F-22

[c1ue]

Re: F-22

So what has Rutan himself been doing for the past 40 years? Bells and whistles?

I believe I left out the word 'military' aircraft in the previous statement.

Amended to:

This is interesting given what Rutan said about the state of {military} aircraft today: he basically said that nothing new has been created in 40 years.

I'd also note that as a military contractor and one who is closely involved with the aeronautics industry - this is a pretty strong statement.

Well that's fundamentally untrue, but I suppose one might believe it depending on how one defines "bells and whistles." As my advisor in my Aerospace Engineering undergrad program said, "After the draw your rough draft of the layout, look at it. If it looks like an airplane, then it's probably capable of being an airplane." There have been some advances and/or studies in some very non-traditional aspects of Aerospace Engineering that could never fit into the category of "bells and whistles" because they are so fundamentally different but, by and large, the improvements in aircraft design have largely been a race for diminishing returns in efficiency ever since the height of the Jet Age.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for innovation. There is the lightly-explored area of Magnus Effect utilization in aircraft and some significant room for play in propulsion, both in type and in design. The "Next Big Thing" may not even be possible until something like a major breakthrough in propulsion takes place and gets large-scale adoption, such as the Sabre Engine developed by Reaction Engines.

My guess is Rutan meant in terms of modes/means of actual flying, as opposed to various configurations of carrying/avoiding things. But as I said, I only forward what he said. No personal view of any kind.

As for innovation - it seems clear that Rutan has put considerable effort into innovation in various areas of aircraft design. Another comment he made that was interesting was that he noted that the round the world without refueling flight (Voyager) - it had to essentially double the previous record, and that this was unusual because it was not an incremental improvement.

F22 vs. its predecessors - incremental? Absolutely.

[GRG55]

Re: F-22

I believe I left out the word 'military' aircraft in the previous statement.

Amended to:



I'd also note that as a military contractor and one who is closely involved with the aeronautics industry - this is a pretty strong statement.



My guess is Rutan meant in terms of modes/means of actual flying, as opposed to various configurations of carrying/avoiding things. But as I said, I only forward what he said. No personal view of any kind.

As for innovation - it seems clear that Rutan has put considerable effort into innovation in various areas of aircraft design. Another comment he made that was interesting was that he noted that the round the world without refueling flight (Voyager) - it had to essentially double the previous record, and that this was unusual because it was not an incremental improvement.

F22 vs. its predecessors - incremental? Absolutely.

I am a long time EAA member and like many members in the mid-1980s I made a point of attending all of Burt Rutan's (and John Roncz's) forums at Oshkosh during that era, and made some small financial contributions each year towards the Voyager program. It was a hell of an achievement from a bunch of people, led by one of the most creative aeronautical engineers ever, working on a shoestring budget with no government backing (a fact that Burt Rutan made repeatedly during that time).

However Voyager was most definitely incremental. Show me one single aerodynamic or propulsion innovation unique to the Voyager that had not been tried and proven prior. There isn't one. Voyager was the result of assembling the very best of the known alternatives to solve each issue, including the fuel fraction, to build a one-off, single purpose airplane that was intended for one objective and one flight only.

In terms of expanding the envelope of aeronuatical engineering, I would suggest Rutan's Catbird single and Boomerang twin were far and away more remarkable aeroplanes than Voyager.

As time passed Rutan was increasingly prone to go off on anti-government rants during his lectures (he has a particular hate-on for NASA). Some of his points are thought provoking, some are self-serving. It's best to try to avoid confusing the two...

[Woodsman]

Re: F-22

Hopefully all the stealth wizardry on the F-22 will allow our guys to "reach out and touch" before they get too close to an SU-35. If nifty aerobatics translate into combat lethality, things aren't looking all that hot for us.

http://youtu.be/UYpWVJmottU

[Ghent12]

Re: F-22

F22 vs. its predecessors - incremental? Absolutely.

What basis do you use to determine the difference between incremental and non-incremental? There's no way the F-22 is just incremental over the F-15 or even the F/A-18 in numerous metrics.

[jneal3]

Re: F-22

Yeah, I'm a bit unsure how to perceive China......I think I'm not too far off your perspective.......immense potential.....combined with immense corruption.

The only comparison I can think of is the Soviet Union.

And the Chinese seem to have studied the collapse of it about 1000 times more the Russians have.

I think they represent both a greater and lesser threat than the Soviet Union did........greater economic threat...but less of a direct military threat(for the foreseeable future).

My 2 cents FWIW, I worked for one of the 'big 4' chinese automotive OEMs (Changan) for about the last year, setting up what in southeast Michigan what was intended to be a chassis engineering research and design center. While they may have mass numbers of PhD's trained in the U.S., what they do not have, at least in automotive engineering (and having worked in aerospace I can roughly say this observation would also apply there), is a driving vision of 'what to do'. Their M.O. right now is strictly copy-to-catch-up; they do not have the technical depth to envision anything much beyond that (generalizing here, of course). I don't see them developing that vision very soon either - most of the leadership I dealt with is incredibly risk-averse, and I can only assume that is a hangover from a communist system that did not reward risk-taking and most likely punished risk-taking that failed.

Their plan for our research center was for us to 'teach' HQ how to engineer from requirements driven by customer wants, not by laser-scanning a Camry and reproducing it (with all its mfg variability and 5-7 year old technology). There is a core of leadership somewhere in the company that did envision moving beyond copying, but the great mass of middle management and working level was definitely not on board. The forces that drive the desire for technical leadership that underpin the U.S. economy are not part of the chinese culture that I was exposed to. 'Good enough' definitely ruled the day; down-and-dirty technical details and hard work seemed to turn them off.

It will be 20-30 years before I step onto a chinese engineered and built airplane....

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: F-22

My 2 cents FWIW, I worked for one of the 'big 4' Chinese automotive OEMs (Changan) for about the last year, setting up what in southeast Michigan what was intended to be a chassis engineering research and design center. While they may have mass numbers of PhD's trained in the U.S., what they do not have, at least in automotive engineering (and having worked in aerospace I can roughly say this observation would also apply there), is a driving vision of 'what to do'. Their M.O. right now is strictly copy-to-catch-up; they do not have the technical depth to envision anything much beyond that (generalizing here, of course). I don't see them developing that vision very soon either - most of the leadership I dealt with is incredibly risk-averse, and I can only assume that is a hangover from a communist system that did not reward risk-taking and most likely punished risk-taking that failed.

Their plan for our research center was for us to 'teach' HQ how to engineer from requirements driven by customer wants, not by laser-scanning a Camry and reproducing it (with all its mfg variability and 5-7 year old technology). There is a core of leadership somewhere in the company that did envision moving beyond copying, but the great mass of middle management and working level was definitely not on board. The forces that drive the desire for technical leadership that underpin the U.S. economy are not part of the Chinese culture that I was exposed to. 'Good enough' definitely ruled the day; down-and-dirty technical details and hard work seemed to turn them off.

It will be 20-30 years before I step onto a Chinese engineered and built airplane....

What areas does the US lead in? We seems to have the best social network apps. I will grant you that.

[c1ue]

Re: F-22

What basis do you use to determine the difference between incremental and non-incremental? There's no way the F-22 is just incremental over the F-15 or even the F/A-18 in numerous metrics.

Perhaps you can list some of those metrics. Rutan's point - agree with it or not - is that the basic setup of F22, F15, and F18 are nearly identical. The only differences are modifications for non-aviation reasons.

The fastest Mig was the Mig 25. Later generations were actually significantly slower - because speed was no longer a major factor.

[Ghent12]

Re: F-22

Perhaps you can list some of those metrics. Rutan's point - agree with it or not - is that the basic setup of F22, F15, and F18 are nearly identical. The only differences are modifications for non-aviation reasons.

The fastest Mig was the Mig 25. Later generations were actually significantly slower - because speed was no longer a major factor.

You can see for yourself. Things like ceiling, range, payload, and V_mo represent incremental improvements. Things like all the facets of stealth it incorporates and thrust vectoring are not incremental improvements. Its avionics package is not an incremental improvement. Entirely new capabilities are not, by any definition, incremental improvements. If you want to say that, "it's just another air dominance fighter that's better than its predecessors, therefore it's just an incremental improvement," then you are missing the trees in the forest.

As for the MiG's, forgive me if I don't catch the relevance to any discussion here.

[c1ue]

Re: F-22

You can see for yourself. Things like ceiling, range, payload, and V_mo represent incremental improvements.

And in fact I have looked at those things. None of the newest craft are the latest and greatest in any of the areas you've outlined.

As I noted before: the Mig25 had both greater speed and greater ceiling than any combat aircraft for decades. Range wise - we're still looking at aircraft carriers. Not seeing any change there.

[Ghent12]

Re: F-22

And in fact I have looked at those things. None of the newest craft are the latest and greatest in any of the areas you've outlined.

As I noted before: the Mig25 had both greater speed and greater ceiling than any combat aircraft for decades. Range wise - we're still looking at aircraft carriers. Not seeing any change there.

Now you've confused some things. The F-22, for instance, isn't capable of carrier operation.

[flintlock]

Re: F-22

The pessimist in me thinks the US will collapse of its own doing long before any dust up with China becomes relevant. Collapse may be the wrong term. Become unrecognizable perhaps?

[unlucky]

Re: F-22

What basis do you use to determine the difference between incremental and non-incremental? There's no way the F-22 is just incremental over the F-15 or even the F/A-18 in numerous metrics.

Why worry about US innovation in military aircraft? It's obvious that the big non-incremental innovation of recent times was drones. Relatively low-cost and ideally suited to the type of war that the US fights today, they were invented in the US and AFAIK no-one else is even close yet.

I'm not a US citizen nor a fan of military stuff. But the ability of the US military to divert from an existing track of thought in response to necessity (i.e. departing from expensive super-planes to create the drone) is impressive. Many other cultures would have gotten stuck, and would now be using F22s to attack the taliban.

[Ghent12]

Re: F-22

Why worry about US innovation in military aircraft? It's obvious that the big non-incremental innovation of recent times was drones. Relatively low-cost and ideally suited to the type of war that the US fights today, they were invented in the US and AFAIK no-one else is even close yet.

I'm not a US citizen nor a fan of military stuff. But the ability of the US military to divert from an existing track of thought in response to necessity (i.e. departing from expensive super-planes to create the drone) is impressive. Many other cultures would have gotten stuck, and would now be using F22s to attack the taliban.

That switch to drones is, of course, not without its own set of teething problems. In general, I agree with you that the ability to handle both high-end capability to deter/fight great power war and low-end capability to pursue transnational actors is impressive. Then again, with an unlimited budget, anyone would be capable of such things. Defense spending is more than what it was during the height of the so-called "Surge" in Iraq, and there's not much end in sight. Maybe the new nominee for SECDEF will restructure the military to stop consuming so much of the resources of the country, but somehow I see that as not likely.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: F-22

And in fact I have looked at those things. None of the newest craft are the latest and greatest in any of the areas you've outlined.

As I noted before: the Mig25 had both greater speed and greater ceiling than any combat aircraft for decades. Range wise - we're still looking at aircraft carriers. Not seeing any change there.

The MIG25 was a very limited one trick pony revealed by the Viktor Belenko defection to Japan in 1976.

The F15 designed to counter it has proven to be a far more impressive aircraft both on paper and in combat operations.

The same will likely be the case of the F22.

While it was started during the Cold War, the need to maintain an air superiority/air dominance capability is still relevant to this day....and in the future.

It also depends on what you call a combat aircraft...if that includes reconnaissance(which MIG25 variants performed in that role beyond it's original and very limited interceptor configuration) then the SR71 far surpassed the MIG25 and proved it's worth over the years as a strategic intelligence asset and foreign policy tool for the US.

Parity is not really an option for the US when operating as it doesn't really possess the doctrine or capability to operate effectively WITHOUT air superiority/dominance....in my opinion.

This is exemplified by the very well integrated close air support as well as C4I capabilities that are reliant on friendly air assets operating in a permissive/semi-permissive environment.

Also, while the US possesses some pretty good surface to air and anti ballistic missile capabilities, there's insufficient breadth and depth of those capabilities to support operations in an aerial parity conflict....again...in my opinion.

Whether the F22 is "revolutionary" can probably be debated all day long by folks far more qualified than I.

What is quite hard to debate is that the combination of improvements(incremental or otherwise) in categories like stealth/vectored thrust/sensor fusion/supercruise/battlefield persistance/high performance engines DO represent a revolutionary improvement in capability compared with current fielded capabilities by both potential enemies and current allies...even if some of those individual potential capabilities have been tested/fielded in limited numbers on legacy airframes.

It could also be debated whether or not the US NEEDED to invest all that money in the F22, but that's a bit irrelevant now, since it's already been fielded in limited numbers(about 1/3-1/4 of the original plan way back in the day)....so that horse has already bolted from the barn.

Will the Chinese J20 and J31 turn out to be like the hollow threat MIG25 Foxbat? Or will they be more along the lines of the introduction of the SU27/MIG29?

I'm guessing more of the latter.

So the US will continue spending a staggering sum of money per flight hour on the F22, people will continue to complain that it is a solid platinum albatross, and potential enemy air force planners will continue to sweat like they did against the F15 over the last 40 years.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: F-22

Why worry about US innovation in military aircraft? It's obvious that the big non-incremental innovation of recent times was drones. Relatively low-cost and ideally suited to the type of war that the US fights today, they were invented in the US and AFAIK no-one else is even close yet.

I'm not a US citizen nor a fan of military stuff. But the ability of the US military to divert from an existing track of thought in response to necessity (i.e. departing from expensive super-planes to create the drone) is impressive. Many other cultures would have gotten stuck, and would now be using F22s to attack the taliban.

Probably the most effective tool against an opponent like the taliban is an off the shelf Cessna 208 Caravan loaded with off the shelf sensor suite and missiles networked with UAVs and ground units....hourly operating costs are a single digit % of running an F22 or even legacy tactical aircraft.

One of the things that receives very little coverage over the last 11.5 years of conflict is the wear and tear on military assets.

I'm never worked in military procurement or strategic planning but I would assume(safely I think) that when big expensive shiny kit like helicopters/fighter jets/tanks are procured their rated useful life of airframes/engines/chassis are all factored into the long-term equation of how many fully operational units will be available in 5/10/25/and in some cases 50+ years.

Deployed military operations, and especially combat operations can be especially hard on kit........I seriously DOUBT planners who put it all together in the 1980's and 1990's planned for a 11.5 year series of conflicts.

Desert Storm would have probably fit into the equation.......but the last 11.5 years?

I doubt it........

War doesn't just age the people who fight it, but it rapidly ages the tools used TO fight it.

Something worth keeping in mind in the period ahead.

Keeping an F15E Strike Eagle costing $15k-$20K an hour in racetrack orbit all day every day to kill a single taliban IED team is probably not an effective bang for the buck....hence my comment on the Cessna.

Using Ferraris to take the rubbish to the dump is a display of poor operational, financial, and fleet/asset management in my opinion.

But the planners who planned all this 20-30 years ago didn't reckon the US would require so little need for conventional near peer aerial dominance and so much need for killing individuals from 10,000ft in permissive air space.