Hey Offshore Angler!!!

[gibsonjunkie]

Saw the Ares Rocket launch on the NASA web site. First thing I thought of was you. How's it going, back in Rocket World?

[Offshore Angler]

Fun to see a real stack go up for a change. Unfortunatley, that was really just a parlor trick to test the parachutes for the SRB recovery. The stack they flew had a mockup of the second stage. Pretty much a "Please fund us" moment. The Aries 1 is going to be neat, but it's the Aries V that has us all excited. The Aries 1 will lift about 25,000 pounds into low earth orbit. That's on par with the STS system flying today. AN old Saturn V could do over 100,000 pounds. Now, the Aries 5 will do - 190,000 pounds! It is going to be one BFR, which stand for Big F***ing Rocket. In fact, it will be about as big as a Saturn V, but with two huge SRB's attached to it for launch and the first 100,000 feet or so.

The test this week didn't really fly the rocket. The second stage, which is the cool one, was not real. No motor, fuel, oxidizer, etc.

The real second stage is still working on the ullage motors. What happens is, when the first stage shuts down and is discarded, the rocket is in free-fall until the second stage ignites. But we have a problem. Since we are weightless the liquid fuel and oxidizer is floating around in the propellant tanks like a lava lamp. Ullage motors are small solid fuel rockets that fire on the second stage after the first stage is discarded. They cause acceleration and thus, the fuel settles to the bottom of the tanks and is availble to feed to pump to the motor. When that gets tested and OK'ed, they can test a real rocket.

But I fear for the funding. After the F22 got the axe this week who knows what's next?

I loved the logic for the F22. "There exists no credible threat to an aircraft with it's capabilities." Well you dipshits, that was the WHOLE IDEA!! A stealth, supercruise fighter with electronic warfare capabilty.

And the biggest, stupidiest comment of all - "It can't fight in the rain." Well, senator shitforbrains, it's not raining at 50,000 feet you complete, ape-brained ignoramis. Don't you just love it when spoiled grown up rich kids try to act like they understand technology?

A lot of smart guys and gals sacrificed a lot more than many will ever know to get the F22 airborne and were told they were doing it for their country. Now this jackass stunt. Talk about a slap in the face.

[elicross]

The F22 was an incredible engineering achievement, awesome in the truest sense of the word -- supersonic flight without afterburners in a fighter, are you kidding? -- and it bothers me to see people working so hard to belittle it and call it a dog instead of just saying "We don't *need* it."

But we don't need it, and as much as it pains me to think this ridiculously gorgeous warplane won't be produced in big numbers, I think it's ultimately a good thing that we don't need it.

That's my take.

[Offshore Angler]

Just like we didn't need the YF17, right?

The F22 decsion had nothing to do with reality and everything to do with politics. If anybody thinks JSF will fufill the role of the YF22 they need to see a doctor. In fact, part of the basis of JSF is assumed air superiority BECAUSE of the existance of F22. The F35 has been gamed by the RAND corp. and it has been shown that they can be denied refueling by a handful Sukhoi fighters.

The F35 does not have the CLER (Combat Loss Exchange Ratio) of the F22 either.

And - F22 had the capability to go drone in the future. It can take flight loads that exceed an on-board pilot's capabilities.

Another thing to consider - they mothballed the Habu's because F22 was coming online. So what will fill that role, which proved to be the cornerstone of US operations in the last conflicts? Step one of any US response is to use stealth the knock out the enemy's CandC. What are going to use now? Wild Weasles?


The problem with the F22 was the whining of the other services not being able to compete with the AirForce. Period. It started with the Viper which could never operate off a carrier because its intake would have problems with stream ingestion. Then the Eagle came along and made fools of Tomcat drivers. Then in the gulf wars the naval and marine avaitors where pickling off dumb bombs while the USAF was delivering precison munitions. When the capabilities of the F22 became apparent a lot of us sensed a real power struggle coming on.

The Navy's role in modern times is to project US airpower via carriers and operate subs. Well, with an arsenal of ancient F14's (now out of service) and aging F18's, and supercruise USAF fighters coming online, they understand that a carrier is really not neccesary anymore. ( look at the Gulf Wars - the USAF was doing the work in the air with Vipers, Eagles, Buffs and Habu's. It was only after the USAF had paved the road that the Naval air resources went in. The other sevices stood around watching the enemy dig in while they waited for the NAVY to get there.) What logic can support waiting 2 weeks to get a carrier and its supporting ships 100 miles away when a supercrusie fighter can be there in a few hours for a tiny fraction of the cost? In other words, the aircraft carrier is becoming obsolete. But, naval officers do hold a lot of sway in Beltway politics.

Then the final nail in the coffin showed up. Naval aircraft, because of the limitations of a carrier are constrained to probe-and-drogue refueling methods ( plus that's all their pilots can handle, he,he.) and cannot refuel from the boom system. So all of the new air-superiority designs were boom systems for technical reasons I won't get into here. The Navy sees which way the world is turning. So we had this big "joint" push. JDAMs. JSF, Anything that's new has to be constrained not to what's best, but what can be operated off a 50 year-old carrier. With the "Big E" up for decommissioning in 5 years, the NAVY is, let's say, concerned. That's nothing more than putting politics in front of national security.

Waste of money? Yeah, carriers are a complete waste. And quickly becoming indefensible targets in a CZ.

So, that's what the real issues are with the F22. Sorry I had to pull you guys into the world of what really happens, but I thought you might find it interesting.

Plus, in the end, the F35 is so butt-ugly nobody wants to drive it!

[stratcat62]

The Aries 1 may have been a show but it was a good one. I live in Melbourne and get a pretty good view of the launches and I thought it was impressive. My brother is coming down next week could you possibly light another one?

Love livin' where we occasionally get these cool shows.

[boobtube21]

From a purely speculative and philosophical POV, I think having planes like that around are good for the military's image. You gotta advertise a little. Looks powerful, makes people feel safe, and makes little kids think it would be cool to fly one. I remember when I was 9 or 10 a lot of kids my age were all worked up about this fighter jet or that one (not me obviously, I have no idea what they were), had posters of them in their room, etc. If no kids grow up thinking it's cool to join the army, they'll have to start up the draft again. Sounds like an expensive advertisement, but think about how much an ad during the superbowl cost.

Plus look at dragsters, sure they themselves don't serve any purpose other than filling grandstands. But the things engineers learn from building and racing them can be translated into more creative and effecient ways of building passenger cars. I'm not saying that's all this plane is good for, just something else it does.

Just thought you guys would like to hear the point of view of someone who doesn't know shit about planes!

[elicross]

Well, almost 140 F-22s have been delivered. If the USAF wants the Raptor as an image-building recruitment machine to fly at air shows and public events, its got plenty.

The dragster analogy is a good one in the sense that the development and production of the F-22 taught us a lot of things we wouldn't otherwise know about improving stealth designs, working them into a viable fighter plane without compromising speed or maneuverability, making practical use of vectored thrust, storing weapons internally so as not to compromise stealth, etc. A bunch of concepts that were just theoretical or experimental were made real in the F-22, and we don't lose all of that because F-22 production ends so soon after it started.

But -- as hard as it is for me to say this -- we don't need a bunch of cold-war air superiority fighters with no Soviet Union to fight. Even within the context of the U.S. military, there are much better ways we could spend all that money today. And we sure don't need to keep the F-22 in production so we can sell it to other countries.

[phantomman]

But -- as hard as it is for me to say this -- we don't need a bunch of cold-war air superiority fighters with no Soviet Union to fight. Even within the context of the U.S. military, there are much better ways we could spend all that money today. And we sure don't need to keep the F-22 in production so we can sell it to other countries.

+1

[Offshore Angler]

But -- as hard as it is for me to say this -- we don't need a bunch of cold-war air superiority fighters with no Soviet Union to fight. Even within the context of the U.S. military, there are much better ways we could spend all that money today. And we sure don't need to keep the F-22 in production so we can sell it to other countries.

OK, then the PLAAF was flying Blue-501 just for giggles, right? Last time I checked they had over 2100 combat aircraft in service. J-15s are not toys.

And in case you think you know jets, try looking at the PAK FA and tell me an F35 lumbering along with a stowed lift fan is going to have a snowball's chance against it in a heads-up. And we know that even India will have a FGFA with the PAK FA. They will be exported worldwide.

Unfortunately, people of this county lived their entire lives since WWII when we owned the skies and believe that will never end. We are now the only major power without a 5th generation fighter development program. Sad, but true. And really, the F35 was a political choice anyway. The Boeing competitor flew rings around it. The Boeing JSF and the F22 were gen 4.5 with programs to take them to gen 5. The F35's are outdated, and the B and C variants require lift fans which dictated the inefficient fuselage geometry and higher RCS.

And the real kicker, the Pentagon has admitted that sophisticated computer theft of the F35's design files occurred for almost two years (terrabytes!) and the program is believed compromised. LockMart is giving the old soft shoe around that one.

Here's a fun link. Get down to where they compare the performance of the "new" F35 to that of the 1950's designed Phantom. The Phantom wins, LOL!

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

[phantomman]

Much as I admire the F-4 (it's my favorite in fact) the bottom line is, the F-4 had became logistically unsupportable by the 1990s. The Navy saw that first and had gotten out of the Phantom business even before Desert Shield/Storm. The USAF airframes were just as old but less fatigued due to no cat shots or traps to overstress the wing's box beam. As well, the Phantom's J-79s smoked worse than Groucho Marx except when the throttles were pushed to zone 5 and they leaked fluids constantly (you could always tell which troops on the flightline at Nellis worked on the F-4......their fatigues were filthy!). I'd agree that the F-35 is no prize -- but comparing it to the Phantom is like the proverbial contest between the apple and the orange.

If you want to argue about tactical aircraft, consider how the Navy put the F-14B/C out to pasture prematurely and chose to hitch its wagon to the F/A-18E/F. The Tomcat could launch and fly with payloads the "super bug" lawn dart can't even taxi with! Rebuilds of extant F-14 airframes into D-model "Super Cats" would've given the Navy a more capable strike fighter/interceptor at less than half the cost of the not-so-super Super Hornet. And every CV will be forced to commit half of the available deck and hangar space to a substantial number of "KF/A-18E/F" tankers so the Hornet strike packages can get home once they've managed to drop their bomb on the target.

[cdw2000]

I work on both the F-22 and JSF programs (as well as several other programs) and can say that both planes have a relevant role in today's world.

Every one thinks this administration "cut" the F-22 program. The F-22 has been scheduled for a total production of 189 airplanes for a least the last 4 years. This number was set during George W. Bush's administration. Obama and congress simply did not authorize additional aircraft in this budget so that the production will in fact end during this next budget cycle. Since by law the F-22 cannot be exported, LMEAero has no choice but to end production.

Everyone talks of the F-22 being too expensive. Had the original production numbers been maintained (originally over 700 aircraft), the F-22 would have had a per aircraft price no more expensive than what an F-18 costs today. Since development costs have to be amortized over the production, by congress continually cutting and delaying production, the per aircraft cost steadily went up.

And as far as butt-ugly, we thought the Boeing entry in the JSF competition got the award for that, even though we worked on both competition teams (that was interesting to have a firewall setup within the company so that the two development teams couldn't compare notes). We nick-named the Boeing entry "Monica" and if you ever saw a picture of it, you'd know why.

Technically, the LMAero entry was superior, especially in the STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) variant. The reason for the lift fan is that there is a problem having a jet engine shooting its hot exhaust gases onto the ground - the engine intakes take this hot, oxygen-depleted exhaust back into the engine and the engines lose lift. The Boeing entry could not maintain hover without being over a special vented grate test pad. The Boeing entry also had to have the intake shroud removed as well as some other body parts in order to maintain lift. For the demo, the LMAero version was able to lift vertically from the tarmac with no special allowances. From this standpoint it was determined to be a lower technical risk.

Cost wise, the JSF is cheaper simply because the expected production is over 3000 aircraft and it has been designed from the get go to be exportable, so the UK will be using it as a replacement for the Harrier.

Just some more interesting info.

[gibsonjunkie]

I knew I'd get a good response about this. I saw this phtot and got real excited... as far as as the Raptor goes, it's a shame that politics gets in the way of military superiority. One thing we should have learned is that if we aren't leading in technology - someone else will. I hope it never happens, but Russia or China could conceivably put us in a Cold-war situation sometime in the future - do we really want to have second-rate weaponry when the balloon goes up the next time. Besides, I agree - that sucker kicks ass!!! For that matter, we should already be looking for what will be the next plane - the one that takes us into 2050... although I'm sure there are some black projects out there that would do the trick...

[elicross]

And in case you think you know jets, try looking at the PAK FA and tell me an F35 lumbering along with a stowed lift fan is going to have a snowball's chance against it in a heads-up. And we know that even India will have a FGFA with the PAK FA.

OA, I "think I know jets" just enough to participate in this conversation. I never said or even implied I know more about 'em than you, and I'm not interested in getting into a shooting match over who knows more -- but I also don't believe the guy who can pack the most alphabet soup into a paragraph necessarily has the best take on how the U.S. military budget can best be spent.

[Offshore Angler]

elicross, I worked a little on JSF as well. And the F35 still has a serious suckdown issue on vertical landing, and its IRCS is it's weakness. As air-to-air combat migrates from RADAR to infrared it has a major issue. And face it, the F35 production model is a dog in the air. There ain't enough lipstick in the world...

BTW, I did my graduate research in supersonic combustion, on and off-design point. I also flew jets. So sorry about all the TLAs! It just comes out when I get around kerosene, LOL.

Well Viper buds, I'm Bingo, gonna MEL outtahere.

[elicross]

I'm sorry you missed my previous post, OA.

I'll add this, though: I've never once mentioned the JSF program or the F35 in my posts here, so I'm not sure why you're arguing its qualities vs. the F-22's with me.

[Offshore Angler]

BTW Nick, you can see why we call the Aries I "Dildo". Some of the guys in Houston call it "Corndog".

[Offshore Angler]

I'm sorry you missed my previous post, OA.

I'll add this, though: I've never once mentioned the JSF program or the F35 in my posts here, so I'm not sure why you're arguing its qualities vs. the F-22's with me.

Fair question, Part of the decision for the F22 program was based on people thinking the F35s will "replace" the Raptor. That is why it comes into the picture. The F35 was never concieved as an air-superiority fighter, and cannot operate in that role.

[elicross]

It's possible that's why I never mentioned the F35.

[cdw2000]

BTW, Gibsonjunkie, thanks for the graphic of the relative sizes of rockets. We were just discussing this at lunch and I was trying to remember how tall the Saturn V was, LOL. This will come in handy.