Posted on 02/26/2006 7:12:29 AM PST by SandRat
The newest bird in the Air Force fleet — and one of the noisiest — will make its Tucson debut next weekend. The F-22 Raptor, a sleek and supersonic stealth jet that's more advanced than any other in Air Force history, will be among dozens of new and vintage warplanes in town to train for the 2006 air- show season.
Two or three of the futuristic fighters will touch down during the annual Heritage Flight Conference at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, a three-day event that allows pilots to practice formation flying for eight to nine hours a day. It's part of the certification process to perform on the air-show circuit.
The training conference runs from Friday through Sunday.
To military aircraft enthusiasts, the Raptor's arrival is cause for ooh-ing and aah-ing.
"The F-22 is a pretty spectacular bit of technology," said Scott Marchand, director of collections and aircraft restoration at the Pima Air and Space Museum. The radar-defeating aircraft, which cost about $130 million apiece, came into service three months ago, so recently that few civilians have ever seen one in flight.
"This is a rare chance to get a sneak peek at the next generation of air-dominance fighters," Marchand said. The F-22 "is a much noisier airplane" than the A-10 attack jets that typically fly above Tucson, Marchand noted.
And the Raptor also has much more advanced capabilities, such as the ability to cruise at supersonic speed without afterburners, and sophisticated sensors that allow the pilot to track, identify and shoot a threat before it detects the F-22. But some Tucsonans concerned about military-jet noise see the extra flights as an added headache and safety risk.
National security requirements are one thing. Practicing for air shows is another, said Daniel Patterson, city planning commissioner.
"I'm not sure it's appropriate to have all these additional overflights in a big city. It seems like it would be more appropriate for a remote location," said Patterson, who is also a co-chairman of Tucsonans for Quality of Life, a citizens group concerned about the environmental impact of the air base.
He said the air-show training heaps one more aggravation onto residents already negatively affected by things like extra helicopter flights and on-again, off-again night training at D-M.
Col. Michael Isherwood, D-M's vice commander, said he doesn't expect a major increase in noise because the F-22 is not at full power when flying in formation.
According to an Air Force noise study, an F-22 flying 500 feet above ground level sounds about the same as a chain saw operating nearby.
About 40 aircraft will take part in the training sessions, including historic warplanes such as the World War II-era P-51 Mustang and the F-86 Sabre, which was flown during the Korean War.
While the training flights will be visible to city residents, the event is not open to the public.
Marchand said a prime viewing spot is the parking lot of the air museum, 6000 E. Valencia Road, between South Wilmot Road and Interstate 10.
Sorry! but the F-18 is known as the hornet, The F-15 is the eagle. The F-15 is a much larger bird. The F-15E/Strike eagle is larger still because it carries a two man crew and is a ground attack aircraft as well as a fighter.
Who cares about sexy. It didn't fod out the engine when it fired a missile either (as the YF-22 did).
If you read "Roughing it" you would find that he did go to Hawaii, back when it was the Sandwich Islands.
He was impressed with the hula, and that was when the ladies did it in unison, and NAKED.
Damm. I missed that.
F-15 Eagle, a McDonnell-Douglas plane.
F-18 Hornet
F-16 (Falling) Falcon
F-22 Raptor
F-117 Night Hawk
F-20 Tigershark
F-4 Phantom
F-105 Thunderchief (aka Thud)
A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)
A-7 Corsair II
F-8 Crusader...
If you look around the internet, you will find a "Wheel of Misfortune" which shows all the design approaches that have been used to try to get vertical takeoff with high speed flight. The mechanical linkage used by the JSF and the internal propellor that can be canned back up for high speed flight, makes as much sense as anything. Still, it needs a very good engine to have enough left over for that much mechanical take off. Lockheed did the JSF right. I was very glad that the program authorities didn't select the Monica-Boeing version. And so are the mothers of the sailors that won't be sucked into the inlet.
Now that you mention it. The planes look a lot alike in basic shape so how are those planes different? To the best of my understanding the Navy has the Hornet (carrier landing and take off). Is the Eagle strictly a land based Air Force plane, and what different capabilities does it have (if any) not having to be able to take off and land on a carrier?
Everything I know comes from the military channel, although I was on a helo carrier (LPH-8) a long time ago. Given how much those planes look alike, I most definitely have been mixing them up. Sorry about that.
F-18 Hornet
http://www.wallpaper.net.au/wallpaper/aviation/F18%20On%20Carrier%20-%20800x600.jpg
http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/My-favourite-pics/aaw.sized.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18-ef-usnhornt.jpg
F-15 Eagle
http://www.ilexikon.com/images/a/a3/Usaf.f15.eagle.750pix.jpg
The tails of those planes (Hornet & Eagle) have similarities, but now that I look a lot closer I see even more differences. Again, sorry about that. It appears there are a number of versions of those planes over time, all somewhat different.
Okay, I feel a little better now. Here is a link to all the variations of a basic design for the F-35A, F35B, F35, etc. They all appear to bear a strong resemblence to the F-22 (Raptor).
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/f22/f22bay.jpg
and
http://www.f22fighter.com/ (interesting site)
Hmmmm, they're confusing me again. It appears the engineers have been working overtime on this one.
The short take off & vertical landing version is an interesting variation to see on video if anyone ever gets a chance.
Here is a conventional take off and landing version
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/jsf2.html
The joint strike fighter
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/jsf1.html
Here is a carrier based take off and landing version
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/jsf3.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/jsf6.html
Stealthy
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/jsf5.html
Short take off and verticle landing
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/jsf4.html
"On the F-35B, the engine is coupled with a shaft-driven lift fan system for STOVL propulsion. The counter-rotating lift fan, developed by Rolls-Royce Defence, can generate more than 20,000lb of thrust. Doors installed above and below the vertical fan open as the fin spins up to provide vertical lift. The main engine has a three bearing swivelling exhaust nozzle. The nozzle, which is supplemented by two roll control ducts on the inboard section of the wing, together with the vertical lift fan provide the required STOVL capability."
It's interesting to see the aircraft the F-35 design will be replacing (F-16, A-10) and that it is a "compliment" to the F-22. Sounds like ther're working on replacing the Marine Harriers too. Sure hope it all works out at least as well as what we've had up to now (no small order). So what is it again the F-22 is replacing, the Eagle?
Has fighter design been compromised to get more stealth into the plane?
Does computer programing compensate for good fighter design deviation to restore some of the fighter capability to the aircraft?
To the best of my recollection from the military channel programs, "yes" to both questions.
I hope it all works out. Again, the chief criticism I've heard of the Raptor by some military guy speaking on the FOX channel was, "They've designed it to do too many things, at the expense of doing specific jobs exceedingly well." In other words, "It's a fighter, but not the best that could be built. It's a bomber, but not the best that could be built. It's a..."
"If you look around the internet, you will find a "Wheel of Misfortune" which shows all the design approaches that have been used to try to get vertical takeoff with high speed flight."
Found it. Thanks. That pretty much says it all.
http://vstol.org/wheel/
I new that technology has been a big struggle, but I never knew just how much has been attempted.
If only Flagstaff was what it was in the early '50's - paradise. If only Flagstaff was what it was in the early '80's. You wouldn't recognize it today. I barely recognize it. Things change - but not often for the better.
Given the relatively limited production of the F-22A (only 350 ordered), unless the USAF does a follow-on order for at least 100 planes you can forget about the F-22A being based at Eglin AFB. Instead, F-22A's will fly out of Langley AFB, Luke AFB and possibly Holloman AFB, the first bases that got the F-15A back in the middle 1970's.
Sante Fe line made sure to welcome me with a horn rip at 5:00 AM.
thought the train was coming thru the freaking wall it was so loud.
Anyhoo....fell in love with Flagstaff AZ,
If money favours my Future I would head that way.
shift;
Col Michael Isherwood,Wing Vice of DM from main article is a family member.
Freeper Gunrunner 2 and him go back to desert Storm.
Mike flew A-10's,....then went onto Vipers [F-16's] at Osan South Korea.
After Osan,.... War college,....thinktank on *Deep Strike,...U.S. multi theatre air projection combat.
His effort got noticed and was assigned to Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon for Iraq war.
Ramstein in Germany for a time after in Europe theatre command,....then onto DM.
Some of DM's A-10's have been at Bagram Afghanistan and Iraq.
Gunrunner 2 retired recently from F-15E's.
alot of mileage for these 2 since Gulf War 1
No the F/A-18 can not do what the F-14 could. It’s not superior.
"So what is it again the F-22 is replacing, the Eagle?"
Accoridng to this, it appears to be replacing the F-15 Eagle.
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Nellis2004/Highlights/
"The Raptor is the intended replacement for America's current top of the line air superiority fighter, the F-15 Eagle, shown here putting on a far more spritely display than its successor."
and
"This F-14 Tomcat is the navy equivalent of the Eagle. Although both started life as pure fighters, economic realities forced both the F-14 and the F-15 to take on a bomb dropping role in addition to their previous duties, resulting in the so-called "Bombcat" with bomb racks which you see here and the F-15 Strike Eagle. Interestingly enough, the replacements for both planes are markedly inferior in speed - the F-15 can fly at mach 2.5 while the F-22 (depending on who you believe) can only do around mach 2; in the same way, the F-14 has a top speed of mach 2.35 and its successor the F-18 Super Hornet can only do mach 1.7. The Raptor, however, is much more stealthy than the F-14, F-15 or F-18 and is also the only aircraft in any country's inventory which can fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburner"
"No the F/A-18 can not do what the F-14 could. It’s not superior."
Thank you, I stand corrected.
...and further supporting your input,
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Nellis2004/Highlights/
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Nellis2004/Highlights/
"...the F-14 has a top speed of mach 2.35 and its successor the F-18 Super Hornet can only do mach 1.7"
It appears we are having a fundamental change in strategic design priorities these days. I was intrigued to read this next sentence at the site linked above.
“...the F-22 (depending on who you believe) can only do around mach" "The Raptor (F-22), however, is much more stealthy."
and regarding the B-2:
http://www.asminternational.org/images2/cof/a0203_1b.jpg
http://www.asminternational.org/images2/cof/a0203_1b.jpg
"The B-2's speed range is high subsonic"
and regarding the F-117:
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_117A_Nighthawk.htm
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_117A_Nighthawk.htm
"The F-117A's top speed has been released as high subsonic, with its cruising speed as 684 mph."
It appears that aeronautic design doctrine for military aircraft these days, seems to be the opposite of President Reagan's famous statement, "You can run, but you can't hide." Then again, what good does it do to run from a missile you can't outrun, when you can far more effectively hide from it?
"Slow but invisible." appears to be the newest test that the nerves of our courageous military pilots will face in these new aeronautic designs.
Speed is only one small thing. Bigger things are it can’t carry the bomb load or have the range of the F-14
F-14D Tomcat vs. F/18 E/F Super Hornet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/595147/posts
Yet they want to kill this great craft for something less
F-14s heading to aircraft graveyard
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1201259/posts
Navy Retires AIM-54 Phoenix Missile
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237343/posts
Sanchez makes naval history(F-14 Tomcats being phased out)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164607/posts
The Carrier Myth
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/577009/posts#4
Maybe we'r not to get here?
Confronting The Chinese
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1358643/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.