EA/18G Growler

[rjmaz1]

The F-22 won't be able to meet it's thrust to weight ratio on one engine without going to burner at it's transonic cruise speed... that's my point that you never acknowledge. It would never reach Mach 1 even with the burner lit. Whatever point your making is moot because it has no basis in reality.

Again thrust to weight ratio has nothing to do with cruising speed.

The SR-71 weighs twice as much as the F-22 and has the same thrust. So the thrust to weight ratio of the SR-71 is half that of the F-22 yet it can reach Mach 3 let alone Mach 1. The concorde only has a third of the thrust to weight ratio of the F-22 yet it can reach Mach 2, let alone Mach 1.

What information are you basing this on that the F-22 cannot reach Mach 1 with 50% dry thrust?

If the F-22 has a combined dry thrust of around 50,000lb and can reach Mach 1.5~1.6. Then the F-22 with 25,000lb of dry thrust can reach Mach 1.

Every drag formula and graph on aerodynamics says that it will be able to reach mach 1. Can you please explain why the F-22 cannot hit Mach 1 with 25,000lb of dry thrust?

Once it is acknowledged that the F-22 with only 25,000lb of dry thrust could in fact hit Mach 1 then my original post that the F-35 can also hit Mach 1 with 25,000lb of thrust will be correct. Considering the F-35 is slightly smaller and actually has more than 25,000lb of dry thrust further drives home the fact that the F-35 will be able to cruise around Mach 1~1.1. I'll repeat again this is NOT supercuirse.

This argument started because i said the F-35 will most likely have equal or greater speed than the Suhkoi's yet people disagreed. I believe i've put forward enough facts to prove that the F-35 will atleast reach the cruising speeds of the Suhkoi, which is also around Mach 0.9~1.1 depending on the engines and weapons used.

 

[hybrid]

i think we've been here before...however, iwould make the point that im sure the usaf wouldnt of bothered with the f22 if the sh was quite that good and i understand that the typhoon on manoevres in the us was found to be superior to the f22 in close combat.see the following quote.......

Just got a copy of International Air Power Review, Volume 20. It has an excellent article on the Eurofighter Typhoon and the real surprise came for me while reading the second page of the article (page 45 of the magazine). Typhoon has deployed to the US for tests by the Operational Evaluation Unit (OEU), presumably from England. In skirmishes with the F-22A, the Typhoon dominated the Within Visual Range engagements and apparently this really didn't surprise anyone because Typhoon is known for having outstanding agility. When it scored a radar lock on the F-22A at Beyond Visual Range, that caused quite a stir.

as for the aim120, id rather take the meteor thank you very much and amraam will do nicely for now!

reduced rcs?..what from the rcs of a train down to that of a bus?...the typhoon is pretty comfortably in the lead there too!

as such i wouldnt really put too many spondulas on the sh being an equal match to even a block 5 typhoon.its a great fighter,sure but fundamentally an old basic design which wont be able to be effectively upgraded for as many years as the typhoon,rafale,f22 or f35......it reminds me of the luftwaffe phantoms still in service....highly upgraded,effective but no matter how you look at it,its still a very old design! ...

I've been meaning to ask but outside of International Air Power has there been any mention of any Eurofighters in excercises in the US? I've not heard of any on maneuvers here. I'm genuinely intrigued why the EF consortium isn't hyping up the Eurofighter if IAP says what it says it did.

Edit: I just went over to RAF Squadron 17's homepage since they're the opeval squadron for the EF and they have nothing listed about any excercises in the US. You'd think that this was a notable engagement/excercise to report about.

 

[Magoo]

Again thrust to weight ratio has nothing to do with cruising speed.

The SR-71 weighs twice as much as the F-22 and has the same thrust. So the thrust to weight ratio of the SR-71 is half that of the F-22 yet it can reach Mach 3 let alone Mach 1. The concorde only has a third of the thrust to weight ratio of the F-22 yet it can reach Mach 2, let alone Mach 1.

What information are you basing this on that the F-22 cannot reach Mach 1 with 50% dry thrust?

If the F-22 has a combined dry thrust of around 50,000lb and can reach Mach 1.5~1.6. Then the F-22 with 25,000lb of dry thrust can reach Mach 1.

Every drag formula and graph on aerodynamics says that it will be able to reach mach 1. Can you please explain why the F-22 cannot hit Mach 1 with 25,000lb of dry thrust?

Once it is acknowledged that the F-22 with only 25,000lb of dry thrust could in fact hit Mach 1 then my original post that the F-35 can also hit Mach 1 with 25,000lb of thrust will be correct. Considering the F-35 is slightly smaller and actually has more than 25,000lb of dry thrust further drives home the fact that the F-35 will be able to cruise around Mach 1~1.1. I'll repeat again this is NOT supercuirse.

This argument started because i said the F-35 will most likely have equal or greater speed than the Suhkoi's yet people disagreed. I believe i've put forward enough facts to prove that the F-35 will atleast reach the cruising speeds of the Suhkoi, which is also around Mach 0.9~1.1 depending on the engines and weapons used.

OMG!!! That just about does me...again! nfloorl:

It's so much more than just thrust vs weight.

* AERODYNAMICS!!! As with most combat aircraft, the F-22's design is a compromise, meant to be equally efficient in a knife fight at 200kts as it is at 1000+kts, as well as being ultra low observable at the same time. Thrust and weight are just part of the considerations. So much so that, although the actual top speed is classified, anecdotal eveidence leads me to understand that the F-22's maximum speed in full reheat is not that much more than its maximum supercruising speed due to its intake and engine efficiency and aerodynamics, and certainly isn't the Mach 2.5+ being bandied about in some forums. Certainly when I flew the simulator a couple of years ago, I never saw Mach 2 even though I was high, clean and in the red zone, whilt I regularly saw 1.7 in full mil power. Yes, I know the sim was 'detuned' to an unclass level, but still...

The F-35 will be even more compromised, as it is intended to be a common core design meant to be equally proficient at VTOL, CV and conventional runway missions in both air-to-air and air-to-ground regimes.

* Intake efficiency at those speeds - the SR-71's engines were producing barely one-third of its actual thrust at Mach 3, the rest came from the intake spike and doors which literally sucked the jet through the sky like a ramjet, as well as the very low air density at 80+K feet where it operated. The Concorde's engines were specifically designed for maximum efficiency at Mach 2 and 60K feet - kind of like a high-geared car (sorry Big-E and others more aerodynamically inclined, that'd the best analogy I could make ). This is also why the F-111 can go at Mach 2.5+, while the F/A-18 which has a much better power to weight ratio, tops out at about Mach 1.6.

* Everyone I've talked to including those highly placed in the F-35 program says the jet WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPERCRUISE, unless perhaps it gets a very long downhill run and a tailwind! It's not designed to be able to do it, and will never be able to do it - end of story!

Thrust to weight is more about acceleration (although aerodynamics also play a part), while aerodynamics and intake/engine efficiency will be what ultimately determines an aircraft's top speed.

Every drag formula and graph on aerodynamics says that it will be able to reach mach 1. Can you please explain why the F-22 cannot hit Mach 1 with 25,000lb of dry thrust?

Show us these drag formulae and aerodynamic graphs...please!!!

Geesh...

Magoo

 

[Magoo]

I've been meaning to ask but outside of International Air Power has there been any mention of any Eurofighters in excercises in the US? I've not heard of any on maneuvers here. I'm genuinely intrigued why the EF consortium isn't hyping up the Eurofighter if IAP says what it says it did.

Edit: I just went over to RAF Squadron 17's homepage since they're the opeval squadron for the EF and they have nothing listed about any excercises in the US. You'd think that this was a notable engagement/excercise to report about.

Some Eurofighters have stopped to play at Nellis with the OT jets whilst en-route to and from China Lake for EW and weapons trials in recent years, but they aren't official exercises like Red Flag etc, so the ROEs and other factors are unknown.

If it was purely an eyeball to eyeball, no sensor dogfight, I've no doubt the Eurofighter would be competitive against an F-22, however we all know the F-22 will never be drawn into such a scenario!

Cheers

Magoo

 

[rjmaz1]

As you may know I got an official warning. The warning stated..

Please be clear, last thing we want is somebody's argument misunderstood.

Magoo your post is a perfect example of how it is not my post but the person reading them.

It's so much more than just thrust vs weight.!

It was Big-E who said its all about thrust to weight ratio. Did you missunderstand this bit?

Again thrust to weight ratio has nothing to do with cruising speed.

Thrust and Drag (Aerodynamics) are the two things that affect the speed. Thrust is an extremely minor aspect, Aerodynamics is the big one..

* Everyone I've talked to including those highly placed in the F-35 program says the jet WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPERCRUISE, unless perhaps it gets a very long downhill run and a tailwind! It's not designed to be able to do it, and will never be able to do it - end of story!

Everyone includes me as well I have started this FIVE TIMES!!!

I dont see how 35 degree's could not allow the F-35 to acheive Mach 1 cruise.

Mach 1 at dry thrust is completely realistic.

It is very safe to say the F-35 could reach Mach 1 without afterburner.

I never said supersonic, i said Mach 1 which is transonic.

I'll repeat again this is NOT supercuirse.

The F-35 will not supercruise.. I get warned because my posts can be misunderstood yet it is extremely clear.

I cant help it people here think Mach 1 is supersonic, thats their fault not mine.

 

[Magoo]

As you may know I got an official warning. The warning stated..

Magoo your post is a perfect example of how it is not my post but the person reading them.

It was Big-E who said its all about thrust to weight ratio. Did you missunderstand this bit?

Thrust and Drag (Aerodynamics) are the two things that affect the speed. Thrust is an extremely minor aspect, Aerodynamics is the big one..

Everyone includes me as well I have started this FIVE TIMES!!!

The F-35 will not supercruise.. I get warned because my posts can be misunderstood yet it is extremely clear.

I cant help it people here think Mach 1 is supersonic, thats their fault not mine.

OK, so you've picked me up on the semantics of just one of the several points I made...what about the others??? We're yet to hear from you on those...in fact, we're yet to hear from you on several things you've been asked. Are these ever going to be answered?:unknown

Plus, I would ask (rhetorically perhaps), if you claim to have made a point "FIVE TIMES" and people still aren't understanding you, is that their fault or yours?

Sorry Mods - I won't buy into this crap any further...better just left alone in future I think.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[jaffo4011]

Some Eurofighters have stopped to play at Nellis with the OT jets whilst en-route to and from China Lake for EW and weapons trials in recent years, but they aren't official exercises like Red Flag etc, so the ROEs and other factors are unknown.

If it was purely an eyeball to eyeball, no sensor dogfight, I've no doubt the Eurofighter would be competitive against an F-22, however we all know the F-22 will never be drawn into such a scenario!

Cheers

Magoo

errr,magoo,your poor eyesight has let you down again my boy!...if you read my post you will see that the typhoon picked up the f22 on its captor radar at bvr..so i think thats an example of sensor usage!

i understand that as usual the raf have been modest in their disclosure of this incident but that eurofighter would like to make some hay with it!
it comes down to politeness when,afterall the raf were making use of u.s facilities at the time!

 

[rjmaz1]

errr,magoo,your poor eyesight has let you down again my boy!...if you read my post you will see that the typhoon picked up the f22 on its captor radar at bvr..so i think thats an example of sensor usage!

But stealth aircraft aren't capable of being detected on radar according to the 'F-22 ground attack' thread.

This was made very clear to me, people accused me of making things up when i stated that stealth aircraft could be detected against modern defence systems.

Aparently no radar exists that can detect and track the F-117.. let alone the F-22 which has a smaller radar cross section. If the latest radar technology could detect stealth aircraft even at short range then it would put defenceless bombers such as B-2's at extremely high risk. It would also mean that none of these defenceless aircraft could enter high risk area's on escorted.

I however definitely believe that radar systems such as the E-3 and AEGIS systems are capable of detecting stealth aircraft at beyond visual range. A reduction in radar cross section just means you need more power or to get closer to the target before it is detected.

in fact, we're yet to hear from you on several things you've been asked

1) Someone posted that the Suhkoi can disengage due to its higher speed.
2) I then made a point that the F-35 will infact have similar if not higher cruising speed than the Suhkoi.
3) People disagree that the F-35 will not be able to supercruise.
4) I then made it clear that i never said supercruise and infact said Mach 1 performance which is entirely possible.
5) I then asked why the F-35 could not acheive Mach 1, yet i got no response as the answer would be a similar speed to what i stated.

Case closed.

 

[jaffo4011]

But stealth aircraft aren't capable of being detected on radar according to the 'F-22 ground attack' thread.

This was made very clear to me, people accused me of making things up when i stated that stealth aircraft could be detected against modern defence systems.

Aparently no radar exists that can detect and track the F-117.. let alone the F-22 which has a smaller radar cross section. If the latest radar technology could detect stealth aircraft even at short range then it would put defenceless bombers such as B-2's at extremely high risk. It would also mean that none of these defenceless aircraft could enter high risk area's on escorted.

I however definitely believe that radar systems such as the E-3 and AEGIS systems are capable of detecting stealth aircraft at beyond visual range. A reduction in radar cross section just means you need more power or to get closer to the target before it is detected.


1) Someone posted that the Suhkoi can disengage due to its higher speed.
2) I then made a point that the F-35 will infact have similar if not higher cruising speed than the Suhkoi.
3) People disagree that the F-35 will not be able to supercruise.
4) I then made it clear that i never said supercruise and infact said Mach 1 performance which is entirely possible.
5) I then asked why the F-35 could not acheive Mach 1, yet i got no response as the answer would be a similar speed to what i stated.

Case closed.

errr,actually stealth reduces the risk of being detected massively but doesnt entirely remove the chances of being detected.given the choice as a pilot id welcome whatever degree of stealth i could find!
i think thats called common sense.
re the f117 being detected by a royal navy radar,i wasnt aware of that...wasnt it actually a rapier sam unit playing around at a british airshow?

 

[Scott]

Aparently no radar exists that can detect and track the F-117.. let alone the F-22 which has a smaller radar cross section. If the latest radar technology could detect stealth aircraft even at short range then it would put defenceless bombers such as B-2's at extremely high risk. It would also mean that none of these defenceless aircraft could enter high risk area's on escorted.

I however definitely believe that radar systems such as the E-3 and AEGIS systems are capable of detecting stealth aircraft at beyond visual range. A reduction in radar cross section just means you need more power or to get closer to the target before it is detected.

While the 1st paragraph appears to be a concession, the 2nd contradicts it - you can't have it both ways.

Can AWACS, AEGIS or presumably JSTARS detect a stealth aircraft? I would have guessed they couldn't or that would be the easy way to counter and defeat stealth technology.

I don't know, but would presume, that the OPFOR would deploy AWACS on Red Flag & similar exercises. I reviewed the USAF releases on Red Flag 2007:
http://www.acc.af.mil/media/archives/story.asp?id=123041725
http://www.acc.af.mil/media/archives/story.asp?id=123041831
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041212

These and previous stories have repeatedly quoted pilots who couldn't get a lock on an F-22 WVR. How a Typhoon could BVR doesn't seem to add up.

One curious point about the Red Flag 2007 releases, they failed to point out that F-22's were undefeated. That doesn't mean that they weren't, but it does raise the question.

 

[jaffo4011]

While the 1st paragraph appears to be a concession, the 2nd contradicts it - you can't have it both ways.

Can AWACS, AEGIS or presumably JSTARS detect a stealth aircraft? I would have guessed they couldn't or that would be the easy way to counter and defeat stealth technology.

I don't know, but would presume, that the OPFOR would deploy AWACS on Red Flag & similar exercises. I reviewed the USAF releases on Red Flag 2007:
http://www.acc.af.mil/media/archives/story.asp?id=123041725
http://www.acc.af.mil/media/archives/story.asp?id=123041831
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041212

These and previous stories have repeatedly quoted pilots who couldn't get a lock on an F-22 WVR. How a Typhoon could BVR doesn't seem to add up.

One curious point about the Red Flag 2007 releases, they failed to point out that F-22's were undefeated. That doesn't mean that they weren't, but it does raise the question.

stealth technology doesnt make an aircraft undetectable,im sure that there are lots of factors which determine whether even an f22 stays hidden.the captor radar in the typhoon is as capable as any and as per the second world war any advantage in stealth design or countermeasures is quickly matched by the opposition(or allies!).
i personally cant wait for the first red flag exercisesinvolving the f22,typhoon ,gripen and rafale to take place and some results published!!!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

But stealth aircraft aren't capable of being detected on radar according to the 'F-22 ground attack' thread.

Who has said that? No one. You're deliberately misrepresenting arguments to clear yourself. Try and understand the emcon issue before making silly comments

This was made very clear to me, people accused me of making things up when i stated that stealth aircraft could be detected against modern defence systems.

You are making things up. On this forum there is a flight test engineer, qualified test pilot, aircraft engineer, an aviation journalist who has access to some critical details of JSF (and aircraft in general), a precious metals specialist and various people who have worked on weapons systems and are AOC members. Without fail, everyone one of those people are more eminently qualified to discuss some of these issues, and every one of those people has challenged your comments.

Aparently no radar exists that can detect and track the F-117.. let alone the F-22 which has a smaller radar cross section. If the latest radar technology could detect stealth aircraft even at short range then it would put defenceless bombers such as B-2's at extremely high risk. It would also mean that none of these defenceless aircraft could enter high risk area's on escorted.

Again. Take time to read the responses again. You're clearly demonstrating that you don't understand what has been debated. Don't pretend that you do.

I however definitely believe that radar systems such as the E-3 and AEGIS systems are capable of detecting stealth aircraft at beyond visual range. A reduction in radar cross section just means you need more power or to get closer to the target before it is detected.

Again, you don't need more power. Its akin to using an xenon bulb or a fluorescent light. Radar is about discrimination. Its not used like a sonar ping

1) Someone posted that the Suhkoi can disengage due to its higher speed.

At what zone, at what profile?

2) I then made a point that the F-35 will infact have similar if not higher cruising speed than the Suhkoi.

How? are you more privileged in the information about the JSF than 3 of the people in here? I think not.

3) People disagree that the F-35 will not be able to supercruise.

No, an aviation engineer, someone closely aligned with JSF and a fligh test engineer have made comment. They're qualified to comment. You're clearly not.

4) I then made it clear that i never said supercruise and infact said Mach 1 performance which is entirely possible.

You're shapeshifting your responses. Try to be consistent.

5) I then asked why the F-35 could not acheive Mach 1, yet i got no response as the answer would be a similar speed to what i stated.

See the 2nd comment above.

Case closed.

No. Either detail your qualifications so that we can assess your credentials against posters whose reputation and credentials are known - or withdraw from the discussion.

I or the other Mods will not ask again. Either show the colour of your money or be banned until you do. You've bought this on yourself. You've ignored multiple requests and you still have the audacity to challenge the statements of people who actually have more than a clue as to whats going on.

48 hrs max. After that your posting privileges will be reviewed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

errr,actually stealth reduces the risk of being detected massively but doesnt entirely remove the chances of being detected.

Exactly! Its all about mission event profile and context

given the choice as a pilot id welcome whatever degree of stealth i could find!

I think most pilots would give their right leg to do that,

i think thats called common sense.

Something that there is a paucity of in here sometimes....

re the f117 being detected by a royal navy radar,i wasnt aware of that...wasnt it actually a rapier sam unit playing around at a british airshow?

I've tried to patiently explain the issue of the rapier missile battery, but its a never ending story.

what is clearly ignored (and its because people appear to be either unaware or wilfully autistic about procedures) is that prime systems are not active over common access areas or blue battlespace. (thats the simplest way of describing it). So not only will/would the rapier battery or ships system pick it, but so would the local cessna 180 pilot loitering around on a milk run.

In the case of aircraft like the F117, they are given a corridor to start a silent run outside of the detection footprint of any other asset. by the time they enter another platforms detection zone, they are already emissions cold.

that doesn't alter the fact that any asset will at some point in time will be detectable. The rapier battery example however is just abject nonsense. I worked on the Australian rapier upgrade project - that system would be so far out of its detection element its not funny. You'd be better off trying a visual boresight shot - as its own sniffing capability would be about as useful as using fairey floss as an RPG barrier.

 

[gf0012-aust]

errr,magoo,your poor eyesight has let you down again my boy!...if you read my post you will see that the typhoon picked up the f22 on its captor radar at bvr..so i think thats an example of sensor usage!

i understand that as usual the raf have been modest in their disclosure of this incident but that eurofighter would like to make some hay with it!
it comes down to politeness when,afterall the raf were making use of u.s facilities at the time!

I don't doubt that there is an ability, but what is important in all of these events is to know what the event profile was.

It gets back to the issue I make about whether any of the primary LO aircraft are emissions cold (as they are not always hot just because they are in an area)

It gets back to what the training and engagement rules are for blue and red/orange

I'd certainly like to see qualified reports at some stage, but I'm really not convinced about some of the chatter that hits the internet. As you've seen in here, there are some comments presented as fact but are abject nonsense. However, refer to sentence 1.

 

[Jezza]

While the 1st paragraph appears to be a concession, the 2nd contradicts it - you can't have it both ways.

Can AWACS, AEGIS or presumably JSTARS detect a stealth aircraft? I would have guessed they couldn't or that would be the easy way to counter and defeat stealth technology.

I don't know, but would presume, that the OPFOR would deploy AWACS on Red Flag & similar exercises. I reviewed the USAF releases on Red Flag 2007:
http://www.acc.af.mil/media/archives/story.asp?id=123041725
http://www.acc.af.mil/media/archives/story.asp?id=123041831
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041212

These and previous stories have repeatedly quoted pilots who couldn't get a lock on an F-22 WVR. How a Typhoon could BVR doesn't seem to add up.

One curious point about the Red Flag 2007 releases, they failed to point out that F-22's were undefeated. That doesn't mean that they weren't, but it does raise the question.

is the results published or would that be CLASSIFIED???

 

[gf0012-aust]

is the results published or would that be CLASSIFIED???

Broad outcomes might be public domain, but results would be classified.

Empirical results would most certainly be classified.

 

[Jezza]

Broad outcomes might be public domain, but results would be classified.

Empirical results would most certainly be classified.

Thanks mate.
Just have to wait and see

 

[jaffo4011]

I don't doubt that there is an ability, but what is important in all of these events is to know what the event profile was.

It gets back to the issue I make about whether any of the primary LO aircraft are emissions cold (as they are not always hot just because they are in an area)

It gets back to what the training and engagement rules are for blue and red/orange

I'd certainly like to see qualified reports at some stage, but I'm really not convinced about some of the chatter that hits the internet. As you've seen in here, there are some comments presented as fact but are abject nonsense. However, refer to sentence 1.

absolutely,i wouldnt or couldnt argue with this balanced view on the matter.

 

[rjmaz1]

Either show the colour of your money or be banned until you do.

[Admin: posters comments deleted for privacy issues]
Will i be banned now as my credentials aren't mil spec?

 

[Waylander]

Just interested. What is VCE?