U.S. to make final decision on future F-22.

rjmaz1

New Member
1# There was no assumptions at all here, it was either copied from wiki, or the simplest possible math.
You are then misinterpreting public information excluding required data to form a conclusion that is unrealistic. Narrow minded definitely fits that description.

For example wikipedia states that the F-111 has a range of 5,000kms, a payload of 14,000kg and a max speed of mach 2.5. You could make the assumption that an F-111 can travel at Mach 2.5 for 5,000kms while carrying 14,000kg of weapons. That would be utterly incorrect and is an exaggerated example just to give you an idea on how you could misinterpret data. There is no public information showing the reduction in range with increased speak/payload of the F-22/35, simple math goes out the window unless you put in the correct data.

Its not as simple as dividing the maximum range in half to calculate the combat radius.

Comparing the range of two aircraft one with external fuel tanks and one without when both aircraft can carry external tanks is not a comparison. You have not once produced numbers with an apple to apple comparison.

Using the un-armed Ferry range of the F-15 Eagle is not a fair comparison. Specially when the F-35 carries its weapons internally so in combat configuration it receives a much smaller reduction in range compared to the F-15 Eagle due to less drag.

I'm not going to waste more time on you.
Its a shame it may take years until you'll realize you are wrong.

Start comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges and you may see the light.. i'll try not to hold my breathe. :D
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If there is a continued failure for people to control themselves then this thread will end up like the other F-22 thread. ie closed.
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Langley Officials Fight to Keep F-22s from Being Damaged

(Source: US Air Force; issued April 9, 2008)

BASH to save aircraft, pilots and a few "clams".

LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. --- The Air Force's newest and most technologically advanced fighter, the F-22 Raptor, is under attack here.

Free-falling clams dropped by in-flight birds are regular air threats to the F-22 as gulls drop fist-sized mollusks on the Langley Air Force Base runway to break open the shell-fish appetizer.

The birds' shelling device just happens to be a convenient launch pad for the F-22. Although the gulls remove half their mess -- slurping up tender meat from the runway -- they leave behind hard, brittle sea shells for an F-22 to suck up through its engine intake that can cause severe damage.

Although the Air Force is wildlife-friendly, Lt. Col. Lawrence Spinetta, the 1st Fighter Wing Safety Office chief, isn't willing to let a $10.2 million jet engine go to the birds -- or the clams.

Langley AFB officials run an aggressive flight-safety program to mitigate the Bird and Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard, also called BASH.

"BASH is particularly important for Raptors because they are so expensive," Colonel Spinetta said. "If we lose one aircraft, it costs the Air Force and taxpayers $135 million.

Most wildlife threats to aircraft are birds, although deer, coyotes, turtles and even clams are also foreign-object-debris threats, said Tom Olexa, a wildlife biologist from the U.S. Department of Agriculture at Langley AFB.

"A key component of BASH is to ensure the safety for our pilots and aircraft," Mr. Olexa said. "But we also want to protect (wildlife) from being struck by our aircraft. There's a conservation here that we're all responsible for."

All people, not just Air Force officials, are obligated stewards of the environment, he said. But "aircraft conservation" is a priority for Air Combat Command officials, because Air Force "birds" belong to taxpayers, Colonel Spinetta said.

"A little sparrow may not seem like it's a threat to a 60,000-pound aircraft, but it is, particularly if it gets sucked down the intake," he said. Even if a bird strike doesn't cause a crash, damages soar into the millions.

Federal Aviation Administration officials claimed birds cost the civil aviation industry about $600 million per year. Air Force officials coughed up approximately $16 million in 2007 from bird-strike damages. Only a few types of birds account for the majority of the damage. Certain species in particular do more than peck at the Air Force wallet.

For example, the turkey vulture alone accounts for nearly 800 strikes and more than $51 million in Air Force flying history, said Dan Sullivan, the Air Force BASH deputy chief and wildlife scientist. It ranks No. 1 in Air Force bird strikes.

However, the most expensive bird is the American white pelican. In only 18 strikes, this bird accounts for more than $257 million in damages. Mr. Sullivan said this cost is attributed to the size and weight of the bird -- a whopping 20 pounds -- compared to an average 5 pounds for the turkey vulture.

"The black vulture and turkey vulture are the greatest threat to Air Force aircraft overall because they are somewhat large and soar at high altitudes -- about 3,000 feet," Mr. Sullivan said. "During the day as the air warms up, they ride a rising thermal draft. Their high altitude makes them hard to detect from the ground." These vultures, among other avian species, are increasing in population because of U.S. conservation efforts, he said.

Other threatening birds at high altitudes include all raptor species. Mr. Sullivan said these birds are also increasing in numbers because the U.S. stopped using dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, a pesticide known as DDT. The cessation of DDT use was necessary, he said, because it threatened the once-endangered bald eagle. But an offshoot of this action means the Air Force shares more of its airspace.

And sharing airspace with birds is a moderate concern to Air Force pilots. "I think it would be a life-changing event to have a 5-pound Canadian Goose smash through your windshield at 400 knots," said Colonel Spinetta, who is also an F-15 Eagle pilot.

No pilot wants to share the cockpit with fowl, but avoiding birds in midair isn't an option. "It's very difficult (to dodge a bird) at the speeds we're going, (350 to 400 mph at low altitude)," said Capt. Ray Thaler, an F-22 pilot and chief of flight safety. "(With) birds being very small, you never usually see them until the last half-second."

The problem is, he said, a single bird can take out an entire engine, could break through a canopy and hit you in the cockpit. This becomes more serious in single-engine aircraft like the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Although there is no pilot training for bird strikes as a specific hazard, Captain Thaler said they train for many procedures, including low-altitude engine loss, which would apply to bird strikes.

Almost nothing can be done, short term, to avoid high-altitude strikes. But the Langley AFB BASH team is heading up a project to track the migration of the osprey, the fifth most-dangerous bird species to aircraft, Colonel Spinetta said. There are more than 72 osprey nests within a 20-mile radius of Langley AFB.

To mitigate the growing threat, officials from the 1st FW, NASA and USDA came up with a unique way to track the osprey.

"Captured birds were fitted with Global Positioning Systems-capable transmitters ... (that) transmit the altitude, speed and direction of travel of each bird every two hours," Colonel Spinetta said in an editorial for the Flight Safety Magazine. "As a result, Langley AFB has been able to pinpoint nests and focus its reduction, suppression and prevention efforts to eliminate many osprey hazards."

The nests are usually relocated to safer areas by USDA members.

Other more traditional techniques for eliminating hazards involve harassing birds on the airfield, Mr. Olexa said. The most common tool is simply a combination of pyrotechnics and artificial bird distress calls, called bioacoustics. This, he said, is especially useful for birds like gulls that drop their food on the runway. Other long-term techniques take a bit more forethought, called habitat manipulation.

"The trick is to make the airfield less attractive to wildlife," Mr. Sullivan said. One way is by planting certain grass species that cause an upset stomach to geese. Another example is to avoid planting fruit/nut producing trees.

The Langley AFB BASH team also covered tall airfield objects with spiny metal strips, or cone shaped devices, to deny perching to birds.

One technique, which is considered a last resort, is called depredation, or lethal action. But Mr. Sullivan said the purpose of lethal action is to remind other birds there's an actual threat, not to terminate the flock.

"Most of what the Air Force does in its BASH program is non-lethal," he said. "We move the birds away from the threat of aircraft."

The lethal action Air Force officials take is a response to birds becoming accustomed to non-lethal methods. Lethal action on a few birds prevents the majority from settling in an area where they would be more endangered from aircraft strikes. Birds are smart; they begin to understand when there's a real threat, or just harassment, Mr. Sullivan said.

The techniques used by USDA and BASH teams have earned credibility with Air Force commanders. From 1995 to 2000, Langley AFB officials spent more than $1.6 million in aircraft damage from wildlife strikes. Since they employed the services of USDA in 2001, there was a 98 percent reduction in cost. From 2001 to 2006 wildlife strikes accounted for a mere $31,000.

"Pocket change," Colonel Spinetta said, compared to the previous five years' cost. This kind of savings is exactly what BASH teams are designed to accomplish.

"We're flying multimillion dollar aircraft that belong to our taxpayers," Mr. Sullivan said. "It's our responsibility to mitigate loss of life and equipment."

But the effort goes much further than a dollar figure. Human life and wildlife are on the line, he said. And that's why BASH and USDA Wildlife services are partnered up to save aircraft, pilots, birds and maybe even a few clams.
 

Dr Freud

New Member
The problem is, he said, a single bird can take out an entire engine, could break through a canopy and hit you in the cockpit.
This sounds unrealistic, that bird has been eating stones intentionally!
Engines are expected to be able to withstand smaller birds, i guess gulls are borderline cases
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #45
1# There was no assumptions at all here, it was either copied from wiki, or the simplest possible math.
[Admin: Text deleted: Language please. Read the forum rules]
3# You ended up in transit regardless the topic.
4# You are making assumptions:
The specs are allready there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
I'm not going to waste more time on you.
Fist of all you mis read what rjmaz1 said. Right now the top speed of the F-35 is 1200mph, but it could be incrased in the furure just like they did with the F-22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
# Maximum speed:

* At altitude: Mach 2+[71][72] (1,325+ mph, 2,132+ km/h)
* Supercruise: Mach 1.72 (1,140 mph, 1,825 km/h)[1][70] at altitude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
# Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[65] (1,200 mph, 1,931 km/h)
# Range: A: 1,200 nmi; B: 900 nm; C: 1400 nm[65] (A: 2,200 km; B: 1,667 km; C: 2,593 km) on internal fuel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle
# Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission
# Ferry range: 3,100 nmi (3,570 nmi, 5,745 km) with external conformal fuel tanks

1200 miles/hour = 1.617649003570677 Mach [Dry Air @ 273 Kelvin]
http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversion_calculators/speed-conversion.shtml

Dont present any more numbers without a mathematical formula and/or a link that i can evaluate ok ?
3 things:

1. don't trust wiki

2. 1200mph is the same as Mach 1.8, not Mach 1.6 which is more 1056mph. If you don't believe me then go look up the F/A-18 and any source will say the F-18 has a top speed of 1190mph(Mach 1.8), so there for the F-35 is slightly faster than Mach 1.8.

3. You seam to get combat range and ferry range mix. Ferry range is were the F-15 has only external fuel tanks for long range flights to say across the ocean, thats means with 3 fuel tanks for a range of 3570 miles but no weapons can be carried. Combat radius is the range a fighter can go with a full load of weapons and no external fuel tanks. The combat radius of the F-15 and F-35 are the same.
 

Dr Freud

New Member
1) I have unfortunately just recieved news that i can in fact not completely trust wiki, but in lack of any more trustworthy, i will have to use it as a reference.
2) In case
http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversion_calculators/speed-conversion.shtml

is correct, and i will have to trust it until something more trustworthy comes by, 1200 miles/hour = 1.617649003570677 Mach [Dry Air @ 273 Kelvin].

I just checked F18:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18 1190 miles/hour = mach 1.8;
but according to http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversion_calculators/speed-conversion.shtml
1190 miles/hour=1.6041685952075881 Mach [Dry Air @ 273 Kelvin],

perhaps this is one of these cases when wiki screw it up ?
i will be right back with a more careful investigation.

3) Again, F15 # Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission, combat radius as in with weapons. And i will take this for truth until anything more trustworthy comes by.

I really appreciate you provided me with the source as to why you claim 1190 miles/hour = mach 1.8, as it gives me a chance to verify it.
I cant stress how important this is.
 
Last edited:

Dr Freud

New Member
The fact of the matter is that the aircraft companies are using different temperature and altitude when they define Mach 1. correctly in a scientific point of view, but pain in the ass from an evaluation point of view, and i guess thats why they do it.:hitwall

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/atmosphere/q0112.shtml

so i guess its up to anyone to define speed of whatever fighter/bomber/whatever out there at undisclosed altitude.
 
Last edited:

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #48
1) I have unfortunately just recieved news that i can in fact not completely trust wiki, but in lack of any more trustworthy, i will have to use it as a reference.
2) In case
http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversion_calculators/speed-conversion.shtml

is correct, and i will have to trust it until something more trustworthy comes by, 1200 miles/hour = 1.617649003570677 Mach [Dry Air @ 273 Kelvin].

I just checked F18:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18 1190 miles/hour = mach 1.8;
but according to http://www.sciencelab.com/data/conversion_calculators/speed-conversion.shtml
1190 miles/hour=1.6041685952075881 Mach [Dry Air @ 273 Kelvin],

perhaps this is one of these cases when wiki screw it up ?
i will be right back with a more careful investigation.

3) Again, F15 # Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission, combat radius as in with weapons. And i will take this for truth until anything more trustworthy comes by.

I really appreciate you provided me with the source as to why you claim 1190 miles/hour = mach 1.8, as it gives me a chance to verify it.
I cant stress how important this is.
The F-18 and F-35 have the same top speeds of 1200mph. As for the F-15 it can go Mach 2+ but thats unrealistic and uses up too much fuel for only a few minutes of flight time so it has never gone past Mach 1.6 or 1056mph in combat.

I should also note that because the F-15s average on 25 years old or more F-15 pilots are told never to go past Mach 1.5 due to safety concerns.

As for the F-15 in order to go 1,061 nmi for a interdiction mission, the F-15 will have to give up 4 of its 8 AAMs for a fuel tank. That means the F-15 carries 1 fuel tank and 4 AAMs. The F-35 can carry 2 fuel tanks under the wings, 4 internal AAMs plus 4 more AAMs under the wings and wingtips on external hardpoints and that gives the F-35 a better advantage. For a 600+ nmi range the F-35 can carry 10 or maybe 12 AAMs well the F-15 can only carry 8 when having no fuel tanks. For performance they both can pull up to +9G in air combat maneuvors for dogfighting.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
You could dream up a hundred scenarios, and show the F-35 will be as effective as the F-22, but the die hards will still say the F-22 can go Mach 2. You can argue that more F-35 aircraft in the air with smaller patrol areas is better than a F-22, but the diehards will still say the F-22 covers more air space. Numbers don't effect their reasoning, or tactics used by the USAF, or the Congress, because they see just as many F-22s being bought as F-35s. And that is not likely to happen as we all know, except for the die hards. Then you have the interceptor pilots vs. the fighter-bomber pilots. Neither type of pilot sees the worth of the other. This is an ongoing argument for decades, the F-15 pilots shouting down the F-16 and F/A-18 pilots and vice a versa. And unfortunately, price doesn't seem to have any effect.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
On the surface, it looks like US air force is trying to focusing on quality and not quantity. IMHO, what is not said is more important, which is to keep the F22 production line open long enough before they introduce upgrades to the F22.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #53
On the surface, it looks like US air force is trying to focusing on quality and not quantity. IMHO, what is not said is more important, which is to keep the F22 production line open long enough before they introduce upgrades to the F22.
Yeah but produce strain on the air force buy retiring over 300 fighters? They don't even know if they are going to get more F-22s. Yeah I support more F-22s but it is unclear if the DOD will allow it. Why risk losing 300 fighters if they don't know they are going to get the replacements?
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yeah but produce strain on the air force by retiring over 300 fighters? They don't even know if they are going to get more F-22s. Yeah I support more F-22s but it is unclear if the DOD will allow it. Why risk losing 300 fighters if they don't know they are going to get the replacements?

Is it not the case that if they are "retiring" these 300 A/C, they are actually going to Air National Guard units to replace things like F4 Phantoms & the like, that are getting to the end of their airframe flight hours ??

SA
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #55
Is it not the case that if they are "retiring" these 300 A/C, they are actually going to Air National Guard units to replace things like F4 Phantoms & the like, that are getting to the end of their airframe flight hours ??

SA
It says retiring the 300 or so fighters. Plus the F-4 were retired in the 1990s.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest

Totoro

New Member
It'd leave them with more like 1000 F-16s left, but yeah, it's still a big number.

edit: just checked out the actual figures, it'd leave usaf with 'mere'

523 F15s, 1091 F-16s and 334 A-10s. And, well, added F-22s and so on...
 
Last edited:

F-15 Eagle

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #60
I thought the USAF will only have 129 F-15Cs unless the 140 or so F-15s that where grounded last year are back in service and not retired.

I just remember reading from insidedefense.com that once retiring the 137 F-15Cs there will only be 129 F-15Cs plus the 217 F-15Es and 183 F-22s.

The USAF will be left with 1100 F-16s not 2000 by the way.

There goal is to use the savings to accelerate the F-35, keep the F-22 in production, modernize bombers and buy more UAVs.
 
Top