F-22

[reggie]

Re: F-22

A feedback - control marvel!

Just love the US Military's product development sophistication. It's the best in the world, no matter what the public is told.

[c1ue]

Re: F-22

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

Hardly, because I'm not talking about only the F22. I'm talking about the SOTA front line American military aircraft today vs. 10 or even 30 years ago.

Are there improvements? In some ways, certainly. But they're incremental.

[Ghent12]

Re: F-22

Hardly, because I'm not talking about only the F22. I'm talking about the SOTA front line American military aircraft today vs. 10 or even 30 years ago.

Are there improvements? In some ways, certainly. But they're incremental.

Not all the improvements are incremental because some of them are entirely new capabilities or categories. That cannot ever be an incremental improvement unless you brute force it into some uselessly large category, like "overall air superiority." You have a funny way of phrasing things that doesn't quite jive with objective reality sometimes. I would urge caution for you on that note.

[reggie]

Re: F-22

Hardly, because I'm not talking about only the F22. I'm talking about the SOTA front line American military aircraft today vs. 10 or even 30 years ago.

Are there improvements? In some ways, certainly. But they're incremental.

So, tell us, what would be an improvement that you would consider more than merely "incremental"?

As someone who has friends that helped oversee the propulsion system of this aircraft, it is badass. Meeting a vast array of joint-force requirements has been an incredible feat, not to mention the Dynamical (control-feedback) sophistication.

[c1ue]

Re: F-22

Not all the improvements are incremental because some of them are entirely new capabilities or categories. That cannot ever be an incremental improvement unless you brute force it into some uselessly large category, like "overall air superiority." You have a funny way of phrasing things that doesn't quite jive with objective reality sometimes. I would urge caution for you on that note.

That's funny, I asked you what you considered areas of improvement. You listed a few, and I then pointed out that aircraft in the past outperformed modern aircraft in every single one of those areas.

Yes, certainly the aircraft in question were specialized, but the point isn't about specialization. A 'Stealth' aircraft is equally specialized.

The original point was: have there been significant changes in the basic jet platform - which Rutan says there have not been for decades.

I've yet to see any substantive commentary in opposition to Rutan's point. Vectored thrust - great in theory, very poor in practice.

So, tell us, what would be an improvement that you would consider more than merely "incremental"?

As someone who has friends that helped oversee the propulsion system of this aircraft, it is badass. Meeting a vast array of joint-force requirements has been an incredible feat, not to mention the Dynamical (control-feedback) sophistication.

Rutan's example was the Voyager: that he beat the previous record by 2x. Other examples: the SR71 and SpaceShipOne.

In the first 2 cases, the previous distance/speed records were substantially eclipsed by the newer aircraft. In the last case, LEO was achieved with a tremendously smaller budget, lower operating costs, and completely different means than before.

As for your friend's - I have no doubt that the modern fighter has all manner of chefs stirring the design soup. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if one reason why said military aircraft have failed to improve is because of the need to fulfill every one of a myriad of different tasks - few of which have anything to do with basic aircraft function.