backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 40 comment(s) - last by The Cheeba.. on Jan 22 at 6:05 AM
Lockheed Martin's Raptor is cleared for deployment anywhere in the world

Lockheed Martin's F-22A Raptor has been officially cleared for operation in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. Langley Air Force in Virginia is now home to 12 combat-ready Raptors. It has been a long road for the Air Force's successor to the F-15 Strike Eagle. The first flight of the prototype YF-22 took place on September 29th, 1990 and the aircraft was officially named the F-22 Raptor in April of 1997. 

The F-22A employs advanced stealth technology that was pioneered on the F-117 Nighthawk and has the ability to "supercruise" at speeds up to Mach 1.58 without the use of afterburners with its twin Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan engines. The fighter has the ability to obtain Mach 2+ with the use of its afterburners.

The F-22A is also one of the first operational fighter planes to feature an all-glass cockpit with no traditional round gauges serving as a backup. And for you CRT fans out there, sorry -- the Raptor uses six LCD screens instead of CRTs due to their lower power requirements.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Bunker Busters Anyone???
By codeThug on 1/16/2006 6:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
"Lockheed Martin's Raptor is cleared for deployment anywhere in the world"

perhaps a certain persian country?

"officially cleared for operation in both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions."

perhaps to deliver said Bunker Busters to a select few underground installations maybe??

Naaa, that's too obvious...




RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By Lifted on 1/16/2006 6:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
Nahhh, we won't be in Iran anytime soon. We've already shown we can barely go into one country, so much so that even Bush isn't dumb enough to try to go into two at the same time. Iraq also had a non-existant army at the point we went in, while Iran's is at it's normal capacity, which is probably not at the numbers it was at when they were going at it with Iraq, but I'm sure it is still a reasonable force.

If they decide to drop some bombs on Iranian installations, then
A) they'd use B-2's or F-117's
B) the Iraq "insurgency" would suddenly start getting a lot of donations from Iran and most other Arab nations.


RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By codeThug on 1/16/2006 7:28:54 PM , Rating: 3
"Among the bombs the Israeli air force will get are 500 one-ton bunker busters that can penetrate two-meter-thick cement walls; 2,500 regular one-ton bombs; 1,000 half-ton bombs; and 500 quarter-ton bombs."

This has already happened.

Plus, according to some sources, the U.S. is preparing bases in Azerbaijan. Which just happens to be directly north of Tehran. And lets see, as I recall we are also to the West and East of Iran.

And lets not forget about the carrier groups to the south of Iran in the Arabian sea.

I don't know, just a hunch...

Oh yeah, I forgot about the 80+ F16 fighters that have just been deployed to the gulf in the last few days.

Probably all coincidence however...


RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By creathir on 1/16/2006 8:00:18 PM , Rating: 3
You my friend... need to open your eyes.
We can barely go into one country??
What the hell is wrong with you? It was the QUICKEST removal of a government in modern history. We were in downtown Baghdad within a month. F-A-S-T. The dictatorship and its government are TOTALLY gone, yet "we can barely go into one country"? And the difference between Iraq/Iran are this:
1. Iraq was not as westernized as Iran is
2. Iran is ready to overturn its government
3. We would not be sending ground troops in... It would not be a "removal of power"... you are talking about installations being destroyed to prevent the bomb from falling in the hands of the terrorists.
4. Iraq DID NOT have a "non-existant army"... did you pay ANY attention... The estimates were that we were going to loose TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops to the most "modern army in the middle east"... Them and China were ranked as number 2 and 3 behind the US in terms of "military might"... Yet we kicked their ass... imagine that...

Oh, and also, we have taken down TWO extreme regimes since 9/11... TWO...
But as you say...
"We can barely go into one country"

- Creathir


RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By DeathSniper on 1/16/2006 8:08:55 PM , Rating: 2
You might want to ask someone who's currently serving or awaiting retirement about how 'combat-ready' we are for another "war".


RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By codeThug on 1/16/2006 8:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree at all with your statement, but we may have little choice. Letting nuclear weapons get into the hands of some Islamo-whackjob entity could be REALLY horrific.


RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By MiGGinZ on 1/19/2006 12:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
As is letting a moron rule one of the worlds biggest military powers and taking us into WW3 and the US into the biggest economic decline its ever faced.

One more war and the US as we know it is over and will more than likely become a 2nd world nation.


RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By bob661 on 1/19/2006 3:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
Enconomic decline? Which part of the US is this economic decline?


RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By Lifted on 1/16/2006 8:13:33 PM , Rating: 3
Iraq number 2 behind China? Welcome to 1990 :)

Iraq's military strength (weapons, tanks, aircraft, radars, missles, etc.) was, at best estimates, 1% of what it was in 1990 thanks to over a decade of sanctions. I don't know where you get your information from, but start looking elsewhere.


RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By Lifted on 1/16/2006 8:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
And I especially like how consider Afghanistan equal to Iraq or Iran. We scared out the Taliban and handed the country over to the drug lords. Way to go USA!

Clearly dropping some bombs on a few "bunkers" Iran is quite different than removing their government, which would make what we are going through in Iraq look like a weekend at Disneyland.


RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By shuttleboi on 1/16/2006 11:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
If you are so excited about military weapons, why aren't you in the army right now serving in Iraq? Oh that's right, you're a goddamn coward hiding behind a computer.


RE: Bunker Busters Anyone???
By ceefka on 1/17/2006 7:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think Bush will have the window of opportunity if his ambition is to take on Iran. Will the next president will share that ambition? My guess would be : no.

It will probably be another year before any significant numbers of US-troops can leave Iraq because the job is not finished yet. It is still an unsafe and unstable country.

I have no idea what how many there are in Afghanistan, but that's not finished either.

To stay on topic: this is one helluvah machine. Just hope it doesn't have to throw its weight about.


interesting about the LCDs
By amish on 1/16/2006 4:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
i wonder if the LCDs are hard to read when sunlight is shining on them.




RE: interesting about the LCDs
By Wahsapa on 1/16/2006 4:24:32 PM , Rating: 2
maybe low quality taiwanese made LCDs are hard to read in sunlight but not high quality american made LCDs :)


RE: interesting about the LCDs
By Jharne on 1/16/2006 4:30:11 PM , Rating: 3
Is that an enemy fighter on the screen, or just another dead pixel.


RE: interesting about the LCDs
By MrSmurf on 1/16/2006 4:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, they'll just keep returning them, a million dollars a pop, until they get one without any defects. :D


RE: interesting about the LCDs
By ninjit on 1/16/2006 4:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
Who actuall makes LCD substrates in the US?

As far as I know, they're ALL made in asia somewhere, besides prototype/research stuff.


RE: interesting about the LCDs
By MrSmurf on 1/16/2006 4:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
Damn dude, it was a joke.


RE: interesting about the LCDs
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/16/2006 5:10:16 PM , Rating: 1
There are only four main LCD guys left. LG.Philips LCD, Samsung-Sony LCD, AU Optoelectronics and Chi Mei Optoelectronics. NEC does some research grade stuff in the US, but even they don't have the $1b or so it takes to build a facility.

Kristopher


RE: interesting about the LCDs
By noone55555 on 1/16/2006 6:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, you have the avionics industry to thank for modern LCD improvements like sunlight readability and increased field-of-view. I previously worked in the avionics industry, and screen coatings for this purpose were a hot R&D topic over a decade ago. Honeywell sued about every LCD supplier recently due to patents from such research.


RE: interesting about the LCDs
By blckgrffn on 1/17/2006 1:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
I am pretty sure the LCD's were done by Rockwell Colins in Cedar Rapids, IA. They were really into LCD research in the last couple years from what I heard ;)

It's a government contract, guys. The LCD's are one-offs especially made to military specifications that are likely very different than the 2005FPW you are currently using. Whether that makes sense doesn't matter, the US military is willing to spend any amount of money to make their dreams come true.


RE: interesting about the LCDs
By Eris23007 on 1/17/2006 1:59:02 PM , Rating: 2

Actually I think BARCO makes almost all the military displays. I've been around displays for both aircraft onboard C4I systems and similar naval systems, and in both cases they were BARCO. I haven't been around the actual avionics though...


RE: interesting about the LCDs
By The Cheeba on 1/22/2006 6:05:56 AM , Rating: 2
A display != a panel though. I think the OP was talking about the panel manufacturers as some guy in Iowa would need a billion dollar supply line to build just one panel.

Cheeb.


RE: interesting about the LCDs
By bunnyfubbles on 1/17/2006 1:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
the LCD on my watch is easy to read in direct sunlight


Sure took long enough
By timmiser on 1/17/2006 12:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
16 years from first prototype flight to operational status? How many years before that to build and develope the first prototype?

This thing is close to a quarter century old already!!




RE: Sure took long enough
By Lifted on 1/17/2006 12:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
The teams were intially picked in 1986 to build the YF-22 and YF-23. The YF-22 won the contest. The program most likely slowed down due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The whole point of the fighter was to fly fast and deep into enemy (Soviet) territory. Nowadays, smaller and cheaper fighters are probably all that is need, like the Joint Strike Fighter, if that is still being worked on.


RE: Sure took long enough
By Eris23007 on 1/17/2006 2:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
It has been through a few redesign cycles also.

Yes the JSF is still being worked on; in fact it is the largest defense procurmnet program in the history of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Joint_Strike_Fig...

The Raptor and the JSF have COMPLETELY different purposes. The F-22 Raptor is the most capable air-to-air interceptor ever created. Its stealth characteristics combined with its AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) Radar allow it to engage targets from essentially over the horizon. In its years-long testing phase there were anecdotes indicating that a single F-22 was able to engage and destroy (with simulated munitions) 5 F-15s before the F-15s were even able to acquire the F-22 on their Radars.

Some have questioned the need for such a fighter now that the Soviet Union is no more. A valid argument, but when evaluating that argument, I believe it should be considered that the Russians have continued to innovate with their own fighters - and sell them to China and Iran. For example: the Su-30 Flanker MK is generally considered to be comparable in capability to the F-15E (the most current version), while the Su-30 MK1 is considered to exceed the capability of the F-15E and potentially be competitive with the F-22A (though frankly, I doubt it).

Any questions, boys and girls? ;-)


RE: Sure took long enough
By amish on 1/17/06, Rating: 0
RE: Sure took long enough
By abakshi on 1/19/2006 12:47:19 AM , Rating: 2
I think you mean the Su-30 MKI (Su-30 Indian version), not MK-1 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-30). MKI has some interesting features, like 3D thrust vectoring and its radar, that some say push it to 5th gen, like the F22. But even without the latest additions, F15 has some issues against modern fighters like the Su-30.

Problem with the F-22 as an effective countermeasure, though, is its cost. A regular Su-30K costs about $30m, and each MKI costs India ~$45m -- that's a heck of a lot less than an F-22, which is at ~$152m.


RE: Sure took long enough
By timmiser on 1/18/2006 5:19:58 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the F22 is an air superiority fighter. Not a deep strike bomber. That is what the B2 is for.

F22 replaces F15.

JSF is a low cost, high volume fighter/attack to replace the F16/F18.


proofreading is a good thing
By dali71 on 1/16/2006 8:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
with no traditional round guages


I think you meant to say "gauges". Seriously, how hard is it to use spell check? I'm sure that someone will flame me, but I am of the opinion that proper grammar lends credence to ones journalistic integrity.




RE: proofreading is a good thing
By Herse on 1/16/2006 9:01:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am of the opinion that proper grammar lends credence to ones journalistic integrity.


I think you are right. Proper grammar does lend credence to ONE'S journalistic integrity. Ouch. Sorry. You set yourself up.


RE: proofreading is a good thing
By Enoch2001 on 1/17/2006 12:46:15 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!


RE: proofreading is a good thing
By ErsatzMe on 1/20/2006 8:26:54 AM , Rating: 2
If you're going to correct grammar, at least correct all of it. It should not be "credence", but "credibility". It's a fairly subtle distinction, but lending the integrity credence would bestow it with the ability to believe in something rather than the ability to be believed.

If being a picky bastard is allowable. :P


...
By littlebitstrouds on 1/16/2006 7:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
Can you run them in SLI? What's the FSB on these puppies I don't have my Mach speed-FSB calculator on me.




RE: ...
By codeThug on 1/16/2006 8:05:04 PM , Rating: 2
cool yer jets littlebits, they only use edo memory.


Knighthawk????
By Desslok on 1/16/2006 4:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
Who did the fact check on this article???

It is the F-117 Nighthawk not Knighthawk




too little too late
By BillyBatson on 1/16/2006 5:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
I got out of the AF a year ago. When i joined i went into mechanical hoping to be placed on the f-15 so i could work on the f-22 however i ended up getting placed on the mh-53 pave low heclicopters as an engine crew and all i could have moved up to was the osprey peice of crap =
I did see the f-22 fly overhead several times and land at where i was stationed since Tyndall AFB was home to several which was only about 60 miles away.




Christmas
By ira176 on 1/17/2006 2:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'll take one for Christmas! Wonder if the response time of the LCD's on the F-22 is better than Acer's Ferrari F-20?




LCD's
By weskurtz on 1/17/2006 8:24:58 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the modern military planes that are either being built or AMP'ed use the same LCD screens that are used in the civilian sector due to much higher availability and because they cost less. Alot of the avionics are this way now. But even if any of that equipment breaks.... it is all under warranty for at least 5-10 years. So, until then, the only cost of replacement is the labor and shipping for the most part.




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki