Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
JB2013

F-22 Raptor: Ten years of service

Recommended Posts

On December 15, 2005, the United States Air Force's fifth generation fighter entered operational service as the F-22.

Ten years later it is in combat service patrolling the skies of Syria against the rogue organization of the Islamic State (IS) since its first deployment on September 22, 2014.

Compared to past aerial fighter jets from the F-86 Sabre to the F-4 Phantom II and to the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon the Raptor has a long way to live up to its reputation and role for future conflicts, but who says hunting for terrorist is no substitute to shooting down enemy planes?

In short I liked the Raptor: Its design, performance, abilities, and its arsenal were captivating to me since 1997 but I couldn't look at it the same as I would to an F-4 Phantom.

Of course the Phantom did hunt ground targets in a Southeast Asian country fifty years ago but it also fought enemy air force's there as well. The Raptor now hunts ground targets but encountered no enemy aerial opponents .... yet.

Edited by JB2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the F-22 first came out, I wasn't a fan. I want to build models that look good and the F-22 was just too weird to even think of buying the kit. Fast forward, I have been fortunate enough to see the F-22 fly a demo about 6-7 times, mostly at Nellis AFB, when it was often back to back with the F-15E and other very cool fighter jets that you can compare it too. The first thing that comes to mind is how LOUD it is and there really isn't much the F-22 can't do, including a tail stand like a biplane. This jet is awesome! Now if only there was a decent kit in 1/32 (forget Testors), I'd build one in an instant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The YF-23 was a better platform. Period.

Hence, why LM scrapped its YF-22 design and started over once they won the contract (Weird, how that happened).

That being said; I like what eventually became the F-22.

It's just too bad we don't have more of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The YF-23 was a better platform. Period.

define "better"

Hence, why LM scrapped its YF-22 design and started over once they won the contract (Weird, how that happened).

Not weird at all hence the "Y" in the designation and the fact that both aircraft were essentially prototype/demonstrator one-off examples. And thats before we get into all the government requirements changes and the fact that the YF-23 would have also had differences from the production F-23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove it.

Most airplanes should loose to a dogfight with a T-38 since there is nothing in it but the basic essentials of flight . Did the pilot use rocks ? Definitely not a fighter aircraft.

Cheers, Christian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

define "better"

During competition the YF-23:

1) Was faster

2) Much more stealthier

3) Had a range approaching the F-111 WITHOUT external fuel tanks

4) Had the capability of greatly expanding its internal weapons bay with its current design.

What the AF/Pentagon stated was that the YF-23 didn't turn as tight as the YF-22.

TT; Name an a/c in the last 45 years that had greater design changes both on the interior and especially on the fuselage's aerodynamic shapes as the YF-22 did .

The YF-17 is excluded from this question because it was an AF reject and was taken out of the 'trash' by the Navy and redesigned for said Navy's requirements.

When I was working at McDonald Douglas during this time, the engineers were only slightly worried about the YF-23 maneuvering issue.

They believed that since the YF-23 SURPASSED all requirements except supercruise (It was decided for the purpose of competition to put a stealth setup on and add supercruise to the production prototype, etc) at the time of the competition, the YF-23 had a huge chance of winning.

They believed their ace-in-the-holes was the YF-23's much more stealthier design, much greater range, and its internal payload expansion capability with the current YF-23 design. I joked with saying the YF-23 was a future stealth F-111!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During competition the YF-23:

1) Was faster

2) Much more stealthier

3) Had a range approaching the F-111 WITHOUT external fuel tanks

4) Had the capability of greatly expanding its internal weapons bay with its current design.

What the AF/Pentagon stated was that the YF-23 didn't turn as tight as the YF-22.

TT; Name an a/c in the last 45 years that had greater design changes both on the interior and especially on the fuselage's aerodynamic shapes as the YF-22 did .

The YF-17 is excluded from this question because it was an AF reject and was taken out of the 'trash' by the Navy and redesigned for said Navy's requirements.

When I was working at McDonald Douglas during this time, the engineers were only slightly worried about the YF-23 maneuvering issue.

They believed that since the YF-23 SURPASSED all requirements except supercruise (It was decided for the purpose of competition to put a stealth setup on and add supercruise to the production prototype, etc) at the time of the competition, the YF-23 had a huge chance of winning.

They believed their ace-in-the-holes was the YF-23's much more stealthier design, much greater range, and its internal payload expansion capability with the current YF-23 design. I joked with saying the YF-23 was a future stealth F-111!

I heard some where it only list because it cost more. Anyone else hear that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-22 is top class engineering :rolleyes:/> It knocks out the F-15 Drivers one by one..

Edited by cag_200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all these comments from the "people in the know", I recommend the USAf go back to flying hot air balloons. Thanks for the laughs guys. I needed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During competition the YF-23:

1) Was faster

2) Much more stealthier

3) Had a range approaching the F-111 WITHOUT external fuel tanks

4) Had the capability of greatly expanding its internal weapons bay with its current design.

What the AF/Pentagon stated was that the YF-23 didn't turn as tight as the YF-22.

Right and the YF-22 had its own advantages including cost. unless you sat on the board that made the final selection you can't know hte hundreds of factors that went into the pick. I have no doubt that one aircraft was "better" in certain areas than others. There seemed to be greater emphasis on turning.

Its the Jessica Alba vs Jessica Biel debate. Both attractive, "both better" depending on what whom finds preferential.

TT; Name an a/c in the last 45 years that had greater design changes both on the interior and especially on the fuselage's aerodynamic shapes as the YF-22 did .

Off the top of my head I would Say the B-1, YB-52, B-2, T-10--> Su-27, and X-35---> F-35. X-32---> F-32 (had it been picked) V-22, Uh-60, Ah-64, the list could go on and on depending on where the line drawn.

(and Yf-16 could probably make the cut easily as well, depending on your definition of "greater design changes both on the interior and especially on the fuselage")

I am really not seeing how abnormal the changes are. Most production airplanes look different from the initial design/prototype, its hardly scandalous.

When I was working at McDonald Douglas during this time, the engineers were only slightly worried about the YF-23 maneuvering issue.

ok neat, but that doesn't tell us much.

They believed that since the YF-23 SURPASSED all requirements except supercruise (It was decided for the purpose of competition to put a stealth setup on and add supercruise to the production prototype, etc) at the time of the competition, the YF-23 had a huge chance of winning.

At least 50 percent!

They believed their ace-in-the-holes was the YF-23's much more stealthier design, much greater range, and its internal payload expansion capability with the current YF-23 design. I joked with saying the YF-23 was a future stealth F-111!

neat! but considering it was a competition for an advanced tactical fighter that could be a sign. I heard that YF-23 was stealthier by how much more? well you can't tell me unless you want to spend some time in a gray bar hotel. a lot of factors not just politics

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is; The final product was/is an awesome a/c that not only totally spooked Iranian F-4 drivers but also showed its worth by going in first to a very heavily guarded section of Syrian real estate during airstrikes.

100702-F-4815G-217.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go out on a limb here and state that the United States Air force probably knows a lot more about why the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23, than a bunch of grown men who make plastic model airplanes. This includes those that did serve in the USAF, had a friend who worked at LM, had a friend of a friend who did either, or read about the competition on Facebook.

Call me crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With those droptanks it really looks kick @ss. Sadly, i don't like how it looks in profile, but hey, can't win them all.

Edited by streetstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go out on a limb here and state that the United States Air force probably knows a lot more about why the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23, than a bunch of grown men who make plastic model airplanes. This includes those that did serve in the USAF, had a friend who worked at LM, had a friend of a friend who did either, or read about the competition on Facebook.

Call me crazy.

Yeah...this. Also, if I ask for ABC, and someone gives me that for "around" what I expect to pay for it, and I have another guy give me ABCDEF for more than I expect to pay for my required ABC, I'd go for the first option given budgetary constraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is like a 29 page thread on F-16.net that gets into the nitty gritty of it. always questions about the ability to deliver on the promises with mass production and cost. It's one thing to build a prototype, another to deliver hundreds of airplanes that perform as promised for the amount promised, and of course hind sight being what it is, I don't think anyone in 1990 envisioned what the world would be like for the ATF when it reached IOC 15 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it really been that long?

Yeah. Already ten years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice stealth sterilizing of a thread AGAIN, Mods dontknow.gif .

I'm really tired of this.

I believe my time here is now done. I don't appreciate a website that practices with a 1984 mentality. Seriously.

So I shall go elsewhere. I'M OUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is; The final product was/is an awesome a/c that not only totally spooked Iranian F-4 drivers but also showed its worth by going in first to a very heavily guarded section of Syrian real estate during airstrikes.

100702-F-4815G-217.jpg

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish it's paint job wasn't that hard for me to get right. A quick question though, wasn't the JHMCS supposed to be compatibile with F-22 by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest things I remember about the F-22 coming online 10 years ago was a bunch of people whining about the cost, whining about the lack of a need for it, whining that the USAF was cutting too many platforms to pay for it, whining that it wouldn't help in current conflicts.

A lot of these same people whine we didn't buy enough now, while applying the same formula to other systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice stealth sterilizing of a thread AGAIN, Mods dontknow.gif .

I'm really tired of this.

I believe my time here is now done. I don't appreciate a website that practices with a 1984 mentality. Seriously.

So I shall go elsewhere. I'M OUT.

I cleaned the thread.....I was simply following the subject line of the OP.

"F-22 Raptor: Ten years of service No political debate please; its the plane we're talking about"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish it's paint job wasn't that hard for me to get right. A quick question though, wasn't the JHMCS supposed to be compatibile with F-22 by now?

It's funny how many things the Raptor could/should have had, but there weren't/aren't funds available for it, despite assertions from some that the Air Force would sacrifice its entire budget just to get the Raptor community whatever they wanted. Now it's evidently the F-35's turn in the shooting gallery.

The biggest things I remember about the F-22 coming online 10 years ago was a bunch of people whining about the cost, whining about the lack of a need for it, whining that the USAF was cutting too many platforms to pay for it, whining that it wouldn't help in current conflicts.

A lot of these same people whine we didn't buy enough now, while applying the same formula to other systems.

The DOD is now realizing that, just as the Air Force said, they didn't buy enough Raptors.

Regards,

Murph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really tired of this.

I believe my time here is now done. I don't appreciate a website that practices with a 1984 mentality. Seriously.

So I shall go elsewhere.

Man its been awhile since we've had one of these. The old heads around ARC probably remember those "I'm outta here" posts from a decade or more ago. Ahhh, good times... :rolleyes:...

:cheers:

Sorry all... carry on. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...