmomma158 · 06-22-2007, 16:19 PM

I was thinking about using the VHF radar for LOAL and using the S300/SA 11,Tor M1, and tunguska for primarily point defense and cruise missile defense

GGTharos · 06-22-2007, 18:07 PM

You can basically forget about SAMs targetting F-22's at any 'long' distance, barring a SAM armed with a nuclear warhead.

As for thrust to weight? The F-15C can have 1.4 or so when it's fairly low on fuel ... the Streak had 1.6. The Strike already beats the C and matches the Streak's performance figures closely enough, IIRC.

The F-22 takes it all away again ... in other words ... you mis-calculated

ArmchairGeneral · 06-22-2007, 20:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGTharos

You can basically forget about SAMs targetting F-22's at any 'long' distance, barring a SAM armed with a nuclear warhead.

As for thrust to weight? The F-15C can have 1.4 or so when it's fairly low on fuel ... the Streak had 1.6. The Strike already beats the C and matches the Streak's performance figures closely enough, IIRC.

The F-22 takes it all away again ... in other words ... you mis-calculated

No kidding. IIRC, the Raptor's engines have nearly 40,000 lbs of thrust on burner. Each. And it weighs, what, 55 or 60 thousand lbs with a combat load? Compared to an an Eagle, with around 25,000 lbs per engine, and about 50,000 lbs combat load, or about 30,000 lbs/engine and I think something like 60,000 lbs combat load.

I don't know of a fighter that can match the Raptor for sheer brute power.

IMUSTLEARN · 06-22-2007, 23:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urmomma158

all specs are from Aerospaceweb.org | Reference for Aviation, Space, Design, and Engineering
well fuel fraction is calculated by:fuel in lbs/total weight(lbs) of aircraft+weight of fule in lbs

for the F 22 I got approximately .28

for the F 15 I got .21

so the F 22 wins in fuel fraction which means more range

Drag for the F 22 is obviously less due to better aero design and no external weapons.

I got a higher thrust to weight ratio for the F 15 though

1.38 for the F 15 vs 1.14 for the F 22

I'm starting to think that althugh the F 22 is great for what we have right now I know it can outmaneuver the F15/16/18and Su 27/30 etc etc etc but I think some of the specs are overstated such as supercruise which would no doubt decrease its range.

I know F 22's have exceeded expectations in excercises like Red flag/northern edge in BVR,WVR, ground attack,ECCM etc and are excellent in SEAD against the latest sams but I'm skeptical if they can perform effectively while going up against a layered defense with long range VHF surveillance radars(inaccurate for targeting and immobile) with the surveillance radars protected by the latest S300P/V and S400 units further backed up by SA 11's, Tor M1's, and finally tunguskas coordinated by 83M6E/83M6E2 command posts and interwoven with fiber optic cables.

S-300PMU2 Favorit SA-10 GRUMBLE

correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is the 83M6E2 allows targeting and other data from the S300/VHF radars to be transferred to other sams like SA 11's,Tor m1's, and tunguskas to provide a robust point defense against stealth cruise missiles like JASSM and SAMS can easily take care of PGMs like SDB's, JDAMS etc. Those VHF radars which can be robustly protected by the above SAM network can then vector fighters into the F22's and perhaps the missiles can be datalinked to the VHF radars to fly out to the general position of the aircraft and be mounted on cheap SU 35's. Perhaps 5V55K's which are still available and are comand link guided can be upgraded with a terminal IIR/active radar or maybe even a dual mode seeker and be guided from the VHF radar's information. The SU 35's run at $35 mil and maybe have it upgraded with the AL41F to allow it to supercruise giving it similar kinectematic capabilities. Mig 29's although they are horrendous aircraft and have high maintenance requiremnts are quite robust and cheap to manufacture.

Not to mention MIg 31's armed with R-33's can also datalink with ground stations.

Then you have ECM to deal with and i'm not sure how robust those datalinks and the radar on the AMRAAM are and how much they will be degraded(note i used the word degraded) by tactical EMP delivered from Iskander TBM's.

Forgive any spelling errors I forgot to fix g2g eat dinner.

I heard numerous times that the F-22 is NOT more areodynamic that Su-30 but just has stealth, I saw on the History Channel that the F-22 only has stealth in it's wing edges, and tail not the entire airframe, is this true??

ArmchairGeneral · 06-23-2007, 00:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMUSTLEARN

I heard numerous times that the F-22 is NOT more areodynamic that Su-30 but just has stealth, I saw on the History Channel that the F-22 only has stealth in it's wing edges, and tail not the entire airframe, is this true??

The Raptor has a very clean airframe, which leads to good aerodynamics. Don't know if it's more aerodynamic than the Su-30 or not. As for stealth, I'm not sure what you mean. Stealth isn't something you put on a plane, but a measure of the radar cross section of a plane. The Raptor is an all aspect stealth plane, meaning that it is stealthy (very low radar cross section) from front, sides, and rear.

WECIV · 06-23-2007, 02:14 AM

The Raptor is quite stealthy until say you place an AWACS in space and paint its tennis court size flat top.

W

Garry · 06-23-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Fuel fraction means nothing, unless both aircraft are running identical engines. And even then it wouldnt be a level playing field due to other factors (drag, etc).

VHF is easily jammable, and frankly it wont do them any good to have VHF or LW towers to detect inbound Raptors...you cant target based on it, and you'll have a helluva time trying to run an intercept using that data...and even if you COULD, your plane would likely be shot down before he ever got any indication from his own radar.

But anyway, a layered defense such as you describe is typically reserved for a SERIOUSLY important location...say, Moscow. If the US has no desire to march past Lenin's tomb, then there's no reason to try to defeat such a defense. You wont see a system that thick lining the border.

The beuty of the SAM sytem based on S-300/Tor-M1/Su-30 is that it is MOBILE... i mean if we take time span of around a week..... and you can easily change its density where you want by adding more force where you need.

so you don't need to cover WHOLE 1/7th of the soil - the territory of Russia. You know from where your guests may fly... (not from North Pole direction) and you have higher density of cover in most dangerous directions.
_______________
As for Supercruise

From my beer talks I learned that, unfortunatelly Flanker series would have inferior super cruise capability with AL-41F due to its sub-sonic optimization. While being more agile than most of fighters with comparable wieght it was made to be high maneurvrable on sub-sonic speed span and not supposed to fly long on supersonic speed.

On the opposite MiG-31's frame is designed to fly for long on super sonic speed.... if its engine could have been upgraded for higher thurst to weight it could have been somehow supersonic. But this comes at a cost... in close combat MiG-31 is not really as good as a Flanker/Falcrum.

From same beer talks, I learned what people at MiG think now about Raptor and Flanker. The Raptor's mock frame was blown in tube and they come to conclusion that it can not be as agile as flanker on subsonics.... as SUPERCRUISE costs you something - high maneuvrability. What I understood is that Flanker/Falcrum have their high meneurvrability due to somehow UNSTABLE frame.... which is not good for supersonic flights... it drags more on those speeds. Raptor/MIG-31/MIG-25 are STABLE and perfect for FAST supersonic speed.

So if I got it right... PAK FA designers must chose their own ballance between Supercruising capability and Subsonic high maneuvrability.

ArmchairGeneral · 06-23-2007, 09:54 AM

Instability is certainly an important factor for high maneuverability. I believe the F-16 was one of the first fighters deliberately designed to be unstable -its fly-by-wire control system allowed the flight computer to correct for instability. I don't know about instability vs aerodynamics, though. I know that the reverse sweep design of the Berkut is very, very unstable, making for a highly agile aircraft. I had always assumed that reverse sweep wings are reasonably efficient at supersonic speeds, but I may be wrong.

I wonder how much of the Raptor's supercruise ability is due to supersonic aerodynamics and how much is simply brute thrust? Anyhow, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Super Flankers are more maneuverable than the Raptor. Not that the Raptor is a slouch on maneuverability. I doubt they sacrificed too much agility for speed. Hopefully.

Jimmy · 06-23-2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry

The beuty of the SAM sytem based on S-300/Tor-M1/Su-30 is that it is MOBILE... i mean if we take time span of around a week..... and you can easily change its density where you want by adding more force where you need.

so you don't need to cover WHOLE 1/7th of the soil - the territory of Russia. You know from where your guests may fly... (not from North Pole direction) and you have higher density of cover in most dangerous directions.

The thing about several systems (not just the Russians) is that the term "mobile" is used very liberally. If its not planted in cement, its mobile. It could take them 12 hours to tear it down and they'd say its mobile. A good rule of thumb is probably "If it aint on wheels/tracks, it aint mobile." At least without everyone knowing where it is.

Quote:

_______________
As for Supercruise

From my beer talks I learned that, unfortunatelly Flanker series would have inferior super cruise capability with AL-41F due to its sub-sonic optimization. While being more agile than most of fighters with comparable wieght it was made to be high maneurvrable on sub-sonic speed span and not supposed to fly long on supersonic speed.

On the opposite MiG-31's frame is designed to fly for long on super sonic speed.... if its engine could have been upgraded for higher thurst to weight it could have been somehow supersonic. But this comes at a cost... in close combat MiG-31 is not really as good as a Flanker/Falcrum.

From same beer talks, I learned what people at MiG think now about Raptor and Flanker. The Raptor's mock frame was blown in tube and they come to conclusion that it can not be as agile as flanker on subsonics.... as SUPERCRUISE costs you something - high maneuvrability. What I understood is that Flanker/Falcrum have their high meneurvrability due to somehow UNSTABLE frame.... which is not good for supersonic flights... it drags more on those speeds. Raptor/MIG-31/MIG-25 are STABLE and perfect for FAST supersonic speed.

So if I got it right... PAK FA designers must chose their own ballance between Supercruising capability and Subsonic high maneuvrability.

Considering the Raptor holds its own in WVR combat against F-16s, I'd feel pretty good about tangling with Flankers. I'm curious about the new Fulcrums, though.

FiRepower · 06-23-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

The Raptor has a very clean airframe, which leads to good aerodynamics. Don't know if it's more aerodynamic than the Su-30 or not. As for stealth, I'm not sure what you mean. Stealth isn't something you put on a plane, but a measure of the radar cross section of a plane. The Raptor is an all aspect stealth plane, meaning that it is stealthy (very low radar cross section) from front, sides, and rear.

Very True

About the SAM's vs Raptors etc , any SAM is a danger to a fighter , specialy long ranged and systems like S-300 are a threat , don't think that you can just fly around Sam defended areas and have fun and trow bombs

urmomma158 · 06-24-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGTharos

You can basically forget about SAMs targetting F-22's at any 'long' distance, barring a SAM armed with a nuclear warhead.

As for thrust to weight? The F-15C can have 1.4 or so when it's fairly low on fuel ... the Streak had 1.6. The Strike already beats the C and matches the Streak's performance figures closely enough, IIRC.

The F-22 takes it all away again ... in other words ... you mis-calculated

Yea I guess you're right VHF radar coverage can be quite spotty and doesn't have enough paints enough per minute.

GGTharos · 06-24-2007, 13:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FiRepower

Very True

About the SAM's vs Raptors etc , any SAM is a danger to a fighter , specialy long ranged and systems like S-300 are a threat , don't think that you can just fly around Sam defended areas and have fun and trow bombs

Are you so sure?
You can fly in some 40nm away, toss a few GPS guided bombs at that poor SAM and fly away.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-19-2007, 20:57 PM	#2 (permalink)
Jimmy *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 929 Country:	Fuel fraction means nothing, unless both aircraft are running identical engines. And even then it wouldnt be a level playing field due to other factors (drag, etc). VHF is easily jammable, and frankly it wont do them any good to have VHF or LW towers to detect inbound Raptors...you cant target based on it, and you'll have a helluva time trying to run an intercept using that data...and even if you COULD, your plane would likely be shot down before he ever got any indication from his own radar. But anyway, a layered defense such as you describe is typically reserved for a SERIOUSLY important location...say, Moscow. If the US has no desire to march past Lenin's tomb, then there's no reason to try to defeat such a defense. You wont see a system that thick lining the border.

06-22-2007, 16:19 PM	#4 (permalink)
urmomma158 the real plastic *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-05-06 Location: NJ Turnpike Posts: 937 Country:	I was thinking about using the VHF radar for LOAL and using the S300/SA 11,Tor M1, and tunguska for primarily point defense and cruise missile defense

06-22-2007, 18:07 PM	#5 (permalink)
GGTharos Contributor Join Date: 10-06-06 Posts: 357	You can basically forget about SAMs targetting F-22's at any 'long' distance, barring a SAM armed with a nuclear warhead. As for thrust to weight? The F-15C can have 1.4 or so when it's fairly low on fuel ... the Streak had 1.6. The Strike already beats the C and matches the Streak's performance figures closely enough, IIRC. The F-22 takes it all away again ... in other words ... you mis-calculated

06-23-2007, 02:14 AM	#9 (permalink)
WECIV Regular Join Date: 11-13-06 Posts: 88 Country:	The Raptor is quite stealthy until say you place an AWACS in space and paint its tennis court size flat top. W

06-23-2007, 09:54 AM	#11 (permalink)
ArmchairGeneral Devil's Advocate *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-03-06 Location: The boonies of NC, USA. Posts: 2,737 Country:	Instability is certainly an important factor for high maneuverability. I believe the F-16 was one of the first fighters deliberately designed to be unstable -its fly-by-wire control system allowed the flight computer to correct for instability. I don't know about instability vs aerodynamics, though. I know that the reverse sweep design of the Berkut is very, very unstable, making for a highly agile aircraft. I had always assumed that reverse sweep wings are reasonably efficient at supersonic speeds, but I may be wrong. I wonder how much of the Raptor's supercruise ability is due to supersonic aerodynamics and how much is simply brute thrust? Anyhow, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Super Flankers are more maneuverable than the Raptor. Not that the Raptor is a slouch on maneuverability. I doubt they sacrificed too much agility for speed. Hopefully.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)