F-22 at Farnborough

[centuryseries]

Found this video - looks like a heat seeking missile would have a field day

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid97785524001?bclid=103870190001&bctid=180300404001

and the F-22 couldn't be allowed in the static at Fairford because of "security reasons" yet someone in the military films the farnborough display using what looks like an IR camera.......

Go figure!

[Wing_Z]

Flight Global certainly has Farnborough covered.
That Vulcan got off pretty smartly...nice clip of the Bloodhound too!

[stansdds]

The F-22 is a supersonic fighter, so it uses engines with afterburners and that means lots of heat.

As for security, I remember the first time I saw the F-117A up close. It was roped off so you could not actually get close to it, a flat bed trailer was parked near it so spectators could get a better view, and several MP's were posted around the rope line. I don't know if the magazines were loaded, but they were all armed with M-16's.

[centuryseries]

Yeah but the 2x F-22 at RIAT were about half a mile away on the other side of the airfield from the spectators!!

13478

[stansdds]

Yeah, that is a bit of a distance.

[mfitch]

The last airshow here (two years ago) we could walk around an F-22. It was roped off, but the area was small. The cockpit was closed of course.

Filming them is easy here, because the north/south runway they often use has a pattern right over civilian housing. You can see the pilots faces on short final. ATC has a special name for the procedure. It is a warning to GA aircraft to make a tight pattern if they want to remain alive. With that runway under repair at the moment, I have not ended up seeing this yet.

[OBIO]

I'm probably going to tick some people off with my upcoming statement, so be warned.

The F-22 is NOT a super-sonic fighter jet. It is a super-sonic airshow demonstrator only. The F-22 has done NOTHING but appear at one airshow after another, much like an Extra 300 or Pitts Special...just a lot more expensive. The F-22 will not be a fighter jet until it is actually used in combat....until it actually FIGHTS. If the Air Force is only going to use the F-22 to do snazzy demonstration flights at air shows, why not just scrap the project, buy some nice affordable air show/acrobatic planes and be done with it. If the F-22 is a fighter jet, then pack it up, send it to Afghanistan and let it shoot some live rounds at some live targets. What's the point of spending BILLIONS of tax payer dollars to build the most advanced military aircraft EVER just to wow people at air shows?

Some people will say....The F-22 is an air superiority fighter and was not designed for ground attack roles that are needed in Afghanistan. Hello! The F-16 was an air superiority jet that has proven itself quite skilled at ground attack missions. The F-4 Phantom was an air superiority jet that proved itself very adept at ground attack. The F-15 was an air superiority jet that has proven itself to be very good for ground attack missions. I say strap some bunker busters onto the F-22 and let it earn its keep, otherwise scrap the project, spend the billions of dollars on education, improving the infrastructure in this country, buy a couple dozen acrobatic planes and go wow the crowds in them.

OBIO

[Wing_Z]

The F-22 is a supersonic fighter, so it uses engines with afterburners and that means lots of heat.
...which is why its party trick is to Supercruise -supersonic without the burners.

Obio, you don't use a sledgehammer to swat a midge.
The F-22 costs $50,000 an hour...to kill the kind of low-value target in the present war theatres, all you need is a Predator.
When the Russians and Chinese have their 5th-gen fighters developed, you will be glad there is an F-22 already in place.
Come to think of it, they probably are being a bit tardy about the whole thing precisely because the Raptor is such an overkill machine.
So it's killed the Opposition before they even got off the ground!

[stuartcox]

I just came back from Farnborough, and the runway is about 100 yards away from the spectators, closer than the required distance of the display line!
The F-22 only flew on Monday & Tuesday, purely for the trade.
The general public are only allowed in on this weekend.
The A380 was a bit of a hazard for spectators, as the engines through up a lot of loose grass, dust and debris, right into the onlookers faces! And you could feel the heat.
13526 13527 13528
The best display was the Vulcan!
One of the engineers said to me:"She's just like a lightbulb! You don't know whether she is going to work, until you switch her on..."
Otherwise all the flying display "fast jets" are parked well away from the crowds!

[deathfromafar]

I'm probably going to tick some people off with my upcoming statement, so be warned.

The F-22 is NOT a super-sonic fighter jet. It is a super-sonic airshow demonstrator only. The F-22 has done NOTHING but appear at one airshow after another, much like an Extra 300 or Pitts Special...just a lot more expensive. The F-22 will not be a fighter jet until it is actually used in combat....until it actually FIGHTS. If the Air Force is only going to use the F-22 to do snazzy demonstration flights at air shows, why not just scrap the project, buy some nice affordable air show/acrobatic planes and be done with it. If the F-22 is a fighter jet, then pack it up, send it to Afghanistan and let it shoot some live rounds at some live targets. What's the point of spending BILLIONS of tax payer dollars to build the most advanced military aircraft EVER just to wow people at air shows?

Some people will say....The F-22 is an air superiority fighter and was not designed for ground attack roles that are needed in Afghanistan. Hello! The F-16 was an air superiority jet that has proven itself quite skilled at ground attack missions. The F-4 Phantom was an air superiority jet that proved itself very adept at ground attack. The F-15 was an air superiority jet that has proven itself to be very good for ground attack missions. I say strap some bunker busters onto the F-22 and let it earn its keep, otherwise scrap the project, spend the billions of dollars on education, improving the infrastructure in this country, buy a couple dozen acrobatic planes and go wow the crowds in them.

OBIO

Yes, then we can just buy the Sukhoi T-50 instead. Naaaa, lets just equip the Air Force with paper airplanes. Kidding aside, the F-22 is deployed and has been flying ADF missions quite regularly. As time goes by, it will see more forward deployment. The same short sighted arguments were made about the F-4 in it's inception, the same with the F-15, and F-16. All of those planes were successful in due time but all were slowly rotated into front line service.
The F-22 will be no different. It will overcome all it's teething pains as all previous planes have and do a great job when called upon. It already has in intercepting Russian Recon & Bomber aircraft probing our airspace. I predict that in due time, the need and demand for more F-22's will reopen the production line and the second tier production plane numbers will be built. It will happen, mark my words! Sooner than later, the previous generation of Fighters which are now well over 30 years old will need to be replaced and by far more capable planes.

I'm proud we did build this plane and I bet money if we ever need to use it in combat, it will dominate the air unlike any combat aircraft in history. The F-15 sure as hell did! Never been shot down in "Actual" combat by an enemy Fighter! :salute::unitedstates:

[centuryseries]

While going off topic, I don't just see why the USAF can't just acquire new build F-15 jets (not instead of Raptors, but supplement) - they're still in production and it still is one of the greatest combat aircraft of all time - I understand there's going to be the golden Eagles - the F-15s that are newer and will be modified to modern standards.

You'd get more bang for your buck.

While we can't ever know whats around the corner, I would hazard a guess and say that the large scale air to air dogfights are a thing of the past. Take Gulf War 1 - fleeting jets being shot down as opposed to them sticking around and fighting.

I can't see any war anytime soon that will neccessitate the Raptors unique capabilities.

Anyway, back on topic this thread is about how you're allowed to film something that has supposedly secret capabilities with an IR camera.

As to it just being an airshow performer - you could've said that about the B-1B and B-2 a while back!!

[ibl19108]

While everyone is entitled to his or her's own opinion, lets just hope that the Raptor is enough of a deterent to prevent someone with a 5th generation aircraft from wanting to go head to head with it and find out it is lacking or maybe the pilot of the F-22 has an overrated opinion of him/her self.
A while ago, some F-22 jockies jumped some Tiffie FGR.4s at Nellis and got the surprise of their lives when the Tiffies turned the tables and took them down. That did not happen the next time around, but it was not easy outcome for the Raptor either. The next guy out there may not have a Raptor, but may have more natural skills and be a better pilot. That can and has made difference and in the past as they say "history tends to repeat itself." DACT can will make a difference in honing a pilot's skills and abilities.

[Matt Wynn]

if i recall theres a few Raptors in S.Korea at the moment on Exercise with the South Korean Forces and alongside the USN. USS George Washington was moored in Busan yesterday morning ready for the exercises...

[Lionheart]

Ive always loved the shape of the F-22. What a beautiful bird. I love how it can fly slow and yet have the ability to cruise (cruise) at sonic+.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Trans_23]

I was happy with how close we got to the F-22 at Oshkosh a few years ago. I also remember the F-117 being escorted and roped off with armed security back in the early 90's at the air show up at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan (fantastic air show by the way).

[Blackbird686]

Given the opportunity, the F-22 will prove its worth. It has already demonstrated its ability as to what it can do aerodynamically. With the ability to "supercruise" (fly above mach in level flight without afterburner) as well as thrust vectoring capability... in the hands of a capable pilot the F-22 would be nothing short of "wicked death" to any adversary aircraft, I don't care what type or from where ever. As stated earlier in this thread, it has to be given the chance. That chance must be an honest one, without bias or any kind of "slant". (Unlike the one given to BAe's TSR-2). That being the case... the naysayers will find their foot in their mouths. Just like the case with (as stated before) several other jet fighters in our history, including the F-15 Eagle and the F-14 Tomcat.

BB686:USA-flag:

[wiltzei]

IR signature during airshow.

<object width="873" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/58N6Plr17GU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?color1=0x3a3a3a&amp;color2=0 x999999&amp;border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/58N6Plr17GU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?color1=0x3a3a3a&amp;color2=0 x999999&amp;border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="873" height="525"></embed></object>

A nice article whether the Eagle is necessary, or not. http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/The-Last-Gunslinger.html

[Ken Stallings]

A lot of experts in this thread.

I guess I'll just have to tell all those fighter pilots in the USAF who love the F-22 that they are just full of it and should bow to the military expertise of select Sim-Outhouse members who's opinions are obviously better informed from massive quantities of first-hand experience with the jet.

Cheers,

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

Given the opportunity, the F-22 will prove its worth. It has already demonstrated its ability as to what it can do aerodynamically. With the ability to "supercruise" (fly above mach in level flight without afterburner) as well as thrust vectoring capability... in the hands of a capable pilot the F-22 would be nothing short of "wicked death" to any adversary aircraft, I don't care what type or from where ever. As stated earlier in this thread, it has to be given the chance. That chance must be an honest one, without bias or any kind of "slant". (Unlike the one given to BAe's TSR-2). That being the case... the naysayers will find their foot in their mouths. Just like the case with (as stated before) several other jet fighters in our history, including the F-15 Eagle and the F-14 Tomcat.

BB686:USA-flag:

It already has been given hundreds of chances against front line fighters of various types and whipped them every time.

You don't have to actually fire the missile or the gun. If you are in position for a kill, it is a kill.

But, again, my novice view of this cannot compete with the experts assembled here who think the F-22 is nothing.

Ken

[Bone]

A lot of experts in this thread.

I guess I'll just have to tell all those fighter pilots in the USAF who love the F-22 that they are just full of it and should bow to the military expertise of select Sim-Outhouse members who's opinions are obviously better informed from massive quantities of first-hand experience with the jet.

Cheers,

Ken

Well heck yeah, of course they love it, it's a frickin' HIGH PERFORMANCE FIGHTER! Besides, half of their buddies got screwed and sent to Predators.

The only reason Eric M. didn't get all bent out of shape about being conscripted to Predators, was because he torqued his back in F-15's and got grounded. He felt like Predators allowed him to stay "in the game".







Some people will say....The F-22 is an air superiority fighter and was not designed for ground attack roles that are needed in Afghanistan. Hello! The F-16 was an air superiority jet that has proven itself quite skilled at ground attack missions. The F-4 Phantom was an air superiority jet that proved itself very adept at ground attack. The F-15 was an air superiority jet that has proven itself to be very good for ground attack missions. I say strap some bunker busters onto the F-22 and let it earn its keep, otherwise scrap the project, spend the billions of dollars on education, improving the infrastructure in this country, buy a couple dozen acrobatic planes and go wow the crowds in them.

OBIO

You forgot to mention the F-14.

[TomSteber]

Unless I'm misinformed, the F-22 is the only fighter that we have that can go super-sonic without afterburners. At least that's what the Air Force guy said during the demo's I saw.

And I believe the current administration has already killed the F-22. So there won't be anymore coming out for anything.

I too would like to see how it does against some foes. But, for all we're not told, it may have already.

Having seen it fly in person two different years, I think it absolutely freakin ROCKS!

[Ken Stallings]

Well heck yeah, of course they love it, it's a frickin' HIGH PERFORMANCE FIGHTER! Besides, half of their buddies got screwed and sent to Predators.

The only reason Eric M. didn't get all bent out of shape about being conscripted to Predators, was because he torqued his back in F-15's and got grounded. He felt like Predators allowed him to stay "in the game".

Yep, got screwed royally by being put in an airplane that personally went to war and found and killed the enemy regularly, and along the way protected the lives of thousands of US combat troops on the ground performing the mission. And did so with far greater regularity than any other USAF or any USN or Marine aircraft type in the war!

If that's your definition of "being screwed," then I'm mighty damn proud to have been so screwed!

I'm sure some ACC officers, including Mathewson, thought the way you do. But, that's why AFSOC ended up becoming the prime Predator unit in the USAF. We knew the value of the mission and appreciated doing it. And by the time AFSOC stood up operations, within six months we showed ACC how to use the airplane in combat and ended up forcing ACC to change and adopt to our way of using the aircraft.

And that difference in understanding of the principle mission is why the USAF is now being led by an AFSOC officer -- Norty Schwartz! Secretary Gates -- by that time fed up to his neck with ACC's mannerisms, openly said, "Get me someone without a damn callsign!" That was a direct quote by the way, and was Gates' marching orders to finding the current Chief of Staff.

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

OBIO,

The USAF wanted to send the F-22 to Afghanistan, but the Army leadership in CENTCOM would not let them. It was a purely political move. Unfortunately, too many decisions today are being made entirely for political reasons vice solid mission reasons.

You are right, it has already been shown a capable ground attack aircraft.

In terms of performing against other fighters, the F-22 has already engaged in dogfights of many various types in the Nellis Range. It has routinely gone up against F-15's, F-16's, MiG-29, and Su-27's. In each and every case, including against five and ten to one odds, the F-22 emerged victorious.

Like I said, the dogfight is won when you put your jet in position against the adversary jet where your weapon can kill him. You don't have to fire to know who won the fight.

And frankly, the visual dogfights, which the F-22 won handily, were entirely contrived. Meaning, the F-22's principle advantage is that it doesn't need to get into a traditional dogfight.

Much has been written about why the USAF was denied permission by CENTCOM to deploy the F-22. Many believe it came down to a calculated decsion to reinforce the decision to cancel the production run. If the aircraft had engaged ground targets in the war as effectively as the USAF believes it will, then pressure may have mounted to keep the production lines open.

Personally, while that may have been the reason, I still think the reasoning is weak.

The F-22 would have been very valuable in Afghanistan due to its excellent speed in supercruise. It could get on target very quickly and without burning up all its fuel in doing so.

Ken

[Wing_Z]

a propos nothing in particular...

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h200/CHARL_photos/SOH/Picture1.gif

The F-22 is a tad bigger than I thought (not having seen one in the metal)

[Bone]

Yep, got screwed royally by being put in an airplane that personally went to war and found and killed the enemy regularly, and along the way protected the lives of thousands of US combat troops on the ground performing the mission. And did so with far greater regularity than any other USAF or any USN or Marine aircraft type in the war!

If that's your definition of "being screwed," then I'm mighty damn proud to have been so screwed!

I'm sure some ACC officers, including Mathewson, thought the way you do. But, that's why AFSOC ended up becoming the prime Predator unit in the USAF. We knew the value of the mission and appreciated doing it. And by the time AFSOC stood up operations, within six months we showed ACC how to use the airplane in combat and ended up forcing ACC to change and adopt to our way of using the aircraft.

And that difference in understanding of the principle mission is why the USAF is now being led by an AFSOC officer -- Norty Schwartz! Secretary Gates -- by that time fed up to his neck with ACC's mannerisms, openly said, "Get me someone without a damn callsign!" That was a direct quote by the way, and was Gates' marching orders to finding the current Chief of Staff.

Ken

You should lighten up a bit. My comment was a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the way alot of fighter guys think, AND I was agreeing with you on the fact that they like the F-22. I wasn't dissing the Predator program, but the fact is, no one who FAR's in UPT wants a Predator. I myself don't care if a guy flew heavys, fighters, choppers, or Predators. I don't even care what service they came from. Last month I hit 18,000 hours, and I have flown with more military pilots than you can imagine. Guys and girls from all of the US military branches...plus Canadian, British, Turkish, French, Brazilian, Greek, and Dutch services... and they came from just about every airframe. I would even be so bold to say that I have spent more time flying with military pilots than did someone who only flew in the military, simply because mil guys fly a pittance compared to commercial guys. So if you want to judge me on the way I think, you might want to consider that I've had a pretty wide field of military view points.

[Blackbird686]

It already has been given hundreds of chances against front line fighters of various types and whipped them every time.

You don't have to actually fire the missile or the gun. If you are in position for a kill, it is a kill.

But, again, my novice view of this cannot compete with the experts assembled here who think the F-22 is nothing.

Ken

With all due respect, Ken... I think that my post here is definately IN FAVOR of the F-22. I am a sincere believer in its capabilities as I have seen this aircraft go head to head with an F-15. The F-22 soundly whipped the F-15 in every category, several of which were close mind you, as the F-15 is also an excellent aircraft... albeit a bit long in the tooth for what it does.

I am NOT AN EXPERT and I NEVER claim to be one. Nor do I think that the F-22 is NOTHING, as you so eloquently put it.

There, I'm all better now. Admins, You prolly ought to keep an eye on this thread, lest it get outta hand any further.

BB686:USA-flag:

[Ken Stallings]

With all due respect, Ken... I think that my post here is definately IN FAVOR of the F-22. I am a sincere believer in its capabilities as I have seen this aircraft go head to head with an F-15. The F-22 soundly whipped the F-15 in every category, several of which were close mind you, as the F-15 is also an excellent aircraft... albeit a bit long in the tooth for what it does.

I am NOT AN EXPERT and I NEVER claim to be one. Nor do I think that the F-22 is NOTHING, as you so eloquently put it.

There, I'm all better now. Admins, You prolly ought to keep an eye on this thread, lest it get outta hand any further.

BB686:USA-flag:

I think you misunderstood my reply. I was not saying you were wrong. I was simply adding that the flight tests already validated what you said was likely to be true.

To you, I apologize if I came across negative, because in your case, that was not my intent.

Cheers,

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

You should lighten up a bit.

I think most, if not all, Predator crews would take your original statement as an insult. So, I think it was fair for me to take it that way. If you did not mean that when you said "got screwed to fly Predator," then you have a strange way of saying things.

Aviation in war isn't meant to be fun. It's meant to be a method to win the war. When you volunteer, you aren't signing up to fly a sexy airplane. You are signing up to defend your country. Any method you are given to perform that mission should rightly be considered an honor. Experience doesn't mitigate that fact one iota.

I'm sure the foot soldier on the ground humping a 75 pound ruck in 100 degree heat and dust doesn't think his mission is sexy and fun. But, I am very confident that he knows the honor of his service. And so if those men on the ground can understand that, then I think we in the USAF who have it much better, should never think ourselves "screwed" to get assigned one aircraft vice another.

And yes, I know for a fact we have many top graduates of UPT who want Predator. I know because I've personally trained a few of them.

Enough said on this.

Cheers,

Ken

[Bone]

I think most, if not all, Predator crews would take your original statement as an insult. So, I think it was fair for me to take it that way. If you did not mean that when you said "got screwed to fly Predator," then you have a strange way of saying things.

Aviation in war isn't meant to be fun. It's meant to be a method to win the war. When you volunteer, you aren't signing up to fly a sexy airplane. You are signing up to defend your country. Any method you are given to perform that mission should rightly be considered an honor. Experience doesn't mitigate that fact one iota.

I'm sure the foot soldier on the ground humping a 75 pound ruck in 100 degree heat and dust doesn't think his mission is sexy and fun. But, I am very confident that he knows the honor of his service. And so if those men on the ground can understand that, then I think we in the USAF who have it much better, should never think ourselves "screwed" to get assigned one aircraft vice another.

And yes, I know for a fact we have many top graduates of UPT who want Predator. I know because I've personally trained a few of them.

Enough said on this.

Cheers,

Ken

Like I said, it was a tongue in cheek statement based on listening to alot of miltary guy talk over the years. But thanks for straightening me out.

[Ken Stallings]

Like I said, it was a tongue in cheek statement based on listening to alot of miltary guy talk over the years. But thanks for straightening me out.

Having thought about it a bit more, you are right, you did clarify that. So, perhaps I should apologize for taking your remarks out of intended context.

Cheers,

Ken

[Bone]

Having thought about it a bit more, you are right, you did clarify that. So, perhaps I should apologize for taking your remarks out of intended context.

Cheers,

Ken

No worries. Alot gets lost in the cyber translation on forums. If we had been having a RW conversation, you would have recognized the TIC play. Sorry for the bad comm.

[jmig]

Well, having attended UPT (in the black leather boots days) and after having been "screwed" by the USAF, I can understand a young Lieutenant aviator's position. Undergraduate Pilot Training is a very competitive arena. A one time simple mistake on a check ride can have big consequences when it comes to your position in aircraft selection.

The allotment of aircraft to select from changes from one class to another. Every kid attending UPT has his/her hopes on flying the aircraft of his/her dreams. If you don't get it, you can often feel screwed.

However, as Ken so correctly pointed out, you don't sign up to fly a particular aircraft. You sign up to fly what they tell you to fly. When your dreams and the USAF's needs coincide, wonderful. When they don't, you fly what they tell you to fly and do the best job you can, while you work the system to fly what you wanted.

[Blackbird686]

I think you misunderstood my reply. I was not saying you were wrong. I was simply adding that the flight tests already validated what you said was likely to be true.

To you, I apologize if I came across negative, because in your case, that was not my intent.

Cheers,

Ken

No worries, man. I suppose I should have approached this entire discussion a bit more "eloquently" to be honest about it.:redface:

BB686:USA-flag:

[Bone]

However, as Ken so correctly pointed out, you don't sign up to fly a particular aircraft. You sign up to fly what they tell you to fly. When your dreams and the USAF's needs coincide, wonderful. When they don't, you fly what they tell you to fly and do the best job you can, while you work the system to fly what you wanted.

True, and for a Civilian Puke such as myself, I really do understand that. I grew up hearing the words "needs of the force" quite often.

[centuryseries]

Anyway guys, this thread was started to ask the question why it's acceptable to the USAF to have the Raptor filmed in IR at an airshow, and have that footage uploaded to the internet where potential adversary nations (not naming any one particular country) can see how much heat the F-22 generates both in burner and not and compare it with other aircraft displaying including the Typhoon for a benchmark.

Someone asked if the F-22 was the only fighter to supercruise - well apparently the Gripen NG is capable of this, although not quite in service yet, it has a more powerful engine - but it's not 5th generation.

[Blackbird686]

Someone asked if the F-22 was the only fighter to supercruise - well apparently the Gripen NG is capable of this, although not quite in service yet, it has a more powerful engine - but it's not 5th generation.

If history serves (as well as memory), the very first jet to have the ability to "supercruise" was Britian's BAC "Lightning". Not to steal the F-22's thunder, but the BAC Lightning flew back in the days of the Cold War. Supercruisers have been with us for a while, albeit not that may of them.

BB686:USA-flag:

[Wing_Z]

Not forgetting that other aircraft that has been around so long that it re-invented itself a number of times before ever entering service...
The Eurofighter Typhoon can supercruise at M=1.5

And on a slightly larger scale, the TSR2 could supercruise in 1964, as could Concorde (using essentially the same engine)

As to the USAF "permitting" filming in IR...you don't imagine that was the only IR-equipped camera at Farnborough, do you?? :d