Ok i just wanted to know what yall think about the f-22 i really think its the best (espically better then the f-22) but i want to hear what yall think
and no i didnt learn about the f-22 from wikipidia i just now alot of ppl in the miltary and they have only told me good things about it.
one of the greatest things is that the engine pivots makeing it very easy to out Maneuver any jet also it can lock on onto anything at any direction (even backwards). Well, it is the best fighter in the world... for now... Just wait 'till the F-35 comes out, though!
hmmmm yeh the f-35b might not do as well though
And what you would say about su-37 ?? I have seen dose baby’s in action on air shows and youtube. On my knowledge any other wouldn’t have grater chance with him. It's just amazing.
I think new jet planes which are to come will have double the speed and half the weight!
| zeroburnrox wrote: |
| I think new jet planes which are to come will have double the speed and half the weight! |
Double the speed? How fast do they need to go, after all?
I'd look towards unmanned jets to be the wave of the future myself. (They would be half the weight.)In my opinion main direction will be still stealth technology. The speed won’t be taken into consideration.
lol su-37s are out of date compared to f-22s yes they have speed but thats it f-22s have firepower and easy manuverbilty. Not to mention that they have stealth capabilties. they are also multi purpose. curently there are no unmaned combat vehicles.
| rhocutt wrote: |
| curently there are no unmaned combat vehicles. |
orly?
Both of these are deployed to Iraq right now.lol nice. well you have to learn by being corect sometimes lol
Definitely wouldn't want to dog fight a SU 37 in and F22. Plane to plane, not a missile from 20 miles away.
| west18 wrote: |
| Definitely wouldn't want to dog fight a SU 37 in and F22. Plane to plane, not a missile from 20 miles away. |
Realistically, plane to plane combat does not occur anymore. On the extremely rare occasion that two fighter jets would be pitted against each other, it would still be unlikely that they would even get within visual contact at any time.
The dogfight is a relic of the past now, even more so than the bayonet or the cavalry charge.I fix and re-assemble jets for a living, only really helped with an f-22 once, they are truly awesome, but there are much better faster models coming in the NEAR future. Mach 5 anyone?
| rhocutt wrote: |
Ok i just wanted to know what yall think about the f-22 i really think its the best (espically better then the f-22) but i want to hear what yall think and no i didnt learn about the f-22 from wikipidia i just now alot of ppl in the miltary and they have only told me good things about it.
one of the greatest things is that the engine pivots makeing it very easy to out Maneuver any jet also it can lock on onto anything at any direction (even backwards). |
Dis-agree, the new super hornets that australia are importing from america have got to be the best.
Google it for a pic, they even look good. | Noremac wrote: |
| I fix and re-assemble jets for a living, only really helped with an f-22 once, they are truly awesome, but there are much better faster models coming in the NEAR future. Mach 5 anyone? |
You know, Mach 5 is not realistic.
Here's why, much over Mach 2.5 an aluminum skined aircraft will melt (at least the leading edges of the wings) due to air friction. Plus to achive speeds much over Mach 1.8 they have to limit the airflow into the engiine as the forward speed of the aircraft will blow out the ingintion of the combustion section, and the engine will stop running. The problem with variable intakes is that the hydrolics and additional material are added weight and it sacrafices manuverability of the airplane. The old F4 was the last true mach 2.2 speed fighter produced, and the variable doors on the intakes and the design of the aircraft made it one heavy flying machine. I'm not sure what the top speed of the F22 is, or how they achieve it, but most of the newer aircraft developed since the F4 did not achieve the same Mach 2.2
Now the SR71 was able to achieve much faster speeds, but the skin of that aircraft was made of titanium, thus able to withstand the air friction and not melt. They solved the blow out problems with the engine by brilliantly combining a ram jet with a turbo jet. A Turbo jet compresses the air using radial blades (fans) Where as a ram jet uses the forward speed of the aircraft to compress the air. If you look at pictures of the SR71 that cone on the front of the engine serves a special function, the engine operates as a turbo jet until it gets up to speed and then the cone receeds into the intake blocking off airflow to the compressor section and routing around the compressor section directly into the combustion section turning the engine into a Ram jet.
From what I understand about the new turbojets is the technology improvement that makes them produce more thrust is that they figured out how to build the trbine blades with colling paths in them and they are able to cool the turbine section of the engine. To give you a comparison of thrust output, the old F4 had two turbojets that produced about 17,000 lbs. of thrust a piece in full after burner, the engine in the F35 is about the same size and weight as the one engine in the old F4, and alone it produces 45,000 lbs. of thrust at 100% throttle, and around 60,000 lbs. of thrust in full after burner.....a hell of a lot more power and a hell of a lot less weight.
Also composite materials and ceramics may make it possible to achieve speeds well above Mach 2.2 as well, I have to agree with ocalhoun, I think the technology will eventually develope in the direction of unmanned aircraft.
Oh Yeah the shuttle is able to achieve incredible speeds something like Mach 26 on re entry into the atmosphere, but it uses ceramics on the skin of the aircraft.Niobium based alloys are currently being studied to functionaly improve hi temp turbine and aircraft applications.
My personnal favorite military aircraft is the V-22 Osprey for it's mission versatility.
