Venezuelan Russian-made Flankers

[DaveGriffin]

Since the AF fighter guys are telling us the Flankers are such sh*t-hot airplanes, and since we don't have a full load-out of F-22s due to budget constraints, will the USAF be willing and able to offer assistance and provide air supremacy for our Columbian allies if we get the call?

Just sayin'

 

[mzaharis]

You a Weekly Standard reader?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/send_the_raptor_to_columbia.asp

 

[BiffF15]

Since the AF fighter guys are telling us the Flankers are such sh*t-hot airplanes, and since we don't have a full load-out of F-22s due to budget constraints, will the USAF be willing and able to offer assistance and provide air supremacy for our Columbian allies if we get the call?

Just sayin'

I would love to fly the Flanker as it appears to be very maneuverable as well as "overpowered" (if there is such a thing for fighter aircraft). However, after it's been doing the duty for 30+ years and garners a 100+ to ZERO kill ratio it will have earned it's place in history. And just because a third / second world country can afford a serious weapon doesn't mean they know how to use it.
And I wouldn't be surprised if you saw some very neat Raptor gun footage on CNN / Fox after that little bout...

 

[SIG600]

Look up the EM diagrams if you have access, it's not as impressive as they play it out to be.

Flat out speed yes, beyond that, it's a pilots fight.

 

[stonewall]

deleted......

 

[DaveGriffin]

You a Weekly Standard reader?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/03/send_the_raptor_to_columbia.asp

No, your link was the first time I've seen it, but I like it.

I was responding to comments made in this thread
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=109144
where AF fighter guys crybaby about how scary the bad guy's equipment is, the USAF not having enough top-o-the-line airplanes and threatening to quit if they don't get what they want.

The F-15 is a great fighter, just old. As it goes up against Su-30 MKKs, MKIs, improved MiG-29s, F-10s, and, later, the Su-35 and -37, it just doesn't have the edge any longer. Ditto for the Block 50/52. People are catching us. Oh, and their pilots fly 1.5-2x as much as we do.

Those of us flying the fast movers DO care about all that stuff. If we, as the pilots, ever start to feel that our lives are put at risk to save cash, then we'll start to see a pilot shortage. If our elected "leaders" look at the problem and say, "hey, we can lose up to 4 F-16CJ's and their pilots until we hit the cost of one F-35, let's do it," it'll be a sad day. That's when me and a lot of my bros quit flying.

The AF has been in overdrive recently trying to get their credibility back, with little success, even after playing the broken F-15 card and touting our potential enemy's superior airplanes and training. I keep expecting them to redesignate the Raptor the F/A-22, as it was originally when they were trying to get the concept approved.

Now, after the recent indignity of seeing our Sailors take the lead in Space, the former sole domain of the AF, with the satellite shootdown from a USN warship using just an ant-aircraft missile, they really need to put their PR machine in high gear.

 

[mzaharis]

Just a disclaimer - I wasn't trying to comment on whether it was a good idea or not, but I found it interesting that Dave Griffin posted that idea about the same time the article appeared on the Weekly Standard website (I saw it from a link provided by the Aviation Week Ares blog).

 

[LearLove]

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russ...&photo_nr=130&prev_id=1150509&next_id=1149933

I hope that if sig, mag or one of your other guys get a shot off at one of these that the su27 guy doesn't flail his arms legs if he ejects. thoes pitot tubes or air data sensors look mighty close and big/sharp.

are they higher than the cockpit or cockpit rail or does it just look like that from the pic?

 

[ABXbooger]

Seriously, from some of you guys who really know, is the Raptor really that good? I have heard and seen lots of positive stuff, is it PR or true? Not asking to reveal any secret stuff...

 

[SIG600]

Seriously, from some of you guys who really know, is the Raptor really that good? I have heard and seen lots of positive stuff, is it PR or true? Not asking to reveal any secret stuff...

From the little I've read and seen, it's flat out eye watering. It's surpassing all expectations and they are finding new and mysterious ways to exploit it's capabilities.

Magnum can answer better than I.


Dave, you're still a ********************ing tool. Don't talk, ever again. If I ever hear you say anything about the USAF and their ability to conduct CAS again I just may go out of my way to track you down and punch you in the face.

Oh, and get that Trident down. You're not a team member, I seem to remember it being proven.

 

[DaveGriffin]

From the little I've read and seen, it's flat out eye watering. It's surpassing all expectations and they are finding new and mysterious ways to exploit it's capabilities.

Magnum can answer better than I.


Dave, you're still a ********************ing tool. Don't talk, ever again. If I ever hear you say anything about the USAF and their ability to conduct CAS again I just may go out of my way to track you down and punch you in the face.

Oh, and get that Trident down. You're not a team member, I seem to remember it being proven.

Sh*tty AF CAS aside SIG, if MAGNUM is so freaked out by the superior airplanes and pilot training of our adversaries, he needs to get a nice REMF job. That shouldn't be too hard for him to do in the AF.

 

[414Flyer]

SU-30 is a fairly capable aircraft, but I would doubt Venezuelan AF would be very good at exploiting it. Doesnt matter what the aircraft can do, if the pilot cant.

I do have some photos of SU-30s, and videos of them taking off, that I illicitly filmed once. I once even saw one go down the runway in flames. Another time, one pass under my nose, with two off the wing. Too bad I didnt have my camcorder that time.

I think the best in South America would be Chilean F-16 pilots.

 

[SIG600]

Sh*tty AF CAS aside SIG, if MAGNUM is so freaked out by the superior airplanes and pilot training of our adversaries, he needs to get a nice REMF job. That shouldn't be too hard for him to do in the AF.

Ya, I've seen first hand how "sh1tty" my USAF bros conduct CAS in Afghanistan and Iraq. They've got nothing but respect from me. You're a troll and deserve a kick to the throat.

Poser. You're not even a Seal.

 

[stonewall]

Seriously, from some of you guys who really know, is the Raptor really that good?

Yes.

Dave is a dick. I've been in the military as long as he claims, and I'm still on the front lines. REMF that, azzhole. Man up, DG, and tell us where and how you really serve. No secret on my part. You?

There's no shame in being a SWO. Just admit it.

 

[JungleJett]

Put the festering hatchet wound on your ignore list......works good..last a long time.

 

[BiffF15]

Seriously, from some of you guys who really know, is the Raptor really that good? I have heard and seen lots of positive stuff, is it PR or true? Not asking to reveal any secret stuff...

Yes it is.

 

[Huggyu2]

I think the best in South America would be Chilean F-16 pilots.

Naw,.... I'd say the best in S.A. are the American Exchange officers flying with one of those countries.

 

[Mud Eagle]

Adding my voice to the chorus of people who have fought the Raptor and believe that it's capes *exceed* the hype it gets.

 

[mzaharis]

After Gen. Carlson's "politically incorrect", if possibly strategically correct, public statement (when he said that the air force would find a way to get around the Pentagon to get 380 Raptors, and joked that 380 Raptors were "a compromise" from their desired 381), the Air Force is looking for a compromise, and are asking by saying, "Pretty please with sugar on top."

<H3>USAF Leaders Prefer More F-22 Raptors


Mar 6, 2008
By Michael Bruno
Prodded specifically by the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman for their personal opinions, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and chief Gen. T. Michael Moseley allowed that their own preferences would be for additional F-22 Raptor fighters and an alternative Joint Strike Fighter engine.
The top two Air Force leaders repeatedly stressed their support for President Bush's fiscal 2009 budget request and outyear defense budget planning. Moreover, during the Wednesday hearing in front of the SASC they noted profound efforts to "salute smartly" in response to all budget-making guidance from White House and Pentagon superiors.
But explicitly asked by Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) to offer their personal assessments, Wynne and Moseley made clear their own desires for more Raptors and an alternative JSF engine. The Air Force leaders suggested the SASC chairman ask them for their personal opinions after Levin grew momentarily frustrated with their hesitation to respond to his direct questions on the issues.
The secretary said he believes the minimum number of Raptors needed to meet future requirements is probably the previous estimate of 277. Moseley stated that he personally does not believe that the official Defense Department plan for just 183 of the Lockheed Martin-made fighters is enough.
"No, sir," the chief of staff told Levin when the senator asked him.
Both men also allowed that a second JSF engine could be a smart move by Washington, citing engine experiences with F-16s. Wynne acknowledged that the "business case" for a second JSF engine undermines such an effort on that specific cost analysis, but the question for defense leaders and lawmakers might be more one of confidence in meeting capabilities rather than strict budget concerns.
"Affordability can't always be the rule," the secretary said.
Indeed, highlighting redundancy and reliability above cost concerns played a major role in Wynne's explanations for more Raptors, in light of planned JSFs, as well as another JSF engine. He recalled being able to rely on F-16s when F-15s had to be grounded after longeron failures were identified last fall following an F-15 crash.
Moseley said the Air Force tries to craft its official budget request following affordability guidance provided from above, but it also stands ready to answer where further dollars would be best spent. "We owe you what we believe it takes," the chief also said.
Regarding an alternative JSF power plant, Moseley suggested that the Air Force's concerns revolve around protecting the JSF program to roll it out to the other armed services and allies in time, rather than necessarily scuttling efforts toward a second engine.
Both men maintained that the service should get an additional $20 billion annually over proposed budgets in order to truly meet all the demands placed on it, including matching growing needs from burgeoning land services, which the air service leaders said they support.

</H3>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...ders Prefer More F-22 Raptors&channel=defense

 

[SIG600]

Did I read that wrong, or are they pushing for a SECOND engine in the JSF? As in two engines instead of one?

 

[NewmanF16]

You read it wrong. They want to have an "alternative" engine. The F-16 is built with both GE and Pratt and Wimpies. By having two engine manufacturers, you don't have issues with grounding the whole fleet if there is a defect (say afterburner cans falling off).

 

[mzaharis]

You read it wrong. They want to have an "alternative" engine. The F-16 is built with both GE and Pratt and Wimpies. By having two engine manufacturers, you don't have issues with grounding the whole fleet if there is a defect (say afterburner cans falling off).

As an ex-Pratt employee, I'm curious. Does the "wimpy" performance vis-a-vis the GE engines carry over to the 229s, or is it just a symptom of the 220s?

 

[NewmanF16]

I've heard the 229 is on par with the GE, but haven't flown it. I actually have more time in 220 Vipers than anything else. They are good engines, but just peeter out at altitude. The GEs climb like a homesick angel and never seem to run out of thrust.

 

[stonewall]

The F119-PW-100s on the F-22 are unbelievable in all respects. One of the huge success stories with the program, in my opinion.

Most of my time is in GE 129s, and I loved 'em. A little more fuel efficient than the PW in the Block 52, and it seemed to have more initial thrust.

 

[mzaharis]

The F119-PW-100s on the F-22 are unbelievable in all respects. One of the huge success stories with the program, in my opinion.

Most of my time is in GE 129s, and I loved 'em. A little more fuel efficient than the PW in the Block 52, and it seemed to have more initial thrust.

Glad to hear you like them. I was a manufacturing engineer on them when I was just a cub out of engineering school. A lot of interesting technology in them (most of which was above my security access - I just did the plumbing on it!). Amazing how they could increase performance between the F100/110 and the F119.

I always thought the early 100's got a bad rap. They're smaller, with smaller flow rates, than the 110, and to get the same thrust out of them, you need to stress them more (my understanding is that the F-110 is a larger engine, with higher flow rates, and which uses a larger intake). But I can understand how you guys on the pointy end of the spear want the most reliable, highest performing engine, and for the F-16, the F110, in any flavor, outperforms the F100-220. Glad to hear P&W sort of caught up on the 229.

 

[SIG600]

The F119-PW-100s on the F-22 are unbelievable in all respects. One of the huge success stories with the program, in my opinion.

Most of my time is in GE 129s, and I loved 'em. A little more fuel efficient than the PW in the Block 52, and it seemed to have more initial thrust.

Just how much poop do the -22 engines put out? (If you can say)

 

[BiffF15]

Glad to hear you like them. I was a manufacturing engineer on them when I was just a cub out of engineering school. A lot of interesting technology in them (most of which was above my security access - I just did the plumbing on it!). Amazing how they could increase performance between the F100/110 and the F119.

I always thought the early 100's got a bad rap. They're smaller, with smaller flow rates, than the 110, and to get the same thrust out of them, you need to stress them more (my understanding is that the F-110 is a larger engine, with higher flow rates, and which uses a larger intake). But I can understand how you guys on the pointy end of the spear want the most reliable, highest performing engine, and for the F-16, the F110, in any flavor, outperforms the F100-220. Glad to hear P&W sort of caught up on the 229.

Comparing the PW F100 series to the GE 110 series is a bit of apples and oranges. The PW engine came out well before the GE and most of it's growing pains were due to Eagle Drivers flying the plane differently than what the AF told PW they would (MUCH MUCH more throttle modulation and at a much higher altitude).
There are two sides to an engine: the pilot side and the maint / logistics side.
The PW hands down wins the maint / logistics side due to several core differences. First, it's a three piece motor (fan, compressor and afterburner / AB). When one part gets damaged the engine is pulled, and a new section swapped out, and back in it goes. During heavy Desert Storm type flying this engine is much more usable.
The GE engine weights less and makes more thrust (unless comparing a 229 to a 110 series). The GE is a nightmare in the field. Unable to blend blades much (FOD nicks repairs) or do any internal work in the field. Engine damaged / hurt and out it comes to be shipped back stateside or out of theater to depot. End result is you need more engines (therefor a more costly engine) per aircraft and not as sustainable in the field.
As a fighter pilot I would rather have the GE (especially in the Eagle). It performs better and even if it's fail rate is higher I would have two. Also, I'm the driver not the pit crew.
As a theater commander I would rather have the PW. More reliable, requires less in theater, and more maintainable with less supplies.

 

[mzaharis]

Just how much poop do the -22 engines put out? (If you can say)

The usual statement that is given to the public, and which P&W lists on their website, is "35,000 pound thrust class", in an engine the size of an F100. Take that for what it is worth. And consider that it's optimized for dry thrust to enable supercruise, so that's where the big benefits were seen (note, none of this info was based on my short employment at P&W, and is all based on public sources).

This Rand paper lists the dry thrust as 20,500 lb.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1596.pdf

I'm sure the F-22 drivers here know a more accurate number, but I'm also pretty sure they can't say.

 

[mzaharis]

As a fighter pilot I would rather have the GE (especially in the Eagle).

Very interesting comments, particularly regarding maintenance. Thank you.

AFAIK, the only Eagles with GEs are the South Korean Air Force and Singaporean ones, and the Saudis are swapping some of their F100-229s for F110-129s. Have you done exchange with one of these air forces?

 

[BiffF15]

Very interesting comments, particularly regarding maintenance. Thank you.

AFAIK, the only Eagles with GEs are the South Korean Air Force and Singaporean ones, and the Saudis are swapping some of their F100-229s for F110-129s. Have you done exchange with one of these air forces?

No exchange tours and have never flown and Eagle with the GE. The numbers being what they are (more thrust from a lighter engine) I would rather have it over the PW even though it's not as reliable. I have fought enough BLK 30 / 50 Vipers to know it's a good engine (even though the BLK 30 guys were clean and never in a combat drag index / configuration).