F-22 problems
07-20-2009, 09:58 AM
#51
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
True
It may sound like blasphemy coming from a fighter pilot, but most of the criticism of the F-22 (or the mindless pursuit of superior technology) is true. One can win the battle, but lose the (financial) war.
And ruining a country's economy is a viable war strategy.
Stealth: here's an analogy. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of radio-frequency transmissions around you every day. Yet, when you use your cell-phone, or use the radio in your car (or airplane), you only hear the intended broadcasting site.
That is because your radio tunes to a specific frequency range, and everything else is attentuated. It's not gone, but it is so low, that you can't hear it.
Stealth works with radar the same way. These airplanes are designed to be less reflective in a specific frequency band.
Which band? Depends on the design requirements. Physical law says that low-freqency waves (whether radio, sound, or light [I think]) will travel further than high-freqencies. So, air traffic control radars, and weapons search-radars are low frequency.
Physical law also states that radar accuracy (radar resolution cell) is loose and sloppy for low-freqencies, and tighter as frequency goes up. So, weapons tracking radars tend to be higher freqency.
So, the military question is: Do you want them to know you are there, but unable to shoot; or not likely to know you are there, but if they find you, easy to shoot?
Generally, the aircraft designer can optimize one, but not the other.
As to narrow-beams, such as the Patriot: narrow beams can go further, and have better detection...think telescope. But it is also harder to find a small object, initially.
Large-beams (think binoculars) don't magnify as much...but it is easier to find what you are looking for.
Read an interesting article recently on the SR-71. The aircraft itself was relatively low-radar reflectivity.
But the exhaust trail, which contained metallic compounds to make it less flammable, left a huge ionized trail that said "Here I am."
And ruining a country's economy is a viable war strategy.
Stealth: here's an analogy. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of radio-frequency transmissions around you every day. Yet, when you use your cell-phone, or use the radio in your car (or airplane), you only hear the intended broadcasting site.
That is because your radio tunes to a specific frequency range, and everything else is attentuated. It's not gone, but it is so low, that you can't hear it.
Stealth works with radar the same way. These airplanes are designed to be less reflective in a specific frequency band.
Which band? Depends on the design requirements. Physical law says that low-freqency waves (whether radio, sound, or light [I think]) will travel further than high-freqencies. So, air traffic control radars, and weapons search-radars are low frequency.
Physical law also states that radar accuracy (radar resolution cell) is loose and sloppy for low-freqencies, and tighter as frequency goes up. So, weapons tracking radars tend to be higher freqency.
So, the military question is: Do you want them to know you are there, but unable to shoot; or not likely to know you are there, but if they find you, easy to shoot?
Generally, the aircraft designer can optimize one, but not the other.
As to narrow-beams, such as the Patriot: narrow beams can go further, and have better detection...think telescope. But it is also harder to find a small object, initially.
Large-beams (think binoculars) don't magnify as much...but it is easier to find what you are looking for.
Read an interesting article recently on the SR-71. The aircraft itself was relatively low-radar reflectivity.
But the exhaust trail, which contained metallic compounds to make it less flammable, left a huge ionized trail that said "Here I am."
07-20-2009, 10:20 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by radmanly
Secretary of Defense Gates recently gave an interesting speech on strategy and procurement. Some highlights:
"It simply will not do to base our strategy solely on continuing to design and buy – as we have for the last 60 years – only the most technologically advanced versions of weapons to keep up with or stay ahead of another superpower adversary – especially one that imploded nearly a generation ago."
"If the Department of Defense can’t figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships and planes."
"The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale – some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program."
"Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need – a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios – specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s – a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs."
"Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security."
"If the Department of Defense can’t figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships and planes."
"The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale – some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program."
"Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need – a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios – specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s – a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs."
"Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security."
In 2020, I'd love to actually compare the combined number of F-35/F-22s in service to the number listed in his speech.
07-20-2009, 11:25 AM
#53
No one's home
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
Read an interesting article recently on the SR-71. The aircraft itself was relatively low-radar reflectivity.
But the exhaust trail, which contained metallic compounds to make it less flammable, left a huge ionized trail that said "Here I am."
But the exhaust trail, which contained metallic compounds to make it less flammable, left a huge ionized trail that said "Here I am."
07-20-2009, 11:55 AM
#54
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 33
07-20-2009, 03:05 PM
#55
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 54
Not sure if this story was already posted. I'm sure the F-22 is/will be Supreme with all of the bugs worked out but there is one instance I've been told of that is at the very least interesting. Apparently there was a flight of F-22's repositioning from the west coast to somewhere across the Pacific. When the lines of code were being written for many of the avionics it incorporates positioning into it's initialization. When crossing the International Dateline (the first time for any F-22) all of the F-22's cockpits essentially went dark and they ended up following their refueler to Hawaii where fortunately it was VFR and they landed uneventfully.
I wasn't there and would never testify to the authenticity of the story but it was entertaining to say the least. Would have been comedic had it happened during a full scale assault on China.
I wasn't there and would never testify to the authenticity of the story but it was entertaining to say the least. Would have been comedic had it happened during a full scale assault on China.
07-21-2009, 03:29 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
DWS:
Everything you said was true about the F-22's first trans-Pacific deployment.
Everything you said was true about the F-22's first trans-Pacific deployment.
Without getting into specifics, I thought that it was just the INS/GPS that dumped and not the displays. Guess I could have heard incorrectly.
07-21-2009, 09:31 AM
#59
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 33
This article, also from The Atlantic, discusses the excretory challenges of long missions:
Urination was a struggle even for the men, who are provided with "piddle packs"—tubelike plastic bags with a powder inside that turns urine into a gel. In theory, piddle packs are easy to use, fitting right over the tip of the penis; but the crews are wearing flight suits, heavy jackets (the air temperature is sub-freezing at altitude), G-suits, and survival vests (with loaded 9-mm pistols), and are strapped down in spaces no larger than the back seat of a Honda Civic. More than one crew member had to strip down midflight and bring his skivvies home in a plastic bag.
It is even worse for women... Sitting just a few feet in front of or behind a male flier, a woman is forced to disrobe in an immodest series of contortions, exposing her hands and hindquarters to the stinging cold, and then has to negotiate a funnel attached to a bag.
One flier earned the nickname "B-nok," for "buck naked over Kuwait," when seized by a call that had to be answered. He relieved himself into a small cardboard fast-food container with the jet on autopilot. Most of these fliers can strip, crap, and fly all at once—a proud accomplishment. These are not the kinds of skills they package in the "Go Air Force" pitch.
Given that the F-22 is the world's most advanced fighter, has it offered any new innovations in this department?
It is even worse for women... Sitting just a few feet in front of or behind a male flier, a woman is forced to disrobe in an immodest series of contortions, exposing her hands and hindquarters to the stinging cold, and then has to negotiate a funnel attached to a bag.
One flier earned the nickname "B-nok," for "buck naked over Kuwait," when seized by a call that had to be answered. He relieved himself into a small cardboard fast-food container with the jet on autopilot. Most of these fliers can strip, crap, and fly all at once—a proud accomplishment. These are not the kinds of skills they package in the "Go Air Force" pitch.
07-21-2009, 09:36 AM
#60
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 33
Senate rejects additional F-22 funding
The Senate on Tuesday stripped $1.75 billion for an additional seven F-22 fighter jets from the fiscal year 2010 budget.
The vote gave the White House and the Pentagon a key victory over congressional boosters of the popular defense program.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
