Delivery of Raptor delayed

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:29:56 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:45:53 +1000, John Cook
wrote:

Ooops missed out the source for thwe !.5 Mach claim

"Much is currently being made about supercruise, that is the ability
to cruise supersonically without the use of reheat (afterburn) for
extended periods of time. Although never stated explicitly (as for
example with the U.S. F-22) the Typhoon is capable of and has
demonstrated such an ability since early in its flight program
according to all the Eurofighter partnets. Initial comments indicated
that, with a typical air to air combat load the aircraft was capable
of cruising at M1.2 at altitude (11000m/36000ft) without reheat and
for extended periods. Later information appeared to suggest this
figure had increased to M1.3. However even more recently EADS have
stated a maximum upper limit of M1.5 is possible although the
configuration of the aircraft is not stated for this scenario (an
essential factor in determining how useful such a facility is). "

Cheers
John Cook


Uh. . . you still missed the source :-). It sounds a lot like the
Airtime Publishing blue book (Airpower somethin-or-other) that had the
Typhoon for the focus aircraft a few years ago though. In it they
mentioned that in turning the Eurofighter could outdo anything except
the F-22 had better sustained turning at both subsonic and supersonic
speed and better instantainious at high speed. The only area the
Eurofighter was better according to the article was instantainious at
subsonic speed.

Yup your right, its at .65 M the Typhoons a tad better at
instantaneous turn rate, not the 1.6 Mach where the F-22 is a tad
better, the reference was on pages 95/96 of the World air power
journal #35.

Seems the F-22's Thrust vectoring really helps in the sustained
rate!!.

Cheers



John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...
bendel boy wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-43...dlines-topnews
The long-awaited F/A-22 Raptor fighter jets will not arrive at Langley Air
Force Base until next May -about five months later than previously planned.

Has any other aircraft program ever been delayed this much and still gotten
full scale production?

Define full scale.

The F-111.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...11-history.htm
In 1957 the US Navy requested industry responses for the design of a
low-altitude strike fighter.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...1-variants.htm
During a 1972 - 1973 tour of duty in Vietnam, F-111As flew more than 4,000
combat missions.

That's 15 years from inital request to combat operations.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...22-history.htm
In 1981, the Air Force developed a requirement for an Advanced Tactical
Fighter as a new air superiority fighter.

15 years later would be 1996.

What combat missions did the F-22 fly in 1996? ;-)

-HJC

In 1957 what was the typical time between design proposal request and
first date of entry?

In 1981, ditto.

Perhaps we should also add 1917 - when the delay was weeks or months.
(But you could argue that the 'new' designs were more derivative than
new.)

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:30:14 +1000, John Cook
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 07:29:56 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:45:53 +1000, John Cook
wrote:

Ooops missed out the source for thwe !.5 Mach claim

"Much is currently being made about supercruise, that is the ability
to cruise supersonically without the use of reheat (afterburn) for
extended periods of time. Although never stated explicitly (as for
example with the U.S. F-22) the Typhoon is capable of and has
demonstrated such an ability since early in its flight program
according to all the Eurofighter partnets. Initial comments indicated
that, with a typical air to air combat load the aircraft was capable
of cruising at M1.2 at altitude (11000m/36000ft) without reheat and
for extended periods. Later information appeared to suggest this
figure had increased to M1.3. However even more recently EADS have
stated a maximum upper limit of M1.5 is possible although the
configuration of the aircraft is not stated for this scenario (an
essential factor in determining how useful such a facility is). "

Cheers
John Cook


Uh. . . you still missed the source :-). It sounds a lot like the
Airtime Publishing blue book (Airpower somethin-or-other) that had the
Typhoon for the focus aircraft a few years ago though. In it they
mentioned that in turning the Eurofighter could outdo anything except
the F-22 had better sustained turning at both subsonic and supersonic
speed and better instantainious at high speed. The only area the
Eurofighter was better according to the article was instantainious at
subsonic speed.

Yup your right, its at .65 M the Typhoons a tad better at
instantaneous turn rate, not the 1.6 Mach where the F-22 is a tad
better, the reference was on pages 95/96 of the World air power
journal #35.

Seems the F-22's Thrust vectoring really helps in the sustained
rate!!.

Cheers



John Cook


FWIW the Tomcat could do 7.5g at Mach 2.2 because of those little flip
out canard-like things in the glove. They didn't even have to move,
all they did was bump the center of pressure forward to offset the
effect of increased stability brought on by the higher speed.

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.


The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros.

Which is part of the problem. The requirement is to be "significantly
better than the threat": the F-22 may be a Ferrari, but the Eurofighter
is a Porsche. Both leave the competition behind, but one costs over
twice what the other does. Once you've won, "winning more" doesn't help
that much: what do you do, go back and strafe the wreckage?

Your Eurofighter isn't a stealth aircraft.

'Reduced RCS' rather than stealth. (Of course, emitting is still a
problem for the F-22 if it wants to stay unobtrusive)

Your Eurofighter doesn't compare in the sensor department.

True - it's got PIRATE, the F-22 lost its IRST as a cost saver. Be
interesting to compare countermeasure suites, too.

Your
Eurofighter comes up short in the speed department

Where, precisely?

and a plethora of
other areas.

Where does the Eurofighter lack against the current and projected
threat? (Unless you're saying you're going to export full-spec Raptors
to hostile nations...)


On the other hand, it's a lot more flexible. (Well, you *can* hang all
sorts of external ordnance on a F-22 - once it's been through clearance
trials - but there goes the stealth). It's demonstrating excellent
reliability: the ground staff at Warton have allegedly been complaining
that they usually catch up on the flight-test data while the aircraft
are downed, but the Typhoon doesn't break much and is quickly fixed when
it does.

And for a given budget, you can get roughly twice the Eurofighters for
the same force of Raptors: which is important, because both aircraft are
"much better" than the current and projected threat, but numbers end up
counting. Can't attrit an enemy raid if there's no CAP available to hit
it.

Have any F-22s been over Sweden lately? I bet an old Viggen could down
a Raptor!!!

LOL!! The Viggen lost out to the F-16 for the European sales so I
guess nobody else agrees with you.

Sweden had a very restrictive arms export policy, which was one of
several factors. They teamed with BAE to sell Gripen for just that
reason. (The Viggen's a solid aircraft, with some advantages over the
F-16A it was competing against, but some drawbacks too. And the F-16 was
and is a very good aircraft, though sometimes much maligned by the
US...)

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22.

No, PIRATE's autonomous.

Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
boat.

How are you getting the firing solution? Radar? Put out many megawatts
of coherent microwaves and hope that a notional "low probability of
intercept" radar is actually a "zero PoI", because Typhoon has a rather
good RHAWS of its own?

About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
AMRAAM's range.

Where's the Raptor getting *its* targeting data from?

It's a similar problem to the submarine arena: once you get into
stealthy-passive mode, you end up with weapons that grossly outrange the
sensors cueing them. The need to not only find targets, but be
reasonably confident of what you're shooting at and the constraints of
ROE, is a serious problem if you're flying around cold-nosed.

its has a wider
range of missile countermeasures,

So the decoy-on-a-string is better than all-aspect stealth huh? You
must know something the USAF doesn't.

Depends on a lot of issues, few of which are suited to a public debate
demanding numbers. Also, how 'all-aspect' is the F-22's stealth? We both
know that no trustworthy RCS plots will be published any time soon.

Some claim it's heavily optimised to reduce its RCS from the front,
others that it's invisible all-around. (I'm willing to believe 'damn
hard to see from the frontal arc' but how do you stealth TV nozzles?)

On the naval side, the USN has worked hard and, I'm told, successfully
to reduce the RCS of its DDG-51s. It has also invested in active
offboard decoys for them (cf. Nulka) and keeps an interest in passive
decoys too: because low signature is a means to an end, not an end in
itself.

just a couple of areas where the
Raptor 'Comes up short'.

How about something tangible?

'Comes up short' is a real overstatement for the Raptor. Perhaps "fails
to demonstrate a clear relationship between increased cost and increased
capability" would be better.

If four enemy MiG-29s come up to fight each of the UK and the US, and
the Eurofighters shoot down all four, how does the Raptor manage to be
"more capable" than shooting down all four? Shoot them down, rebuild the
wrecks, reanimate the pilots, then shoot them down again?

Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
way tactically there's little in it,

Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?

Not for escort work - unless your strikers can also cruise at that
speed, no point leaving them behind.

Not for fighter sweeps - you're stealthy, they don't know you're there,
you just supercruise past leaving them blithely ignorant. (Or you
broadcast your presence, and hope they come up to fight... what if they
don't?)

Not for holding station on BARCAP - you're covering a location, who
cares how quickly you go around the racetrack while you're waiting

Not really for interception - you're not worried about loiter, you're
wanting to get to the Bad Guys ASAP.

I'm sure there *is* a current tactical advantage to supercruise, but
it's not immediately obvious against the current threat. (As opposed to
the original problem)

All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor

From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.

Of course. The F-22 probably does better in most sustained turn arenas
as well, once its thrust vectoring kicks in. (But dodging missiles in a
BVR fight is an instantaneous issue... sustained turn is for WVR fights,
where stealth is irrelevant)

Its not all one sided you know!.

Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long. It just seems like
certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.

The F-22 is a fantastic aircraft and without a doubt the best air-to-air
platform that anyone's likely to see for some while. It's even better
than the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes, I admit it), though there's a valid
argument about the cost-versus-capability tradeoff if the two faced off
(shades of P-51 Mustangs versus Me-262s... the jet was clearly
individually superior, but was outnumbered too badly by a 'good enough'
opponent to prevail).

The trouble is, it's perhaps *too* fantastic: it dates back to when the
assorted fUSSR fantasy-uberfighters were considered real threats.

There's much less of a credible air threat now, than there was when both
Raptor and Typhoon started life. It keeps coming back to the problem
that, unless you expect them to fight each other, they both thoroughly
overmatch the likely enemy, and one's about twice the cost of the other.


But what do you do with the huge sunk costs (both financial and
political) of the F-22 program? Bin it and buy a cheaper and provably
less capable foreign competitor? Yes, *that* is a sure vote-winner. Cut
the numbers back, like the B-2, and get a silver-bullet force while
seeking a cheaper alternative (like an air-to-air dedicated JSF)?

Damdifino.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
My mistake, I should have said "one-half"- my apologies.


The mistake you and many others keep making is that you keep trying to
compare apples to oranges. The F-22 is in a league of it's own. It's
a Ferrari in a world of Mustangs and Cameros.

Which is part of the problem. The requirement is to be "significantly
better than the threat": the F-22 may be a Ferrari, but the Eurofighter
is a Porsche.

A better description based on "where it is built" would be: mid-range GM
model.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:16:47 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:

Where's the Raptor getting *its* targeting data from?

AWACS, perhaps?

Wioth stealth aircraft, getting sensor data from other aircraft
makes a lot of sense, because once you turn the radar on, it's not a
stealth aircraft any more.

Depends on a lot of issues, few of which are suited to a public debate
demanding numbers. Also, how 'all-aspect' is the F-22's stealth? We both
know that no trustworthy RCS plots will be published any time soon.

Some claim it's heavily optimised to reduce its RCS from the front,

This would make sense, for the same reason that tanks are more
heavily armoured at the front.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

'Reduced RCS' rather than stealth. (Of course, emitting is still a
problem for the F-22 if it wants to stay unobtrusive)


Well,if you start experimenting with the definitions you must also mention two
more of them:

1)Monostatic (backscatterer) RCS.
This is what you are referrring to and this could be reduced very significantly
by hard body shaping.
Both B2 and F22 (at least as far as frontal threat zone concerned) have
identical and excellent backscaterer RCS values.
There is no way that any conventional bacscatterer radar that positioned
inside of their forward thread zone could possibly detect these two planes
before its too late.

2)Bi-Static (forwardscatterer) RCS
Totaly different story here,as Germans and Brits discovered 60 years ago,hard
body shaping significantly reduces the backscatterer,but NOT
forwardscatererers.
On contrary,agressive use of hard body shaping in order to reduce backscaterers
to absulutely lowest levels actualy increases forwardscaterers.

Thats the reason why the planes with insect size monostatic RCS,B2 and F22,have
B-52 size Bi-static RCS,which makes them very vulnerable to the detection using
low power commercial and military emitters.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:16:47 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22.

No, PIRATE's autonomous.

Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
boat.

How are you getting the firing solution? Radar? Put out many megawatts
of coherent microwaves and hope that a notional "low probability of
intercept" radar is actually a "zero PoI", because Typhoon has a rather
good RHAWS of its own?

This brings up something I've been wondering. I don't know if this is
urban legend or what. Supposedly workstations dealing with classified
materials have to have the monitors shielded so signals can't be
picked up out the back? I'm wondering, when it comes to your typical
fighter if these same signals are shielded. It seems to me there
would be other sources of electrical "noise" than just an actively
transmitting radar or radio.







About the only time it would make a difference is if it could
help the Eurofighter take an entirely passive Meteor shot from outside
AMRAAM's range.

Where's the Raptor getting *its* targeting data from?


From it's LPI radar. In that scenario though it really comes down to
can the Meteor or AMRAAM track an F-22. The Typhoon can stare at the
sucker all day long but if it can't guide a weapon to it without firng
up the radar. . .




Speed department? are you talking supercruise, or top speed, either
way tactically there's little in it,

Cruising at Mach 1.7+ has little tactical advantage?

Not for escort work - unless your strikers can also cruise at that
speed, no point leaving them behind.

Not for fighter sweeps - you're stealthy, they don't know you're there,
you just supercruise past leaving them blithely ignorant. (Or you
broadcast your presence, and hope they come up to fight... what if they
don't?)



The speed gives you a lot more options though. There were many times
in Desert Storm when they saw aircraft running for Iran but couldn't
get fighters there fast enough because either A) The couldn't get the
speed with their external tanks or B) the didn't have the range if
they punched off the tanks.





Not for holding station on BARCAP - you're covering a location, who
cares how quickly you go around the racetrack while you're waiting


But you can cover a bigger area with the same reaction time.





Not really for interception - you're not worried about loiter, you're
wanting to get to the Bad Guys ASAP.

Yeah top speed is important but unless you have the tankers flying
around to refuel you you aren't going to get very far without external
tanks which drags your speed down. I doubt the numbers are public but
it would be interesting to see the numbers for a simulated 400 mile
intercept flown by an F-22, Eurofighter, F-15, and Mig-31. They have
to fly out, deal with the target, and fly back to base with no
tankers. Who gets there first and who makes it back to base? The
enemy could have stand off weapons so the further out you intercept
the better. It would be interesting to see the results. My money
would be on the Mig.





I'm sure there *is* a current tactical advantage to supercruise, but
it's not immediately obvious against the current threat. (As opposed to
the original problem)


Last time I checked there are still Su-27s and Mig-31s flying. Come
to think of it there are probably more countries flying Flankers these
days then those generals back in the 80's might have imagined in their
worst nightmares. Or are you saying that since Russia never built the
1.42 or Berkut that we should stick with the thirty year old F-15?
The idea is to be *better* than the other guy not wait until he can
kick your ass before you try to achieve parity.




All fighters have to trade something, the Raptor is no different, The
Typhoon has a better instantaneous turn rate than the Raptor

From what I've read it depends on the flight speed.

Of course. The F-22 probably does better in most sustained turn arenas
as well, once its thrust vectoring kicks in. (But dodging missiles in a
BVR fight is an instantaneous issue... sustained turn is for WVR fights,
where stealth is irrelevant)

Its not all one sided you know!.

Oh, I know. Out of the gate the F-22 will pretty much be a one-trick
pony (air to air) like the Tomcat was for so long. It just seems like
certain individuals have an almost irrational hatred of the F-22.

The F-22 is a fantastic aircraft and without a doubt the best air-to-air
platform that anyone's likely to see for some while. It's even better
than the Eurofighter Typhoon (yes, I admit it), though there's a valid
argument about the cost-versus-capability tradeoff if the two faced off
(shades of P-51 Mustangs versus Me-262s... the jet was clearly
individually superior, but was outnumbered too badly by a 'good enough'
opponent to prevail).


I don't know. It's pretty tough to over rate stealth. If those were
stealthy Me-262s. . .well back in those days I suppose "invisible"
would have been more appropriate. . . how well would P-51s have
faired?







The trouble is, it's perhaps *too* fantastic: it dates back to when the
assorted fUSSR fantasy-uberfighters were considered real threats.


Actually the ATF came about because the Flankers and Fulcrums were
seen as such a threat. The 1.42 got tacked onto the list when it
became apparent they were working on *something* but it was originally
with the Flanker and Fulcrum in mind. They figured trying to make a
fighter MORE manueverable than those two was bumping up against the
old law of diminishing returns so they went a different direction
altogether with the stealth and supercruise.





There's much less of a credible air threat now, than there was when both
Raptor and Typhoon started life.

I would say different not less. How many countries have S-300s? How
many have Flankers? And just because it may *appear* to be less now
doesn't mean it will remain that way. The F-22 is intended to be
viable for the next thirty or more years.



It keeps coming back to the problem
that, unless you expect them to fight each other, they both thoroughly
overmatch the likely enemy, and one's about twice the cost of the other.


I don't know. How well would a Typhoon do against Su-37s armed with
KS-172s? There are several nations that are shopping for that combo.





But what do you do with the huge sunk costs (both financial and
political) of the F-22 program? Bin it and buy a cheaper and provably
less capable foreign competitor? Yes, *that* is a sure vote-winner. Cut
the numbers back, like the B-2, and get a silver-bullet force while
seeking a cheaper alternative (like an air-to-air dedicated JSF)?

Damdifino.


Me either. The JSF seems a nonstarter because it's so much slower and
while this isn't the 50's where speed is the be all and end all there
is still a place for it. Also from what I've read the JSF won't
exactly sparkle in a dogfight either. Or carry much of an internal AA
load.

Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:16:47 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:


In message , Scott Ferrin
writes

The Eurofighters IRST is much better than the Raptors,

AFAIK the F-22 doesn't have one *at all*. IF the Eurpfighter's has
to be cued by the radar then it's pretty much dead meat against the
F-22.

No, PIRATE's autonomous.


Unless the IRST out ranges AMRAAM it's pretty much in the same
boat.

How are you getting the firing solution? Radar? Put out many megawatts
of coherent microwaves and hope that a notional "low probability of
intercept" radar is actually a "zero PoI", because Typhoon has a rather
good RHAWS of its own?


This brings up something I've been wondering. I don't know if this is
urban legend or what. Supposedly workstations dealing with classified
materials have to have the monitors shielded so signals can't be
picked up out the back? I'm wondering, when it comes to your typical
fighter if these same signals are shielded. It seems to me there
would be other sources of electrical "noise" than just an actively
transmitting radar or radio.



Untrue- the classified workstations that I deal with use the same
monitors as any other terminals- they do have to be separated (by
either 30 inches or 3 feet, IIRC, which obviously I don't) from
any unclassified system, however.

Some facilities are shielded against signals leaking out- TEMPEST
is the overall designation for the standards which are used to
determine adequate signal attenuation, IIRC. Not sure how many
facilities are using TEMPEST nowadays.


Mike Williamson
EC-130H Compass Call
"In Jam, No One Can Hear You Scream"