Posted on 11/07/2006 5:04:59 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
First, the Raptor will be the last long-range manned fighter the U.S. ever makes. And don't hold your breath on the RPVs.
Second, don't draw the wrong conclusions about defense from your economic assertions. Things are rather otherwise from what you suppose. We now are critically dependent on China for a vast number of discrete ..but highly essential ...electronic components for our defense industry that we can't make for our selves anymore...or at least don't...and won't. The Chinese labor price "competition" annhilated whole sectors of our production...and in fact, many of our own factories weren't simply shuttered...but boxed up, shipped over there, and set up to further abet their competitive advantage...and indeed ...monopoly supply position.
And China also absconded with Magnequench, all with the Blessings of Xlinton, and then W ...and by so doing...putting a lock on the next-generations of new defense technology...super-magnets, which are specced into most of our advanced aerospace gadgets.
I looked out at work today, onto production facilities for the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35). And assembly facilities for Globalhawk. As I recal looking down on the assembly facilities for the B-2 and B-1.
RPVs are old technology. Modern systems are autonomous. The JSF is longer range than the Raptor.
The next generation is to astound!
And very tough people. Remember the siege of Stalingrad?
Thank any survivor you see on my behalf. Not only did they grind Hitler to a standstill in the Great Patriotic War, it is my opinion that their shear raw courage and determination gave every US war planner pause. It was a major contributor to the cold war staying cold...
Not by the book it isn't, see here for example:
F-22, F-35, & the Hi-Lo Mix"he F-35A is a direct replacement for the Air Force's "Lo" end F-16 fighter and is of similar size and capabilities. Like the F-16, the F-35A is primarily a ground attack aircraft with a secondary air defense capability. The F-35A takes advantage of many of the advanced technologies developed for the F-22, but has a shorter range, simpler avionics, and is less maneuverable. "
Sigh. Autonomous is for reconnaisance and surveillance functions only. Air superiority absolutely requires manned control somewhere to make the decision as to shoot or not. Surveillance is far less stringent in decision-making, and time-stress. So, again, you are simply coming to the wrong conclusions. The Globalhawk is NOT an air-superiority anything. Not supersonic. Not air-to-air. It can be used for a kind of lame ground strike role, of course, but that is not particularly significant either.
If you're talking F22/35 yes. Just as is. But not budgeted for close to sufficient numbers for coverage or depth. We need more deployments.
If you're talking this...
Don, this odd claim caused me to look deeper into the PublicDomain info...and it shows this:
The F-22 [Raptor] combat range is est at 3220 km
(Source: http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/f22/techspecs.htm )ferry range est 3220 km
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor )
Meanwhile, please note the following:
F-35 [JSF] combat range est 1100 km
(source: http://www.defence.gov.au/Raaf/aircraft/jsf.htm )
Non-combat range est 2222 km
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35 )
Although these sources aren't definitive, they do point to the F-22 having significantly longer range than the F-35.
No question who will be the Top Dog...or I should say, TOP GUN [something we need to re-institute]:
I submit you have mixed some of your km with some of your miles.
With respect.
Combat Radius (NM)
Mission 1 (Sub+Super) 260+100nm 310+100nm 14%
From the Raptor flight test web site....
I will suggest you consider "Combat Radius" as the best measure of range, rather than ferry range.
The flight tested combat radius for the primary mission of the F-22 is only 310nm, + 100 nm reserve, which exceeds the requirement by 14%. That is because of the expectation that the F-22 will use high drag supersonic flight (even if it uses supercruise, the higher efficiency non-afterburning engine doesn't lower the drag of the airframe.
The F-35 primary mission doesn't have supercruise in it, and hence has lower drag, for a longer range, giving it a longer combat radius, say 350nm + 100nm reserve.
Here's more "fuel" for thought on F-22 ferry range.
F-22 combat range on internal fuel 3220 kmmax ferry range 8050 km with 4 x 600-gal external fuel tanks
Mistaken Assumptions.Normal Combat Radius represents how far, in kilometers, the aircraft can normally travel from its base and perform it's mission (air superiority or ground attack) The rule of thumb is that the combat radius is one third the distance an aircraft can fly in a straight line on a full load of fuel. This assumes a trip out and back plus one third of fuel for combat operations. But for that handful of nations with a lot of aerial tanker aircraft, the situation is quite different, and rather more complicated. With tankers you can have combat aircraft top off their fuel tanks just before they enter hostile air space, and do the same when they return. This can more than double the normal range of warplanes. But it gets more complicated than that. Aircraft have a maximum take off weight, but bombers can take off with more bombs and less fuel. After flying a long distance to just outside enemy territory, they can take on more fuel, deliver their bombs and tank up again on the way home. Aircraft can also carry more weight in flight than they do when taking off. So refueling in the air can as much as double the normal bomb load. This technique is particularly useful with heavy bombers like the B-52, B-1 and B-2. But even smaller bombers make use of the technique, especially the F-117. America has the largest aerial tanker fleet and is the most frequent use of the tankers to extend range and increase bombload. Another factor effecting range is the use of speed to avoid enemy warplanes or ground fire. Normally, aircraft burn about .5 percent of fuel per minute when cruising at the economical speed (600?800 kilometers an hour). When enemy warplanes or ground fire is encountered, maximum speed is used. These high speed maneuvers will often get you away from danger, or are sometimes used to catch up with enemy fighters. But maximum speed burns up a lot more fuel. Fighters can consume 10 to 15 percent of fuel per minute at max speed. Even strike aircraft will frequently crank it up to two or three percent of fuel per minute while maneuvering towards or away from their targets. The average aircraft has sufficient fuel for two or three hours of cruising and up to fifteen minutes of high speed maneuvering during combat. Strike aircraft prefer to conserve their fuel so they can circle the battlefield waiting for the opportune moment to go down and hit a target. Fuel is a weapon. If one aircraft has more fuel it can force another into a situation where the disadvantaged plane will crash with empty gas tanks. When the low fuel aircraft realizes that it only has enough to get back to base, it can be more easily outmaneuvered by its opponent, who can be more generous with fuel, and speed. Fuel is also a handy defense. Recon aircraft in particular use bursts of speed to avoid danger from aircraft above or missiles below. Combat aircraft often fly off to their objectives with one or more large fuel tanks hanging from them. These tanks slow the aircraft down and decrease maneuverability. Before entering combat, these tanks are normally dropped. A common tactic is to force the other fellow to jettison their drop tanks before the fuel they carry has been used. This is done by attacking the enemy formation with missiles or interceptors before it has reached its objective. The attack does not have to be serious, just enough to force those partially full tanks to the ground. Once more aerial tankers are a crucial advantage. Aircraft coming out of hostile airspace with nearly empty tanks are often rescued by waiting tankers. Other nations often loose aircraft when pilots had to choose between getting shot down and using so much fuel that they could not make it to a landing strip in friendly territory. Russian aircraft were built with this in mind, and are rugged enough to land on any long, flat surface that's reasonably firm.
Your assumption of F-22 lacking drop-tanks, or the worst-case scenario of SuperCruise being used the whole way, is rather unlikely.
But even then the 410 nautical miles radius (820 nm flight there and back again fighting the whole way).
So comparing apples to oranges doesn't work. You can't reasonably claim greater range for the F-35. In the scenario you outlined for the F-22 rushing out on supercruise to intercept a bogey, the fact is that the F-35 would be rushing out on afterburners the whole way for the same mission...and blow off most of its fuel far faster.
So nice try Don, but not even close to a cigar!
Mistaken Assumptions.Normal Combat Radius represents how far, in kilometers, the aircraft can normally travel from its base and perform it's mission (air superiority or ground attack) The rule of thumb is that the combat radius is one third the distance an aircraft can fly in a straight line on a full load of fuel. This assumes a trip out and back plus one third of fuel for combat operations. But for that handful of nations with a lot of aerial tanker aircraft, the situation is quite different, and rather more complicated. With tankers you can have combat aircraft top off their fuel tanks just before they enter hostile air space, and do the same when they return. This can more than double the normal range of warplanes. But it gets more complicated than that. Aircraft have a maximum take off weight, but bombers can take off with more bombs and less fuel. After flying a long distance to just outside enemy territory, they can take on more fuel, deliver their bombs and tank up again on the way home. Aircraft can also carry more weight in flight than they do when taking off. So refueling in the air can as much as double the normal bomb load. This technique is particularly useful with heavy bombers like the B-52, B-1 and B-2. But even smaller bombers make use of the technique, especially the F-117. America has the largest aerial tanker fleet and is the most frequent use of the tankers to extend range and increase bombload. Another factor effecting range is the use of speed to avoid enemy warplanes or ground fire. Normally, aircraft burn about .5 percent of fuel per minute when cruising at the economical speed (600?800 kilometers an hour). When enemy warplanes or ground fire is encountered, maximum speed is used. These high speed maneuvers will often get you away from danger, or are sometimes used to catch up with enemy fighters. But maximum speed burns up a lot more fuel. Fighters can consume 10 to 15 percent of fuel per minute at max speed. Even strike aircraft will frequently crank it up to two or three percent of fuel per minute while maneuvering towards or away from their targets. The average aircraft has sufficient fuel for two or three hours of cruising and up to fifteen minutes of high speed maneuvering during combat. Strike aircraft prefer to conserve their fuel so they can circle the battlefield waiting for the opportune moment to go down and hit a target. Fuel is a weapon. If one aircraft has more fuel it can force another into a situation where the disadvantaged plane will crash with empty gas tanks. When the low fuel aircraft realizes that it only has enough to get back to base, it can be more easily outmaneuvered by its opponent, who can be more generous with fuel, and speed. Fuel is also a handy defense. Recon aircraft in particular use bursts of speed to avoid danger from aircraft above or missiles below. Combat aircraft often fly off to their objectives with one or more large fuel tanks hanging from them. These tanks slow the aircraft down and decrease maneuverability. Before entering combat, these tanks are normally dropped. A common tactic is to force the other fellow to jettison their drop tanks before the fuel they carry has been used. This is done by attacking the enemy formation with missiles or interceptors before it has reached its objective. The attack does not have to be serious, just enough to force those partially full tanks to the ground. Once more aerial tankers are a crucial advantage. Aircraft coming out of hostile airspace with nearly empty tanks are often rescued by waiting tankers. Other nations often loose aircraft when pilots had to choose between getting shot down and using so much fuel that they could not make it to a landing strip in friendly territory. Russian aircraft were built with this in mind, and are rugged enough to land on any long, flat surface that's reasonably firm.
Your assumption of F-22 lacking drop-tanks, or the worst-case scenario of SuperCruise being used the whole way, is rather unlikely.
But even then the 410 nautical miles radius (820 nm flight there and back again fighting the whole way).
So comparing apples to oranges doesn't work. You can't reasonably claim greater range for the F-35. In the scenario you outlined for the F-22 rushing out on supercruise to intercept a bogey, the fact is that the F-35 would be rushing out on afterburners the whole way for the same mission...and blow off most of its fuel far faster.
So nice try Don, but not even close to a cigar!
I just used the "mission 1" that is in the spec, which was tested in flight test.
That is their configuration, not mine.
And the F-35 would also be able to benefit from drop tanks, refueling, ect. Compared to the F-16, F-18, the F-35 can carry a fair amount more payload.
One problem with tankers is they are vulnerable to enemy action, and so must be withheld my XX nautical miles. Sure, they could be pushed further forward, but then you get to add more fighters to defend the tankers, as well as doing what ever air force fighters do (normally defend their air base and train train train).
Fighters are fun. Bombers make policy. No fighter makes a good bomber. It can't. The physics doesn't work that way.
Fighters can down bombers, hence changing "policy".
No fighter makes a good bomber. It can't. The physics doesn't work that way.
Agreed. I think it is a mistake for the USAF to decommission the F-1117 (a misnomer to be sure...should have been the B-1117).
YOu mean the F-117?
I suggest it should have been an "A-11"
Is this a result of billyblytheclinton's little sales deal he made with the ChiComs?
:-(
I think that putting down the F-117 is not a mistake. After all, it has served for some 20 years, not too bad a job for a two bomb attack aircraft. The entire fleet has as much combat utility as a single B-2A.
The F-35 has comparable penetration capabilities, with much lower operating costs and heavier bomb loads. I don't think anyone will miss the F-117.
The Naval UCAS will be coming along, and the AF will have the option of picking a few up.
And the next generation, is to water the eyes...
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.
