PDA

View Full Version : F-22 RAPTOR has arrived!


tony hipchest
06-06-2008, 04:49 PM
it was sad to see the stealth F-117's retire and leave. a true end of an era and i will always miss those black triangles patrolling the skies. but man, what a beautiful bird the raptor is....

http://www.alamogordonews.com/news/ci_9496250

Residents of the Tularosa Basin will get a chance to see what the F-22A Raptor can do when Lockheed Martin puts on a display tonight right in their back yard. :tt02:

The flight demonstration will begin at 7:15 p.m., and the best viewing will be from Mesa Verde Ranch Road west of Alamogordo. A parking area has been arranged on land owned by the Rabon family.

During an interview May 30, Arlan Ponder of 49th Fighter Wing Public Affairs said the event is for the public, and encouraged everyone to go and see the new F-22.

Jim Conlin, F-22 director for Lockheed's customer requirements operations in Fort Worth, Texas, said even the Raptor's builders have not explored the plane's fullest potential. :scratchchin:

"We're just finding out what all this plane can do," Conlin said Thursday. "The airplane's sensors are so good, we might even find Jimmy Buffett's lost shaker of salt, you know? I think it could do that." :chuckle:

Conlin said Lockheed writes more lines of programming code for the Raptor every year than Microsoft writes. :jawdrop:

Rob Fuller, communications manager for Lockheed's F-22 program, mentioned the Raptor's central processing unit Wednesday. The CPU processes billions of bytes of data per second collected by sensors all over the body of the aircraft. :jawdrop: That information is neatly presented to the pilot on display screens. This eliminates the need for many gauges found in other aircraft profanityfilterprofanityfilterprofanityfilterprofa nityfilterpits, and the figuring pilots must do to determine what is happening in their battle space.
Maj. Paul "Max" Moga, the Air Force pilot who will be flying the demo tonight, said the F-22 can show more information than a pilot is normally able to process. He said that's a good thing because a pilot wants to have all information and then figure out how much of it is needed.

"In other jets it doesn't work that way," Moga said. "The pilot has to work for every bit of information that they can get, so they don't have time to really figure out exactly how they're going to use that data."

Moga said tonight he will perform a 12-minute series of maneuvers to highlight some of the Raptor's capabilities. :tt03:

"So within the span of those 12 minutes I will do things in the jet that unless you've seen the Raptor demo before you've never, ever seen a fighter aircraft do before," :yeehaw: Moga said. "They are so unique that there's no other jet in our inventory that can come anywhere near being able to perform these. And there certainly isn't a jet in another country's inventory that can perform them, either." :usa:

Moga said most people are in disbelief when they first view the demo because the maneuvers don't look like things a jet should be able to do.

Moga said the other 90 percent of the jet's capabilities cannot, unfortunately, be displayed for a crowd for various reasons. :mad:

"At the end of the day it's really only kind of scratching the surface of what the jet's truly capable of," Moga said. :popcorn:

"Can't do everything, but that's a good thing sometimes.

"You don't want to play all your cards." :sly:

Moga said a pilot properly flying an F-22 is "about as close to invincible as we've ever seen in a fighter before." :tt02:

"You're playing with a stacked deck when you're flying the Raptor," Moga said.

"Which is the way it's supposed to be, you know? Cheating is legal in war." [like in the patriots* lockerroom.]

tony hipchest
06-06-2008, 04:57 PM
heres some pics of one of the birdies who stopped by for our airshow last year.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/01192008031.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/01192008029.jpg

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/01192008035.jpg

tony hipchest
06-06-2008, 05:27 PM
im so pumped for this demo. the AF have been flying T-38's around with a device called something like a "boom cannon" to simulate the bang of the raptor breaking the sound barrier and get the local residents used to what they will be hearing on a regular basis. and let me tell ya, i need some getting used to it. i am used to sonic booms from when the F-15's were here and our high speed test track.

BUT THESE ARE LOUD! ive never heard a bomb go off but it sounds like the footage of us dropping bunker busters on baghdad. several times ive been sitting in my office (which is on the highway) and i thought a semi crashed into the side of my building, it was so loud.

finally, this week when the 1st 2 raptors came to roost, it sounded like 2 of the loudest claps of thunder ive ever heard.

here are some factoids ive heard but cant verify-

-cost per plane- $133,000,000

-the raptor can track and dogfight 4 enemy planes at once! :jawdrop:

-all weaponry is internal with to maintain stealth technology. the trap doors open, and weaponry is delivered so quick it barely registers a *blip* on enemies radar.

-it carries new sidewinder missles that the pilot shoots ahead of himself and they turn around and destroy an enemy aircraft behind him. theyre still working out a few kinks in this sidewinder technology because they were turning around so fast the missles were actually snapping in half.

-while the stealth fighters seem pretty new, they had become irrelevant and too costly to maintain. the raptor will be just as pertinent 20 years from now, and no other plane will be developed by us or an enemy that could force it into retirement.

while some people bitch and complain about all their tax dollars going to welfare recipients, i sure am glad i have decided all my tax dollars go to weapon systems development such as this. it gives me a nice peace of mind and smooths over the sting of looking at the gross amt on my paycheck.

oh, and for those who think playing the stock market takes an advanced degree, it really doesnt. when i saw lockheed martin at a 5 year low in 2000 because everybody was gobbling up biotech and internet, i knew it was a good buy.

i got in at $17-$19 per share. :smile:

:jammin:

steelwall
06-06-2008, 06:36 PM
From what I've heard from some fellow friends still in the service, this one bad @$$ peice of machinery....GO USA!!!!

Hawk Believer
06-06-2008, 06:56 PM
-cost per plane- $133,000,000


Makes me think of Top Gun. "You're writing checks your body can't cash Maverick!"

Think any of these will be doing the air show circuit this summer? I'd like to see one but there aren't any fighter bases in my immediate neck of the woods.

What's the feeling on base about Gates canning the top 2 in the Air Force yeserday TH?

RoethlisBURGHer
06-06-2008, 07:29 PM
Wow, that is one badass fighter jet.

Atlanta Dan
06-06-2008, 07:44 PM
What's the feeling on base about Gates canning the top 2 in the Air Force yeserday TH?

According to The Wall Street Journal the level of F-22 procurement was a flash point between Gates and the senior Air Force leadership

The firings are the culmination of a broader dispute between Mr. Gates and the Air Force's leadership over the service's strategic direction.

The biggest source of tension has been the Air Force's insistence on buying hundreds of expensive, state-of-the-art F-22 fighter jets, made by Lockheed Martin Corp., despite opposition from Mr. Gates, who has argued that the planes aren't needed for prosecuting America's current wars. The U.S. hasn't deployed F-22s in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The defense chief wants the service instead to purchase surveillance drones, tankers and other planes that would better meet immediate needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Advocates of the F-22, which costs at least $140 million apiece, say the U.S. needs to be prepared to fight conventional wars against big powers such as China and Russia. Air Force officials say that, because of the lead time required to build advanced jets, it makes sense to buy them now to ensure they're available when needed. That argument rankles Mr. Gates and his top aides, who have privately belittled it as "next-war-itis."

In February, Mr. Wynne and Gen. Moseley had to publicly disown comments from a four-star Air Force general who suggested that the service wanted to buy more of the planes than Mr. Gates and the Bush administration wanted.

Mr. Gates privately rebuked the officer, Gen. Bruce Carlson, for signaling that the Air Force would buy 381 of the planes, rather than the 183 called for in the Defense Department's 2009 budget. The Air Force's aggressive advocacy tested the service's traditional deference to the defense secretary on such matters.

In late April, Mr. Gates went public with his frustrations in a speech at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, home to the service's top war college. Mr. Gates told the audience that the military, led by the Air Force, had failed to get enough unmanned aerial drones into the skies above Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We can do and we should do more to meet the needs of men and women fighting in the current conflicts while their outcome may still be in doubt," he said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121268789331649099.html

The F-22 is a sweet piece of technology but without an unlimited defense budget you have to ask if this is the best bang for the buck in terms of the current DoD mission.

steelwall
06-06-2008, 08:17 PM
The F-22 is a sweet piece of technology but without an unlimited defense budget you have to ask if this is the best bang for the buck in terms of the current DoD mission.

I agree totally, but from my understanding we have drones allready, sitting in hangers in the US, just have not been deployed....hmmm

tony hipchest
06-06-2008, 11:36 PM
you'll rarely hear me say this because it is so cliche and corny on a mb BUT...

OMFG!

this was like watching a propeller powered bi-plane at a stunt show.


Moga said the other 90 percent of the jet's capabilities cannot, unfortunately, be displayed for a crowd for various reasons. while this may be standard propoganda, (which i doubt- this is an alamogordo press clip, not the AP or NYT) even if its only 50% it is pretty amazing.

this thing flew straight up in the sky and paused for almost 3 seconds. it did a loop-d-loop and paused at the apex of its circle.

nascar fans will recognize the description of bristol as like jet fighters flying around in a gymnasium. i think this plane can do that. infact, it could probably fly circles in a fishbowl based on what i just saw.

it cruised along with its nose up at what seemed like 65 mph.

i'm almost certain this thing can hover like a hummingbird.

but AD and HB raise some interresting points. in a perfect world i would like to see the army, and marines, made obsolete.

in a conventional war with china and russia, im pretty sure our air force with a brigade of 300+ of these could destroy them fairly quickly.

which goes to show why terrorist attacks and drawing us into a guerilla warfare situation is the only possible way of effectively engaging the US.

on that note the only other reasonable option is electing the candidate most capable of negotiating with our enemies.

Richardson in '08:tt02:

anyways, my job was secure (for life) with the support of the 50 stealth fighters in our arsenal. if weve really ordered 381 raptors, i will be due for a hefty raise.

while i usually vote dem, i will definitely support a dem who supports the AF.

steelwall
06-07-2008, 12:23 AM
in a conventional war with china and russia, im pretty sure our air force with a brigade of 300+ of these could destroy them fairly quickly.




Lord if that happened I would reinlist in a minute. I've never been treated with such utter disrespect then my time here in China. The most racist people (in general, not all) I've ever seen.... Some payback would be nice.

Besides China's military is actually a freaking joke. Heck I kicked 3 Chinese Army guys @$$es outside a club one night by myself.

Hawk Believer
06-07-2008, 12:26 AM
I had heard the AF guys were fired for the mishandling of the nukes more than anything else.

Galax Steeler
06-07-2008, 03:51 AM
Thanks for the picks Tony that is one bad ass plane.

43Hitman
06-07-2008, 08:07 AM
you'll rarely hear me say this because it is so cliche and corny on a mb BUT...

OMFG!

this was like watching a propeller powered bi-plane at a stunt show.

while this may be standard propoganda, (which i doubt- this is an alamogordo press clip, not the AP or NYT) even if its only 50% it is pretty amazing.

this thing flew straight up in the sky and paused for almost 3 seconds. it did a loop-d-loop and paused at the apex of its circle.

nascar fans will recognize the description of bristol as like jet fighters flying around in a gymnasium. i think this plane can do that. infact, it could probably fly circles in a fishbowl based on what i just saw.

it cruised along with its nose up at what seemed like 65 mph.

i'm almost certain this thing can hover like a hummingbird.

but AD and HB raise some interresting points. in a perfect world i would like to see the army, and marines, made obsolete.

in a conventional war with china and russia, im pretty sure our air force with a brigade of 300+ of these could destroy them fairly quickly.

which goes to show why terrorist attacks and drawing us into a guerilla warfare situation is the only possible way of effectively engaging the US.

on that note the only other reasonable option is electing the candidate most capable of negotiating with our enemies.

Richardson in '08:tt02:

anyways, my job was secure (for life) with the support of the 50 stealth fighters in our arsenal. if weve really ordered 381 raptors, i will be due for a hefty raise.

while i usually vote dem, i will definitely support a dem who supports the AF.

To truly win a war you have to occupy the land..So there will always be a need for troops, tanks, and other conventional methods. But it sure is nice to have a plane like that paving the way for our boys, if the need should ever arise.

GBMelBlount
06-07-2008, 09:30 AM
It's amazing how far technology & testing has come. My uncle was a test pilot in WWII and was killed testing a new plane design. After more research they moved the wing just 3/32 of an inch yet determined that was likely a major contributing factor to his fatal accident.

Hawk Believer
06-07-2008, 09:52 AM
So re: drones vs. piloted planes...

I hear people criticize the the AF for planes like the Raptor because of the cost and because drones can perform better hypothetically. That is, the only thing limiting better performance in a jet is the weight and space associated with life support and the fact that people black out when they pull too many Gs. I hear accusations that the AF brass is too romantically attached to the idea that people need to be flying the planes.

Butwhen I think about it, I come to this question... Wouldn't a technologically advanced foe be able to jam a drone? Seems like that is a big argument in favor of piloted planes.

That is until we make a few more advances and get Skynet up and running. :)

Steeldude
06-07-2008, 11:51 AM
still my favorite plane

http://www.geocities.com/~propilot/pictures/SR-71.jpg


http://www.sergib.agava.ru/usa/lockheed/a/12/images/cia-10a12s.jpg

MasterOfPuppets
06-07-2008, 06:28 PM
http://gizmodo.com/371752/first-military-pilot-review-of-the-f+35-strike-fighter-verdict-kicks-ass

The F-35 Lightning II, allegedly the most advanced fighter in the world, has been tried for the first time by a military service pilot. Lt. Col. James "Flipper" Kromberg of the U.S. Air Force,
The F-35 Lightning II is scheduled to debut in 2011, after its maiden flight back in 2006. Powered by a Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan capable of delivering 40,000 pounds of force, with an additional Rolls-Royce Lift System for the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant, the F-35 has been designed to be the número uno strike fighter in the world until around 2040.

so there just now bringing out the raptor.....only to be replaced with the F-35 ???

steelwall
06-07-2008, 07:35 PM
still my favorite plane

http://www.geocities.com/~propilot/pictures/SR-71.jpg


http://www.sergib.agava.ru/usa/lockheed/a/12/images/cia-10a12s.jpg

Even though the technology for this plane is relitively old, it's still a marvel of inginuity...thumbs up I allso like it.:thumbsup:

Steeldude
06-07-2008, 09:56 PM
http://gizmodo.com/371752/first-military-pilot-review-of-the-f+35-strike-fighter-verdict-kicks-ass



so there just now bringing out the raptor.....only to be replaced with the F-35 ???

i believe it is just another fighter jet to add to the arsenal. like the f-14, f-15, f-16...and so on.

OneForTheToe
06-07-2008, 10:50 PM
Isn't the F-35 the same as what used to be called the joint strike force fighter or something like that? I believe it is suppossed to be used by the U.S. Air force, US. Navy and British government? I think it was designed to be cheaper to produce (than the F-22) in part because more would be purchased.

So if I have this correct, the F-22 replaces F-15 and the F-117, while the F-35 replaces the F-16, A-10, F-14, F-18, the Harrier Jump Jet and mostly every other fighter or fighter/bomber model.

Hawk Believer
06-07-2008, 11:34 PM
Isn't the F-35 the same as what used to be called the joint strike force fighter or something like that? I believe it is suppossed to be used by the U.S. Air force, US. Navy and British government? I think it was designed to be cheaper to produce (than the F-22) in part because more would be purchased.

So if I have this correct, the F-22 replaces F-15 and the F-117, while the F-35 replaces the F-16, A-10, F-14, F-18, the Harrier Jump Jet and mostly every other fighter or fighter/bomber model.

The F-35 is the joint strike fighter. All services will use them but there are very different versions. One will be a more convential, high performance version, one will be able to hover, and one will be designed for carrier use.

If you saw the last Die Hard, that was supposed to be an F-35 attacking Bruce Willis in the semi. I think that the fighters in Transformers (including Starscream) were F-22s.

Supposed to be a great fighter. I know they will be sold to a lot of our allies. I an not sure if the Raptor will right now.

A friend of mine who is a Boeing Engineer (Boeing was beat out by Lockheed and Northrop for the contract) says that the Air Force version is already estimated to cost more than 50% than what was presented at the bid. But anyone familiar with defense contracting knows thats how that business works.

I am curious to hear someone explain the key differences between the F-22 and F-35 in comparible configurations.

revefsreleets
06-08-2008, 01:07 PM
The scariest part of this is that there is usually like at least a 10 year lag in technology from final development until deploying of the first plane, meaning that the F-22 and F-35 are more like late 80's/early 90's designs. Just think what the NEXT gen planes will look/perform like!

LOVE the directional thrusters on the next gen planes, too. They didn't even think of those for Battlestar Gallactica or Star Wars.

I also love the idea of having a total air-superiority fighter plane if for no other reason than we stay ahead of emerging powers like China. It's a strategic vision, not tactical.

Atlanta Dan
06-08-2008, 04:32 PM
The scariest part of this is that there is usually like at least a 10 year lag in technology from final development until deploying of the first plane, meaning that the F-22 and F-35 are more like late 80's/early 90's designs. Just think what the NEXT gen planes will look/perform like!

LOVE the directional thrusters on the next gen planes, too. They didn't even think of those for Battlestar Gallactica or Star Wars.

I also love the idea of having a total air-superiority fighter plane if for no other reason than we stay ahead of emerging powers like China. It's a strategic vision, not tactical.

Rev - as you note, the F-22 is based on a design that has been gestating for some time.

IMO a concern Gates has is the cost of funding a weapons platform, to the exclusion of other weapons, that is humungously expensive while potentially subject to compromise by a breakthrough technology by an opposing power. IBM was invested in a technology that Microsoft supplanted and Microsoft is on the ropes against Google - manned fighters such as the F-22 and, with regard to the Navy's weapons system of choice, aircraft carriers are the current state of their respective warfare arts but spending $$ there saps resources from somewhere else.

This is not a screed from me about too much defense spending, just an observation that focusing resources on technologies that were designed to defeat the Soviets in central Europe is regarded by some experts within the military as perhaps not the best means of addressing the greatest current threats to U.S. national security.

Dino 6 Rings
06-09-2008, 08:57 AM
I really love knowing the US has the very best technology when it comes to being the dominant world power. Thank goodness it isn't the Communist Chinese or some other Tyrant that has the very best.

Oh, and this is a quote I'm going to put on my background now from the article:

"You're Playing with a stacked deck when you're flying the Raptor. Which is they way its supposed to be, you know? Cheating is legal in war."

fansince'76
06-09-2008, 09:00 AM
Cheating is legal in war.

Looks like a certain football coach missed his true calling. What a shame.

beSteelmyheart
06-09-2008, 09:21 PM
Call me old school, but this is still one of mankind's most beautiful mechanical creations...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v301/beSteelmyheart/45-11439_24_cf1.jpg

tony hipchest
06-09-2008, 11:04 PM
This is not a screed from me about too much defense spending, just an observation that focusing resources on technologies that were designed to defeat the Soviets in central Europe is regarded by some experts within the military as perhaps not the best means of addressing the greatest current threats to U.S. national security.my biggest fear is that if i were the enemy and had any hopes of defeating america in a war, my 1st attack would be a long range nuke through my bedroom window.

holloman has always been a top target in a national strike. im pretty sure its #1 or #2 on the list now.

MasterOfPuppets
06-10-2008, 03:44 PM
my biggest fear is that if i were the enemy and had any hopes of defeating america in a war, my 1st attack would be a long range nuke through my bedroom window.

holloman has always been a top target in a national strike. im pretty sure its #1 or #2 on the list now.:huh: so the key to defeating america, is to take out tony hipchest ??? :scratchchin:

tony hipchest
06-10-2008, 04:35 PM
:huh: so the key to defeating america, is to take out tony hipchest ??? :scratchchin:shhhh.... i can only divulge that info to steeler nation because i know im safe amongst them. :tt:

Hawk Believer
06-11-2008, 12:40 AM
It seems like everywhere I live or visit takes some civic pride in being high on the list for a nuclear strike. When I lived in San Diego they said they would get hit by the Reds after NYC and DC because of the fleet and all the bases there. I also have lived right next to Bangor Sub Base in the Puget Sound, which houses more nukes than any other place in the US. So they used to say we were really high on the list. Kind of a funny thing to be braggin on.

tony hipchest
06-11-2008, 12:59 AM
It seems like everywhere I live or visit takes some civic pride in being high on the list for a nuclear strike. When I lived in San Diego they said they would get hit by the Reds after NYC and DC because of the fleet and all the bases there. I also have lived right next to Bangor Sub Base in the Puget Sound, which houses more nukes than any other place in the US. So they used to say we were really high on the list. Kind of a funny thing to be braggin on.yeah, but i grew up (and my child currently does) digging in the dirt infected with fallout from the 1st "manhattan project" nuclear bomb tested....

"DOH" :doh:


:chuckle:

that is good to know there are so many other targets out there to strike (other than all the MX Titan silos). i do feel a bit safer. but i think the stealth fighters have proven how quickly we can dismantle a country w/o nukes. if we are replacing 50 f-117's w/ 381 f-22s, i might look at that as a high priority target after washington or norad.

i grew up on 2 mx bases- perhaps i am still paranoid about the rooskies. and you have breached steeler nation confidentiality. lol damn seattleites!

Hawk Believer
06-11-2008, 01:43 AM
:chuckle:

We also have the unique honor of being the only major city in the 48 within range of North Korea's ballistic missles. Kim scares me more that the Ruskies in some ways. They at least weren't totally batty....

Preacher
06-11-2008, 04:32 AM
Rev - as you note, the F-22 is based on a design that has been gestating for some time.

IMO a concern Gates has is the cost of funding a weapons platform, to the exclusion of other weapons, that is humungously expensive while potentially subject to compromise by a breakthrough technology by an opposing power. IBM was invested in a technology that Microsoft supplanted and Microsoft is on the ropes against Google - manned fighters such as the F-22 and, with regard to the Navy's weapons system of choice, aircraft carriers are the current state of their respective warfare arts but spending $$ there saps resources from somewhere else.

This is not a screed from me about too much defense spending, just an observation that focusing resources on technologies that were designed to defeat the Soviets in central Europe is regarded by some experts within the military as perhaps not the best means of addressing the greatest current threats to U.S. national security.

AD...

Interesting post. Actually, part of that argument has a lot to do with how the war in iraq was driven as well.

Here is what I mean.

There has been argument for sometime, especially amongst the spec. ops. people, that war is no longer company or battalion against company or battalion. Rather, it will be squad against squad, or smaller. In short, the argument goes, set-piece war is a thing of the past.

In many ways, they are right, as set lines, tank lines, etc. can now be destroyed by missiles fired from hundreds of miles away with alarming accuracy.

However, the other side of that argument, is that you go to war with a smaller number of higher trained troops, and use Spec. ops. to a higher degree.

In short, I think a good part of what you see in Iraq tactically may be part of this internal battle between the old-time military and the spec-ops/new way of thinking military.

I don't know... from the looks of it, i would want to have both a military made to fight and win major wars in central/eastern europe AND a very large "specialty" military.

I say give them a larger chunk of the budget. I am sure there is a few pork-barrel projects that can be cut.