F-22 is a mistake?

[bf-fly]

You are talking about a different subject, not TVC-topic. The IR and stealth is interesting but these are taught on different courses for the folks who will be professionals about that field. There is no surer way to mess up any task than mixing all simultenously together in one issue.

It would seem you've been taking dance lessons because that is some fancy footwork my friend. Courses? How about we bring the discussion out of the classroom and into reality. If all we were discussing was TVC and only TVC then certainly the Russian 3D is more complex, capable and yes, elegant. In a vacuum, sure, but lets take that system and add a real word requirement, stealth. Now we need to compromise somehow since all out capability TVC competes directly with IR and Radar signature. A blended response is required and compromises must be made. A F-22 with a TVC of similar design to the Russian TVC would simply destroy it's stealth. Keep in mind it was often said that the F-117 had the radar signature of a common marble. It has been noted from numerous sources that the F-22 is stealthier than the F-117. Adding 3D TVC of similar design to the Russian aircraft would simply ruin it's stealth. The F-22 nozzle is VERY carefully designed to minimize it's radar return and IR signature as an equal or greater consideration to it's aid in maneuverability.

...I watched the recommended video about the "stealth nozzle". It seemed rather hot gases coming out of there!

You certainly missed the point there as well. An F-22 in supercruise (without burner) has it's exhaust cooled by design with bypass air makes for a very difficult IR target. Once the afterburner is used (as the video shows) the IR stealth has been compromised at the very least but that system still exists and would aid in rapid cooling once the burner is turned off. If you look very closely you'll see both bypass ducts built into the sides of the nozzles, and once installed, top and bottom bypass ducts on the airframe. In short, there is a seperate core of hot air (from a very high EPR) surrounded and mixed with bypass air at the nozzle. (I know you fully understand bypass air as it pertains to a turbofan engine as well as air tapped upstream for systems such as pressurization and anti ice) It's clear to me that a a significant effort was made to hide it's IR signature by blending it's exhaust air with cooler air. The Russian design has no such requirement or capability.

[bf-fly]

It's pretty obvious to me that quite a lot of attention was paid to signature reduction of the F-22's exhaust.

[pseudolife]

I think that what BFfly is saying is that the nozzle on the F22 is designed that way for very specific reasons. Its not like the american engineers can't make a more "elegant" design like the one on the Russian planes, they did actually, there were thrust vectored versions of the F16 and F15 for testing long before the F22.

[bf-fly]

Which do you think is more elegant?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt3neRLquDI

+/- 17 degrees

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vdbQ...eature=related

+/- 15 degrees

[sicsok]

A bit of refining a few words, subjects I wish to bring to attention:
1.The F-22 and similar projects do not neccessarily need canards to maneuver the way that canard/wing/tail configurations do. The "mission adaptive wing" combined with appropriate software can achieve the goal without the weight and other (albeit minor) disadvantages of the canards.
2.I am not sufficiently impressed by the F-22. Not because I think that it is inferior compared to other fighters. Not at all. BUT: It is inferior to the plane it should be! At the time of it's conception the technology already had a lot more at hand than this gold-plated and diamond-priced "marvel" finally got built in herself.
3.It is however the crew station (which was not considered a main kudo of the new design) that makes this fighter extremely tempting to be flown. Even that the possibilities could have made this a lot better too (so this cabin is a conservative choice!), the pilot got every help he may need, in comfort and so minimal workload that he can concentrate on the opponent without restraint. Compared to other fighters (even the Rafale) it is the best point.
4.The interior weapon bay is a double edge device: The opponents can not know in advance that the F-22 is armed at all, and if so - what does it carry. (Concealed carry). But the launch-envelopes and other mechanical-tactical added penalties may not make it worth at all.
5.Let's not be taken by the price in itself either. This unreal price tag (far more than the worth) could drop so suddenly in case of real need as one just say "chimichanga"! (The top and proven CAD-CAM robotic manufacturing can quickly fill the big Arizona desert-junk yard!)
6.About the Sukhoy: In the hands of an experienced, but mature pilot it can be just as good (and in some areas better) than ANY current opponent. But for pilots that can be recruited nowadays and trained (spoiled too by their daily indoctrinations to miriads of the electronic gizmos)-only the F-22 type planes with appropriate infrastructure to quick mass-production can be relied upon as not swollen, yet sufficient readyness and deterrent.
BTW(To pseudo): The type that is used on Flankers and Fulcrom OVT-s are the CURRENTLY USED best solutions, but there are many thrust-vectoring patents and tested varieties (even without moving hardware parts!). And the above mentioned type was already experimented, built and tested by Aerojet General in the 70-ies (maybe a bit earlier too) but NOT USED. Abandoned.

[pseudolife]

Originally Posted by sicsok

A bit of refining a few words, subjects I wish to bring to attention:
1.The F-22 and similar projects do not neccessarily need canards to maneuver the way that canard/wing/tail configurations do. The "mission adaptive wing" combined with appropriate software can achieve the goal without the weight and other (albeit minor) disadvantages of the canards.
2.I am not sufficiently impressed by the F-22. Not because I think that it is inferior compared to other fighters. Not at all. BUT: It is inferior to the plane it should be! At the time of it's conception the technology already had a lot more at hand than this gold-plated and diamond-priced "marvel" finally got built in herself.
3.It is however the crew station (which was not considered a main kudo of the new design) that makes this fighter extremely tempting to be flown. Even that the possibilities could have made this a lot better too (so this cabin is a conservative choice!), the pilot got every help he may need, in comfort and so minimal workload that he can concentrate on the opponent without restraint. Compared to other fighters (even the Rafale) it is the best point.
4.The interior weapon bay is a double edge device: The opponents can not know in advance that the F-22 is armed at all, and if so - what does it carry. (Concealed carry). But the launch-envelopes and other mechanical-tactical added penalties may not make it worth at all.
5.Let's not be taken by the price in itself either. This unreal price tag (far more than the worth) could drop so suddenly in case of real need as one just say "chimichanga"! (The top and proven CAD-CAM robotic manufacturing can quickly fill the big Arizona desert-junk yard!)
6.About the Sukhoy: In the hands of an experienced, but mature pilot it can be just as good (and in some areas better) than ANY current opponent. But for pilots that can be recruited nowadays and trained (spoiled too by their daily indoctrinations to miriads of the electronic gizmos)-only the F-22 type planes with appropriate infrastructure to quick mass-production can be relied upon as not swollen, yet sufficient readyness and deterrent.

well said.

[sicsok]

I attached the meaty part.

[Eugene]

I tried to make a comparison between F-22 and Su-30MK versions(which is the worst oppenent for F-22 in the real world) but using prooved information from the web not from my mind.

What i found was ... nothing cause simply there is no information about these planes(only weights and how many missles they carry)
If anybody has information please post them

So you guys(me included) how the hell you know which one is better??
For example do you know the turning radius of these planes in certain altitudes?
If not how you know which one is better in dogfighting?

[sicsok]

If this comparative analysis would be as important to me as it is to many other forum-speakers - I would do the following to get valid and objective results:
1. I would gather the thrust/weight and wingloading data for the airplanes to be compared.
2. I would thoroughly look over the pictures about these planes and decide (not in the reverse sequence) which is less draggy (or more streamlined in various speed-regimes).
3. The lesser wing-loading generally gives better high-altitude performance (among other things).
4. For airplanes with equal thrust/weight ratios - the more streamlines and simpler shaped one will give better acceleration.
These are just the main variables though!
Size and deflection angle/rate of the control surfaces, engine characteristics (spool-up etc.), cockpit simplicity and comfort require a bit more homework and they are determinant in many situations.

There are very important factors that are not quantitative, not even qualitative...and yet in real life, practicality of them makes them major advantage or defect. For example:
Even without battlefield use, the gear lowering causes trouble many times. Consider this common occurence multiplied by minor battle-damages.
This is when it comes very handy that with the Flanker your unit does not lose an aircraft. It belly-lands on concrete or grass because of her titanium missile rails as it was shown on the ILA 2002.

I tried to be distant and objective, not evasive. You have to do the analysis, because the conclusions have to be yours. The less it will be opinion and more of objective and factual-the better is the analysis. But to repeat or deny what others opine? No sirree, not for me.
Sorry, no ready made answers for the many variables involved.
At the same time I am to busy yet too lazy to do such a comprehensive work as you require.
But good luck, good learning. If you come to judgement-I would like to read it though!

[cee47]

Very interesting discussion, personal attacks aside!

But one thing I notice is that no-one has mentioned:

STEALTH = FORCE MULTIPLICATION.

Imagine, in a serious large scale conflict scenario (ie. WWIII), what damage could be done by a force of air superiority fighters that can not be seen by conventional technology, that have the ability to see and attack opponents at up to 10 times the distance at which they themselves might possibly be detected and can therefore operate with almost total immunity in a hostile environment. There is an old adage - if you can't see it, you can't kill it.
There has been posted on the net a report by an F-15 pilot who engaged in 1 on 1 combat with an F-22 that even when given the location of the F-22 (approx 4 miles at 12 oclock), he could not see it and neither did it show up on any of his aircrafts' sensors. And this was while the F-22 had the F-15 "locked-up" via a third party sensor system (JSTARS).

The F-22 is NOT designed to get into a dogfight situation. It's sole function is to clear the skies of enemy opposition from as great a distance as possible.
And therein lies its value to the US military, regardless of unit cost.
Expensive it may be, but "mistake"? I think not!