F-22 Raptor Oxygen problem

[11bee]

I've owned Uggs since well before they were "cool" ...

Hey man, they keep your feet cool in the Summer and warm in the Winter ...

-Gregg

Real men wear flip-flops.

[GreyGhost]

Real men wear flip-flops.

Guess you never hung out on the beaches of So Cal ... Lots of Surfers have worn Uggs since the early 80s ... And I've never liked flip-flops or "Mandles" ...

-Gregg (wondering if this counts as another in-thread hi-jacking...)

[ross blackford]

Real men wear flip-flops.

Here we call those things thongs.

,

Ross.

[Devilleader501]

The Pats are gonna eat it this year. Tom is gonna get cold feet he's gonna need those Uggs. LMAO Though I do like watching the Pats play. Well Welker and Woodhead anyway. Anyone know if Payton Manning is going to be a starter this year. 1 good hit and hes gonna break like a piece of fine china.

[Shawn C.]

Steelers > Raptor > Brady Bunch

That is all...

[dmk0210]

Just remember, the Tomcat's 1 Air to Air kill in DS was done by a jet launched as the spare (because neither of the 2 primary jets had a working radar)...even though it didn't have a working radar it bring to the show. Old school target acq, ID and an AIM-9 shot inside minimum range, with the RIO (squadron CO) almost certain new guy was going to depart the jet and hit the dirt.

Well played.

Didn't the Tomcat have some kind of long range optical gizmo for target acquisition? Or was that just something in the Tom Clancy novels? Can't remember where I read that.

I have seen pictures of F-15s with a rifle scope [COTS, Sporting Goods dept. ;) ] mounted to the dashboard and bore sighted for a similar capability. Gotta love seat of the pants ingenuity. B)

Edited August 3, 2012 by dmk0210

[Spongebob]

Didn't the Tomcat have some kind of long range optical gizmo for target acquisition?

Needs the Radar to cue it.

[Spongebob]

BTW..with the DS helo kill - kudo's to the AWACS controller for dropping them out of the goo right behind the target, they just had a hard time acquiring it visually below the cloud layer.

[11bee]

I have seen pictures of F-15s with a rifle scope [COTS, Sporting Goods dept. ;) ] mounted to the dashboard and bore sighted for a similar capability. Gotta love seat of the pants ingenuity. B)

That scope has nothing to do with this subject.

As I posted before: If you want to understand this issue, google "NCTR" Non-Cooperative Target Recognition. It's a bit more than a $100 rifle scope and the F-14 did not have anything comparable.

I encourage you to read up on this.

The Tomcat did have a visual system for long range ID. In the A and B models, this consisted of a stabilized TV camera (which was useless at night, which is when most of the A2A combat occurred during DS). On the D model, this was coupled with an IR system but even then, it still had major limitations compared to what the F-15 could do.

Edited August 3, 2012 by 11bee

[TaiidanTomcat]

Tom Brady is the best QB in the NFL

Disagrees

As a disclaimer - I'm just commenting on Brady's footwear, don't read anything else into this.

We know how important pretty boys are to you New Englanders, so if it helps with those last two super bowl losses, I will tell you Tom is the fairest of them all.

The F-14s Chin mounts came up in an F-35 debate. According to the "legacy planes are better crew" The F-14Ds camera and IRST were incomparably superior. They used this as a resource:

http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2009/07/airborne-infrared-and-supersonic.html

According to those "experts" the F-35's EOTs is nothing compared to premier 1989 tech.

FTFA:

The DoD would be quick to point out that the early F-14 Tomcat IRST (the AN/ALR-23) was of limited range, limited quality and misidentified source of IR emissions. However, a much improved system was fielded in later USN Tomcats, the Northrop AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS). On the F-14D Super Tomcat, the TCS was integrated with a dedicated IRST sensor, in a potent new dual-sensor package by GE Aerospace Electronic Systems. The detect/track range of the later GE Aerospace Electronic Systems Infra-Red Search and Track sensor (IRST) and TCS system fitted to F-14D, may have been in excess of (180km) 110 miles.

The US-Navy F-14 Tomcat could direct six (6) ultra-long range AIM-54 'Phoenix' rounds at six (6) separate targets simultaneously. The Tomcat weapon system quickly scans aerial targets and creates a target “track-file” for each target. Each track (file) represents where the target(s) should be at a ‘future three-dimensional point.’ It then loads these coordinates to her AIM-54s. At weapon(s) release, Phoenix climbs to 26,000m (80,000 ft) and accelerates to Mach 4+ towards its assigned track "file" coordinate. The weapon then dives down (using kinetic energy) to kill the target. The target-profile presented to the AIM-54 is - the top of the target - not head-on. The top (stealthy or otherwise) provides the largest possible target: surface area, physical size, and RCS aspect. F-14D (Infrared+radar) targeting in this way, with Phoenix alone - would have presented an unacceptable DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) hazard for the new USAF F-22 Raptor.

Oh yeah you read that right F-14= F-22 killer. Its on a blog. it must be true.

Edited August 3, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

I just find it hard to believe that the Navy's primary interceptor for more than three decades (even long after the F/A-18A/C was put in service) was the huge failure that many propose that it was.

If they were really such poor performers, why weren't the Tomcats retired years earlier?

If a typical air wing could only bring three Tomcats to the fight at any given time, why weren't Hornets regularly flying CAP over the air groups?

I am a huge fan of the Tomcat, but being on ARC for the tail end of the cry fest for its retirement as the F-14 was elevated to sainthood, even as a Tomcat nut I started to suffer from this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HypeBacklash

Your friends have been bugging you to watch the latest TV show that everyone's talking about. Every newspaper raves about its originality, well-deserved popularity, and effective mix of comedy and drama, on the front page of the Entertainment section. The critics are rushing to hail it as the re-definition of its genre. After the thirtieth or so "Just watch it already, geez!" and maybe a Hype Aversion stage, you finally give in, pop the DVD in your player, and lay back to enjoy the latest masterpiece...

...Except you come away with a very different opinion than your friends; to you, it's at best a mediocre show with average plots and few laughs or an utterly confusing one with more than enough Shocking Swerves to boggle the mind, a show that definitely isn't the seminal classic everyone's touting it as. What on earth did everybody see in this?

Usually occurs when Quality By Popular Vote fails. Most often, the work isn't bad in itself and would easily have been accepted as a solid and enjoyable work by the same person under different circumstances. But few things can live up to being praised as perfect works of pure genius by lots of people for long. To someone who was expecting nothing short of a flawless masterpiece, the disappointment of anything less can be bitter indeed. Bonus irony if the disappointment stems from the viewer having seen the work's elements done to death already, when the work had originated those clichés!

This trope is often the root of the gulf that can exist between the critical praise a show receives and the public reaction to it. Critics have a loud voice in influencing people about what they think is worth seeing, but it's not uncommon for them and the public to have different tastes, expectations, and demands.

This trope can also show up when, for the person disappointed by the work, something is heavily over-analyzed or praised as being more rebellious, challenging or intellectually 'deep' than it is. It's common for people coming to something that has been praised to the moon for its iconoclastic bravery or intellectual complexity to find that what they are watching is neither as revolutionary or deep as they've been led to believe. In some cases, the revolutionary unique show you're watching was only revolutionary when it was made.

[11bee]

The purported German "victory" is less than it seems. I was there and I also talked to the US pilots-- they say pretty much the opposite of what Germans said.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-german-eurofighters-impress-during-red-flag-debut-373312/

Since the subject was brought up, there is additional info on this exercise here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/08/f-22-vs-eurofighter-bfm-in-ala.html

From the article:

(The German) account, however, is strongly disputed by USAF sources flying the F-22. "It sounds as though we have very different recollections as to the outcomes of the BFM engagements that were fought," one Raptor pilot says.

USAF sources say that the Typhoon has good energy and a pretty good first turn, but that they were able to outmanoeuvre the Germans due to the Raptor's thrust vectoring. Additionally, the Typhoon was not able to match the high angle of attack capability of the F-22. "We ended up with numerous gunshots," another USAF pilot says.

The Typhoons were stripped of their external fuel tanks and slicked off as much as possible before the encounter with the Raptors, says Grune, who adds that in that configuration, the Typhoon is an "animal". I wonder how they would have performed with a representative weapons load? Or would they jettison all tanks and missiles every time they got into a dogfight?

Lastly:

A few weeks after I returned from Alaska, I touched base with the 3rd Wing again. "I did review the HUD footage, a lot of gun shots from the F-22's to the Eurofighters and not a whole lot coming back," one Raptor pilot told me.

The point is that both aircraft are outstanding. No self-respecting pilot would ever admit that someone is better than he is. I saw a documentary way back. The news guy asked a room full of fighter jocks who the the best pilot was. Every guy raised his hand.

One just needs to keep in mind that there are two sides to every story.

[Rapier01]

Well, that's why I put that DEW Line post up. I literally cut and pasted from the article I wrote months ago when this bufoonery popped up again.

[11bee]

Well, that's why I put that DEW Line post up. I literally cut and pasted from the article I wrote months ago when this bufoonery popped up again.

Didn't know you authored this. Kudo's for adding an update to (hopefully) balance things out.

[Rapier01]

Didn't know you authored this. Kudo's for adding an update to (hopefully) balance things out.

That was the idea... especially since I know exactly how that original very one sided report got out.

[dmk0210]

That scope has nothing to do with this subject.

As I posted before: If you want to understand this issue, google "NCTR" Non-Cooperative Target Recognition. It's a bit more than a $100 rifle scope and the F-14 did not have anything comparable.

I encourage you to read up on this.

NCTR is completely different than what I was talking about. I may be wrong, but I believe NCTR was part of MSIP upgrades. And yes, it is impressive tech.

Earlier in the Eagles career, some squadrons actually did bolt rifle scopes onto the Eagles to get a long range visual ID.

The book "F-15 Eagle Engaged" by Steve davies and Doug Dildy, on page 70, describes "Eagle Eye" as a "4x12 variable-power hunting rifle telescope" tested during the eagles FOT&E in 1976.

Quoted from the text: "As a result of the Eagle Eye's qualified success, nine-power Bushnell 'scopes were issued to every F-15 squadron. When we "hot-tuned" our jets on Air Defense Alert we sighted-in (boresighted) the 'scope on whatever object was in the distance under the "W" in the HUD. When flying DACT in VID-required scenarios, we would "check-out" an "Eagle Eye" from the squadron weapons shop, mount it on the HUD, boresight it and then could use the AIM-7 in the mannor for which it was designed. In January 1991, F-15s flew into combat against the Iraqi air force with "Eagle Eyes" mounted to their HUDs, vindicating Postgate's concept from 15 years before."

Think they would have at least sprung for Leupolds.

Here's a screen shot from the Documentary "The Wing: Documentary of the F-15", about Bitburg AFB in the early 80s. This shot was from a sequence showing a Zulu Alert scramble at the very end of the video.

Edited August 3, 2012 by dmk0210

[TaiidanTomcat]

I think that was done primarily during the AIM ACE Evals.

[11bee]

NCTR is completely different than what I was talking about. I may be wrong, but I believe NCTR was part of MSIP upgrades. And yes, it is impressive tech.

Earlier in the Eagles career, some squadrons actually did bolt rifle scopes onto the Eagles to get a long range visual ID.

I think those scopes stuck around for quite a while. I remember seeing a MassANG F-15 around 2000 with the scope mounted. I still don't see what the correlation is to using an AIM-7. I thought it was just for long distance ID.

I vaguely remember reading that the Sparrow had a "floodlight mode" where the launch aircraft kept the radar fixed straight ahead and maneuvered to keep the target centered, while the Sparrow homed in. Would the scope be used for something like this?

[TaiidanTomcat]

I think those scopes stuck around for quite a while. I remember seeing a MassANG F-15 around 2000 with the scope mounted. I still don't see what the correlation is to using an AIM-7. I thought it was just for long distance ID.

I vaguely remember reading that the Sparrow had a "floodlight mode" where the launch aircraft kept the radar fixed straight ahead and maneuvered to keep the target centered, while the Sparrow homed in. Would the scope be used for something like this?

Fast moving targets and narrow zoomed in views do not mix.

[dmk0210]

I think those scopes stuck around for quite a while. I remember seeing a MassANG F-15 around 2000 with the scope mounted. I still don't see what the correlation is to using an AIM-7. I thought it was just for long distance ID.

I vaguely remember reading that the Sparrow had a "floodlight mode" where the launch aircraft kept the radar fixed straight ahead and maneuvered to keep the target centered, while the Sparrow homed in. Would the scope be used for something like this?

I believe the person quoted in the book meant that they couldn't use the Sparrow at BVR distances because Rules of Engagement required them to positively ID the bogey.

The scope allowed a visual ID of a Bandit, giving them the ability to launch an AIM-7 at targets too distant for the Sidewinder.

I guess a guy with good eyes could use a 9x scope to make a positive ID at quite a distance out under the right conditions.

The scope was a bit of a hack for sure and had some severe limitations, but apparently it gave them a capability the aircraft otherwise did not have at the time. Plus being simple, I'm sure would work when electronics failed.

Edited August 3, 2012 by dmk0210

[TaiidanTomcat]

As an interesting little sidenote, I have heard from a friend in the F-35 program that one of the test pilots, a former F-14 guy says that the F-35 is more maneuverable than the F-14. I hesitate to post that, because the F-14 mafia, will refuse to believe it, and the F-35 haters will say something along the lines of "Wow, thats a low bar..." So that little fact will end up impressing no one.

[Tony Stark]

a former F-14 guy says that the F-35 is more maneuverable than the F-14

Then again, so is a washing machine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfT4lVAtj6w

[dmk0210]

I think folks get confused and assume that the F-14 was supposed to be a dogfighter. It wasn't.

It was designed to be a high speed, long range interceptor with a powerful radar and a long loiter capability. It was intended to get way out there quickly and shoot down large, long range bombers before they could launch their anti-ship missiles against the fleet.

The Navy almost got an F-111 or an F3D variant to fill this role.

Keep in mind that DACM training like Topgun was not intended to match the Tomcat against the A-4 or T-38 on equal terms. It was called dissimilar for a reason. The F-4 and F-14 pilots were supposed to use their higher power and careful strategy against the smaller, more maneuverable aircraft.

I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 could out-maneuver it. The F-35 was designed to be a multi-role fighter like the F-16 and is a much newer and more technically advanced design.

Edited August 4, 2012 by dmk0210

[Ken Cartwright]

On the Typhoon vs. Raptor topic, someone took photos showing F-22 kill markings on a couple of Typhoons.

http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/df_3029_neuburg_18-07-12.jpg

http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/df_3030_neuburg_18-07-12.jpg

http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/23/f-22-raptor-kill-markings/

[Wolfgun33]

On the Typhoon vs. Raptor topic, someone took photos showing F-22 kill markings on a couple of Typhoons.

http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/df_3029_neuburg_18-07-12.jpg

http://cencio4.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/df_3030_neuburg_18-07-12.jpg

http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/23/f-22-raptor-kill-markings/

LOL!! That's awesome.