my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » F-22 (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: F-22
KJSIMON
Member
Member # 289

posted 09-18-1999 05:40 PM     Profile for KJSIMON   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
How many times has it been proven that it's the man not the machine?

At the end of the 20th Century and certainly well into the next, offensive and defensive weapons systems built around a CPUs ability to preform enormous amounts of computing cycles actually make it now the man AND the machine.
I can see here based on comments from some writers that there a number of you out there who technologically thinking only in terms of around 1989-1999 Air/Ground era threats...sort of in a perpetual Desert Storm-Kosovo mode...in which we went after 1980s technology with 1980s generation Air assets and prevailed. Well the F-22 is not designed to deal merely with with Warsaw Pact hand me downs like the SA-6 that shot down Capt. Scott Ogrady or the HAND HELD Grails that brought down the F-117a in Kosovo last March. In fact the F-22 Raptor is built to EVADE by stealth the latest generation of BOTH Euro and Russian Air launched missiles such as the AA-10 Alamo whose vectored thrust has NO western equal or the even deadlier AA-11M1/M2 Archer that now has an 80 degree off boresight track...and is available on the open market. As for ground based threats. The Red Chinese are buying/building the latest S-300V SAM from Russia that can completely mobile and can be deployed from a cold-start in 5 minutes, Its missile or rather its 36 missile system brings 1500 pounds of screaming death at MACH 8 and is designed SPECIFICALLY to take out air threats evading at 8 g or more from an effective range of 60 miles (upgrades will go out to 100).

When the legendary WW-II Marine Corps fighter ACE and winner of the Medal of Honor Maj. Joe Foss was ORDERED home....the President wanted him back in ONE PIECE not many. He was asked to give a welcome aboard talk to a new flight of experienced RAF pilots flying Spitfires in Australia As was his custom he welcomed them and quickly dispensed with the BS pep talk saying only one thing....Dont underestimate the JAP Zero!! 19 dead RAF pilots out of 49 later, the RAF guys finally got the point. ITS THE MAN, HIS TRAINING, EXPERIENCE and THE MACHINE.

We need the F-22!!!

KJSIMON

------------------
KJSIMON


Posts: 84 | From: Miami, Fla | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
FalconF1
Member
Member # 11

posted 09-19-1999 12:46 AM     Profile for FalconF1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I agree. We do need the F22.
Just one thing: The F117 was shot down by a hand held? I thought it was an Sa3?

Posts: 300 | From: NY,NY- USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
FalconF1
Member
Member # 11

posted 09-19-1999 12:51 AM     Profile for FalconF1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
One more thing:

Is the Archer thrust vectoring?
The Alamo doesnt have TV , I think.


Posts: 300 | From: NY,NY- USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
FalconF1
Member
Member # 11

posted 09-19-1999 12:56 AM     Profile for FalconF1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Crap..I meant to say that the Archer is the wissile with Thrust Vectoring, not the Alamo.
Posts: 300 | From: NY,NY- USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
FalconF1
Member
Member # 11

posted 09-19-1999 12:56 AM     Profile for FalconF1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Crap..I meant to say that the Archer is the missile with Thrust Vectoring, not the Alamo.
Posts: 300 | From: NY,NY- USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 09-19-1999 05:48 AM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well, whoever started this thread doesn't know much about missiles. Neither do I but sure as hell I know that the AA-10 Alamo is a SARH missile which definately does not have Thrust Vectoring.

I'd say it's of the same generation as the Sparrow/Sky Flash...


Posts: 775 | From: Pite, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Billzilla
Member
Member # 34

posted 09-19-1999 06:10 AM     Profile for Billzilla   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
FWIW, I'd like to see more serious work done on pilotless fighters - They could be far more effective in many areas, especially as they'd be expendable compared to a piloted aircraft.

[This message has been edited by Billzilla (edited 09-19-1999).]


Posts: 244 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Turbo
Member
Member # 209

posted 09-19-1999 06:50 AM     Profile for Turbo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
According to JDW (Jane's Defense Weekly) the F117 was shot down due to espionage. The enemy knew the take-off time, waypoints, destination of that particular F-117. They just waited for him to show, and he did show right on schedule...and they shot him down.
Posts: 369 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Radman
Member
Member # 133

posted 09-19-1999 08:29 AM     Profile for Radman   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Leadhead,

The AA-10 Alamo has SARH and long-range IR versions.


Posts: 93 | From: Central USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Radman
Member
Member # 133

posted 09-19-1999 08:36 AM     Profile for Radman   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
FalconF1,

Both the Archer (AA-11 / short range, off-boresight air to air) and the Adder (AA-12 / medium range, active radar, air to air) have thrust vectoring. Also the Kh-31 (air to ground) used RamJet technology to attain a long range and high speed. One note, the Su-27 and its derivatives are also capable of carrying the Amos (AA-9 / long range, roughly the equivelent of the US Aim-54).


Posts: 93 | From: Central USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Obi-Chan Kinobi
Member
Member # 45

posted 09-19-1999 10:48 AM     Profile for Obi-Chan Kinobi   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
By the way, everyone who thinks we need the F-22 (which is probably the vast majority here) should write his Congressman/woman & Senators. Surely, some must have done this already. Talking about how we need the F-22 is a forum is fun & all, but to have any kind of effect on policy, our voices first have to heard by our (esteemed) elected representatives. Who knows, a few votes in Congress here and there might have a big impact on the F-22 program?
Posts: 40 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
KJSIMON
Member
Member # 289

posted 09-19-1999 12:49 PM     Profile for KJSIMON   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I myself have contacted EVERYONE I am aware of in Washigton who is in the Congressional leadership regarding F-22 funding. John Lewis (R) Cal is the one who started the firestorm when he attempted to axe the program in June. I am in touch with people at Lockheed Martin from time to time and they say to continue to bug the leadership as well as State Sens and Reps. Also remember 28,000 F-22 related high paying jobs strategically placed by the USAF in 48 states does carry ENORMOUS weight especially at election time.

------------------
KJSIMON


Posts: 84 | From: Miami, Fla | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Drew Ames
unregistered

posted 09-21-1999 08:07 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The sad fact is that, in the U.S. at least, it has always been really tough to justify defence spending during periods of relative peace. The most ironic fact, though, is that even though most Americans (and their congressmen) consider this a time of peace, we've been in more military engagements *after* the end of the cold war than we were during the cold war.

Oh well. I agree that we need the F-22. I'm just not sure we'll get it until after we need to use it.

-Drew


IP: Logged
KJSIMON
Member
Member # 289

posted 09-22-1999 08:18 PM     Profile for KJSIMON   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Just got a FedEx package from Lockheed Martin on the F-22....apparently my battle on this and other web sites FOR FULL F-22 funding made someone at Marrietta VERY happy.
Some VERY cool stuff...basically a press kit for media I guess.

WAY COOL!!!


Posts: 84 | From: Miami, Fla | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
KJSIMON
Member
Member # 289

posted 09-22-1999 08:22 PM     Profile for KJSIMON   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Suggestion: for those of you who are intertested...go to the LM F-22 www site and request written materials on the aircraft, they will probably send you some stuff also.
Lockheed is making a big effort to sell the most expensive fighter ever made to you the taxpayers...the prime funders of the F-22 Raptor.

Posts: 84 | From: Miami, Fla | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
KJSIMON
Member
Member # 289

posted 09-22-1999 08:34 PM     Profile for KJSIMON   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Just another comment.

Last month I was able to see the original prototype YF-22 Ser# NYF22 (2nd YF-22 built) at the US Airforce Museum at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio. Standing there in front of the REAL DEAL was to say the least...quite a thrill, the high point of my families summer vacation really. One word describes my first impression of this incredible Fighter.... BIG the aircraft is REALLY large. Visually it is VERY impressive. My only problem is what I tols a Lockheed PR guy. That YF-22 belongs at EVERY major Airshow in the USA and Paris too...on the pavement in fron of the US CAPITAL...WHITE HOUSE LAWN, CNN, FoxNews ETC. ETC. ETC.
Yes a few thousand people can see it at WRIGHT PAT. But it would be a hell of a lot more effective in the AIR and in front of the Media.Later when F-22s are joining the USAF in large numbers, you can put it back in the USAF Museum. The Lockheed guy said I was right on that one...but the bird is owned by the USAF not the prime contractor so he said it was out of Lockheed hands atually.


Posts: 84 | From: Miami, Fla | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Meatball
Member
Member # 256

posted 09-23-1999 03:15 PM     Profile for Meatball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'll make a prediction here that stealth is going to be a flash in the pan. Why? Because while the technology absorbs some of the radio waves, it scatters most of them.

It's not difficult to see how new radars, or radar arrays can be designed to overcome this. Stealth was a good temporary technological advantage, but I doubt it will live much longer.

The F22 is a great machine, no doubt about it, and I want to see it live. Unfortunately, the cost turns this a/c into another high tech congressional target of opportunity. The problem is that it is so expensive that it will be too expesive to risk agaisnt anything of lesser value. It could never be an all around versatile weapon like the F16 which no one ever predicted would see such widespread use becuase it is cheap.

It's always going to be the bargain betty's that fill the ranks of world airforces and a small fleet of F22's won't help us a bit when faced with thousands of simple fighters. If we later discover that new radars have been developed to overcome stealth, we'll be disappointed to learn that congress did the right thing because we didn't get our new toy. The good news is that should any nation come out with anything comparable, we can always revive it. That, however, is not likely in the near future.


Posts: 851 | From: Ft. Lauderdale | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lucky_1
Member
Member # 352

posted 09-23-1999 09:35 PM     Profile for Lucky_1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
We need a new fighter plane! There is no getting around it. Heck, the current fighters we are using now were designed in the 70's! This spells big trouble. For example, When WWII started and we got involved our planes were hopelessly obsolete(at least our fighters were) and those planes were designed in the 30's. Thats only 10 year difference. Were talking 30 years between the next new fighter, not acceptable. I'm going to write my congressman now, lets get this bird flying!
Posts: 635 | From: Knoxville, TN. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
KJSIMON
Member
Member # 289

posted 09-23-1999 10:44 PM     Profile for KJSIMON   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
In Vietnam we paid the price for obselesent technology 1600 dead or captured pilots. The USAF has NEVER got over this and WILL NOT let this happen again. They are determined to allow no nation an edge or EVEN PARITY. They are going for AIR DOMANANCE with the F-22. Nothing less will do....BUILD the RAPTOR!!!
Posts: 84 | From: Miami, Fla | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
bravo45
Member
Member # 57

posted 09-24-1999 01:34 AM     Profile for bravo45   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I don't agree with most of you guys here, the F-22 is a very plane and cool to look at, but it is not worth the money. The money is better spent on improving the weapons that we already have. Since the Pentagon and the White House is so fearful of American casualties, they should spend more money on UAVs, convert older F-16s and F-15s into unmanned fighter/bomber/recon whatever. I don't think we will ever face a nation that can put up more planes than we do. I still believe that the best trained pilots and good leadership (militarily or civilian) win wars, not silver bullets.
Posts: 88 | From: Pocatello, Idaho, USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Thrasher
Member
Member # 335

posted 09-24-1999 02:14 AM     Profile for Thrasher   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Researchers are spending a lot of time on
UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for the uninitiated).
There are two ways a UAV fighter can be realized; Computer controlled, or remotely controlled by a 'desktop pilot'.
Both ways have some distinct disadvantages.
Computer controlled reconnaisance planes
are already in use, they only have to fly
over a certain area and film or take pics,
and then get back home. Some of these UAV's can even land themselves.
Work is being conducted on computer controlled bombers, but they would have to do a lot more than just fly and take pics.
Technology just isn't up to that kinda stuff yet, though I think that within 5-10 years these bombers will be reality.
Computer controlled fighters is a completely different story. It would take a massively powerful computer to dogfight.
It would have to be able to anticipate the enemy's next move, think of the right countermove, and while doing that, keep track
of speed, altitude, fuel, damage etc.
It will take a lot of time before technology is capable of constructing such an airplane.
Artificial Intelligence currently is on the level of the intelligence of an insect;
for dogfighting it has to be on the level
of the human brain....

------------------
Thrasher, 313th VFS


Posts: 139 | From: Wierden, Ov, The Netherlands | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Buzzard
unregistered

posted 09-24-1999 05:41 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Although it's not with my money that the Raptor will be build (i'm a Belgian) I still like to comment.

1/ All the current fighters in US inventory are at least 30 years old. Current russian and european frontline fighters are 20 years old are younger. these will be bought by a lot of countries (for example indonesia buying the SU-27). So it is very likely that in a future conflict the enemy aircraft will be much better that the us-aircraft. So the F-22 is necessary in order to keep the USAF-fleet up to date.
2/ using the money from the F-22 to build better UAV's who can perform combat duties ? Very risky. What guarantees are there that the computer eye can make a difference between a military target and a useless object. (for example there have been tests with heat seeking missiles: the missile couldn't see the difference between an jet exhaust and the exhaust of a airconditiong system on a nearby building).
3/ use the money from the F22 to convert F-16's in remotely controlled fighters ? Well if imagine your jets taking off, turning around and bombing your own base because the enemy scrambled your communications and hacked his way to the controls of the jet.

The F-22 is necessary as a replacement for the aging F-15. It's stealth capabilities are welcome but aren't state of the art (i believe the YF-23 had better stealth-capabilities). The stealth of the F-22 is usefull to sneak upon the target but in time new technologies will render the stealth-technology of the F-22 obsolete. But isn't that what it's all about in the military: having a technology edge on the enemy (classic example: US develops Valkery-bomber => Russians develop Mig-25 => US develops F-15 => Russians develop MIG-29 & SU-27 => logical step is the F-22)

Buzzard out


IP: Logged
Turbo
Member
Member # 209

posted 09-24-1999 08:52 AM     Profile for Turbo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I still say that it's too expensive for the technology involved. With that money we could upgrade our fleet and continue researching and developing the rumored next generation invisible (optically as well as radar) fighter. This new fighter "blends" into it's background much like the chemelon(?) using advanced optics and stealth technology and it doesn't matter which angle you look at it.
Posts: 369 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Cinders
unregistered

posted 09-24-1999 02:28 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
To those of you with an interest in the real capabilities of RPV/UAV may I suggest the book 'Fireflies and other UAV's' by William Wagner. While mostly about the FireBee family (AQM-34) there is plenty of info on other vehicles of FireBee origin including Sidewinder armed 'Bee's that beat up on F-4's with such precision and consistancy that the program was killed very quickly. My favorite, though, was the BQM-34B armed with Maverick, snake eyes, laser guided munitions, etc and used as an all weather bomber. These vehicles used 50-60's technology. The above programs took place in the 69-74 time frame. The BQM-34B field tests came under Coronet Thor ops in Germany (for the foul weather) and were meant to break up WarPac armour forces if the tanks started streaming thru western Europe.
These programs failed for 2 main reasons...dwindling defense spending at the time...and the fact that aviators ran programs designed to take away aviator jobs!
So, to those who think the technology doesn't exist to do the RPV/UAV job of fighter or bomber...I say it existed in the 60's and that was without the technology that most of you have sitting on your desktop!

IP: Logged
Aqualung
Member
Member # 53

posted 09-24-1999 03:02 PM     Profile for Aqualung   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
You're under the assumption that 'upgrading' our fleet is going to be cheaper then purchasing a fleet of F-22's.

Simply upgrading the systems on the F-15 is more involved then I think you're aware of. Hardware and software will need to be developed, integrated, and tested (this isn't like taking your P200 and sticking in a PIII). Hardware and software are very specific for the platform. Just upgrading the computers on the plane will require a software rewrite, which will take years to complete. Not to mention the functionality to deploy the newer weapons. The costs here easily go into the hundred of millions. And what about maintance costs for these 20+ year old fighters to keep the current systems operational? That isn't going to be cheap either.

Also, the F-22 when it is produced isn't going to be the $200M that people are franticizing about. Yes, that is the cost for the first batch (which are going to be used for tests), but the first planes always costs more. Tools, diagnostic equipment, and training need to be purchased. When the F-22 goes into full production swing, the cost per plane will lower.

In the short run, we will save money by canning the F-22 program, but in the long run, maintance and upgrade costs are going to surpass the amount that we would have spent if we just bought F-22's.

-Aqualung


Posts: 143 | From: Altamonte Springs, Fl | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JimG
Member
Member # 153

posted 09-24-1999 03:54 PM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
"In the short run, we will save money by canning the F-22 program,but in the long run, maintance and upgrade costs are going to surpass the amount that we would have spent if we just bought F-22's.
-Aqualung

Absolutely true my friend. Most folks don't realize what condition our F-15s are in..not too good, and we are going to expect our pilots to use them against Su-35s/EF-2Ks, Rafaels or Gripens in the next 10-15 years?. We must be willing to pay the price just like we did with the F-15 program and consequently have reaped the benefits for 20+ years.This is an investment into our future.


Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Thrasher
Member
Member # 335

posted 09-25-1999 07:09 AM     Profile for Thrasher   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'd like to know more about optically invisible aircraft.
I've seen pictures of an optically invisible tank, in development by the US Army...it's
fantastic to see (or rather, not to see).
In a dogfight, the opposer of such an aircraft would be hopelessly disadvantaged.

------------------
Thrasher, 313th VFS


Posts: 139 | From: Wierden, Ov, The Netherlands | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Thrasher
Member
Member # 335

posted 09-25-1999 07:17 AM     Profile for Thrasher   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Combatsim has an article on the F-22,
and how it will greatly reduce maintenance
costs etc.
Less maintenance crew is required and less
spare parts.
And we're not talking 10% less here, but
more like 50 to 65 percent...

I think the Raptor will pay for itself.

------------------
Thrasher, 313th VFS


Posts: 139 | From: Wierden, Ov, The Netherlands | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Fulcrum
unregistered

posted 09-27-1999 05:33 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Optical invisiblility? How does that work?
Why was the F22 picked instead of the YF23? The 23 was a gorgeous plane! (Oh, to have the F23's looks with the 22's capability)

IP: Logged
Thrasher
Member
Member # 335

posted 09-27-1999 05:48 AM     Profile for Thrasher   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Optical invisibility works by means of a computer controlled fiberglass coating on the
plane/tank/whatever.
The light that falls on one side of the
object is projected on the other side.
The result is that the object is invisible to the naked eye, or maybe it would have
a kind of 'Predator' effect.
The tank, for example, was invisible except for the tire tracks and the engine smoke.
Quite a remarkable sight.
But I'm still not 100% sure if this technology is a rumour or a fact.
You really can't believe pictures anymore
these days..

------------------
Thrasher, 313th VFS


Posts: 139 | From: Wierden, Ov, The Netherlands | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
KMHPaladin
Member
Member # 240

posted 09-27-1999 09:05 AM     Profile for KMHPaladin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
One of Stephen Coonts' latest books deals with both the F-22 and optical invisibility, fitted to some of those F-22s (for those interested, the Japanese field an advanced new fighter, attack the US, etc...) It's a decent book, especially if you're interested in the F-22 in the future.

I for one, would tend to agree with the continued development of the F-22. The sorry fact remains that the United States is blissfully ignorant of the necessities of an updated military until it becomes embroiled in war. From Jefferson's gunboats in the Mediterranean to the P-40s and Wildcats in WWII and F-4s in Vietnam, we have been a technological step behind in most major conflicts. Would you want to go into an infantry engagement today with a Lee Enfield rifle? Only when the war starts does the public actually turn its views towards spending on the decrepit military that peactime cuts have nearly castrated. This habit leads to American deaths because of inferior equipment.

I am greatly interested in technology like the F-22 not just because it is a fascinating aircraft, but because it makes sense. From an economic standpoint, it may well be cheaper to upgrade the F-15 (although the people above have introduced evidence to the contrary, and it makes sense) but it is easy to overlook the lives of American pilots and soldiers in the future. We cannot afford to ignore future. We have to look objectively, and do the right thing - upgrade.

------------------
-KMHPaladin
- "The duty of the fighter pilot is to patrol his
area of the sky, and shoot down any enemy
fighters in that area. Anything else is rubbish."
Baron Manfred von Richthofen, 1917
- [email protected]



Posts: 794 | From: RPI - Troy, NY; originally from South Jersey | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Thrasher
Member
Member # 335

posted 09-27-1999 01:30 PM     Profile for Thrasher   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Were you just saying that some F-22's have been fitted with optical invisibility technology or is that hypothetical?

------------------
Thrasher, 313th VFS


Posts: 139 | From: Wierden, Ov, The Netherlands | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rick.50cal
Member
Member # 172

posted 09-27-1999 05:08 PM     Profile for Rick.50cal     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
There was an article about optical invis and IR invis in a Popular Science article several years back (95 or 96).

Tests were done on a B-17 and later during V-nam in USA on a F-4 phantom2. It is a real program, but I doubt its deployed on ANY operationnal AC. I have not heard anything to sugest the F-22 will do that, since that may kill the RCS. In future, strike jets or cruise missiles attacking in dailight at low level may turn on a 'headlight' to prevent AAA systems getting an early bead on the incoming missile, but it would have to be protected with the 'gold glass' so the radar would not pick the missile up even further out!!

------------------
Rick.50cal


Posts: 520 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rick.50cal
Member
Member # 172

posted 09-27-1999 05:13 PM     Profile for Rick.50cal     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I should add that the original version of O invis was just to use lights to make the distant black spot of the aircraft not be black anymore. the eye would then not be able to track or even pick up the plane. Even the old version was so effective that it was kept top secret for a very long time.

When I worked at the airport (civie, Vancouver Intl.), we saw similar thing on a few occasions, where the landing lights would obscure the jet, making the recognisable part much smaller and broken up.

------------------
Rick.50cal


Posts: 520 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Cinders
Member
Member # 403

posted 09-27-1999 08:22 PM     Profile for Cinders   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I believe the lights were referred to as 'Yehudi' lights. It consisted of several lights at various locations on the ac that were variable in intensity, as Rick indicated, to erase the black spot in the sky an ac appears to be at a distance. Navy patrol/sub hunters used them operationally during WW2 to enable them to sneak up on surfaced subs and attack before the subs could submerge...the system was found to be very effective, and as Rick mentioned, the system was kept under wraps for a long time.
The hardest problem was to get the light intensity correct for the given conditions, but with todays sensors and chips the 'Yehudi' have been looked into again.

Posts: 112 | From: Lancaster, CA US | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Thrasher
Member
Member # 335

posted 09-28-1999 07:40 AM     Profile for Thrasher   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
That's all very interesting (really),
but I ws talking about optical invisibility by means of omputer controlled fiberglass.
I'm sure the Yehudi method is very effective when you're looking to the front of the ac,
but from any other side, or from a short distance, the ac would be very recognisable.

All I really want to know is;
Is work being conducted on optically invisible aircraft using computer controlled fiberglass?

------------------
Thrasher, 313th VFS


Posts: 139 | From: Wierden, Ov, The Netherlands | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Thrasher
Member
Member # 335

posted 09-28-1999 07:41 AM     Profile for Thrasher   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
excuse my typo's...

------------------
Thrasher, 313th VFS


Posts: 139 | From: Wierden, Ov, The Netherlands | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Kurt Plummer
Member
Member # 358

posted 09-28-1999 01:39 PM     Profile for Kurt Plummer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thrasher,

I heard it's actually a /paint/ material and yes, it's been done. Of all things, using the A-10.

The polymer contains carbon whiskers that self-align into 'circuit analogue' type shapes when applied correctly. These then accept low-level, vari-voltaged surface charges to alter the chemical values of the paint. And hence it's color.

The AvLeak article I read awhile back stated that the colors themselves were rather limited and errrr, 'intense'; varying from Robins Egg Blue to Rust Brown Red with a couple Greens in-between. Surprisingly 'shocking' works better for camo at a lot of ambient/atmosphere lighting conditions.

As stated a light meter measures specular refraction (rather like tuning one of the later monitors for 3D performance) as well as color 'value' and the total /shape/ can be alterred with various patterns designed to reduce the apparent size or change the geometry. White wing/black wing or Su-27 planform in the middle of the A-10 'background' for instance.

As a secondary plus, when uncharged, the paint forms a kind of RAM.

As for the rest. HiMAT routinely kicked the snot out of F-15's when they were /new/ and using HOBA weapons and shape-tracking algorithms to cue them, the days of dogfighting are _long past_.

You go, you EOID, you bring into envelope and you killshot.

Typically by the simplest methods available: bank and pitch plus POWER. At greater instantaneous and sustained G than any manned jet can manage and with better 'eyesight' than any man can /hope/ to be born with.

This doesn't mean that an F-22 is useless but it could be 'ideally' ($$) paired with larger 'lead sweep' numbers of ACM drones.

Using the odd support-fire assassination salvo of VERY long range AAM's to generate a 'dynamic' which the RoboDobie merge-fighters could further exploit to their advantage.

The problem is a bomber is too role-limited and would still likely 'prove' the technology for a fighter (controls wise) while a fighter is, as mentioned, aero-embarrassing to an elite pilot community paid 40-80 grand a year to practice being a killer by boring holes around a CAP anchor.

It will take some small nation, tired of getting the crap kicked out them by Big Powers and realizing that manned pilots are too 'survival-wise' to launch on a 1 vs. 100 basis even if the budge can afford 60 million apop for replacements.

That nation will then develop the 10-20 million dollar auto-solution means of fighting a sacrificial war and we will be beaten so badly that we /have to/ develop the counter.

In the mean time, a lot of bioware is gonna get charred and I'll laugh my a$$ off watching those who 'said it couldn't be done' watching their piloted-billions get wiped up with a blotter made from a checkbook.


Kurt Plummer


Posts: 672 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Ghost5-2
unregistered

posted 09-29-1999 02:43 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Lets do not forget that stealth is not the only new thing about the F22. Im talkin about supercruise,internal weaponbays, high turn rates as well at high speeds as low speeds,thrust vectoring,... .These are also great advantages which are lacking to todays fighters.
Im sure stelth will also have advantages especially against with low-cost military hardware who cant afford costly radars,missiles,... capable of tracking stealthy planes.

IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 09-30-1999 07:01 AM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Cinders, Kirt Plummer - you're points regarding UAV's are fascinating, to say the least! I had never thought of UAV's from the point of view of weaker nations. I always assumed we(USA,NATO) would deploy them first. But because UAV's, especially combat UAV's, are anathema to the pilot community, I espect they won't come into use even though the technology is there now.

But I can see the appeal of having a fleet of UAV's for a country like China or Iran, for example. Knowing that they would be subject to massive losses in any air combat against the United States and our well-equipped allies, I can see where such countries would find combat UAV's, or RPV's, very appealing. They wouldn't have to sentence hundreds of their pilots to death.

A country like China could build hundreds of UAV's and since there are no pilots, there is no need to fly the UAV regularly, so you have much smaller maintenence costs also. And UAV's will not fight in a timid or ineffective manner because they have no sense of self preservation. Perfect for a disadvantaged power. (Anybody who fight us, that is)


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved