Production F-35 too heavy to take off vertically

[Major Johnathan]

About the Tomcat 21, all the talk of political bribery is interesting, but I've read elsewhere on the net that the Tomcat "community" lost out (partly?) because they were slow adjusting to post Cold War realities. In other words, they resisted serious development of bombing capabilities, as a distraction from the F-14's "real" mission, until after the decision had been made to go with the Super Hornet.

Sadly, that's not true, from the very beginning Grumman made the Tomcat a capable bomber. In Afghanistan and Iraq it has performed beautifully as a bomber(better than any Hornet can). They were slinging bombs under the F-14 as far back as development, meaning early 70's.

The only reason they started getting serious about making the Tomcat a bomber was because they retired the A-6 Intruder (another plane that had tons of life left in it). The A-6F would have kicked ass... anyway, the A-6 was the last dedicated carrier based bomber. They retired it for no good reason and started slinging bombs on Hornets and Tomcats as a result.

I can't help repeating this, the F-18 is a universally inferior fighter compared to the F-14 and utterly inferior in the bomber role compared the A-6. So naturally the F-18 'super' Hornet will replace EVERYTHING. They also intend to make the F-18 an air to air refueler and an ECM plane (thus replacing the Hawkeye and Prowler and Viking), so there will literally be nothing on U.S. Carriers but F-18's of one sort or another. Only the distant reality of the F-35 will break up the monopoly.

Eventually, the F-18 will run into some of the new Suchoi's, and I'm sorry to say the Su-27 and up will make mince meat of the Hornet, then who will defend the Carriers and the rest of the fleet? Hope the Air Force is nearby with the F-15s and F-22s.

Personally, I think the F-18 has become a hopeless curse on the U.S. Navy for as far as the eye can see. Has a plane with so little merit ever received so much accolades and rewards?

Edited May 31, 2004 by Major Johnathan

[David Hingtgen]

To add to above post: I mentioned this a little while ago (on this thread I think) that even the very first Tomcats had "Ground Attack" as one of their wing sweep options. Has always been there. Just like the F-15 has ALWAYS been able to carry lots of bombs. They just didn't do so until the F-15E came about. F-14 took even later, but they didn't even really need to do anything, just start using the previously almost-never-used ground attack wing-sweep setting. And why do you think they use the Phoenix pallets for carrying bombs? Because that's always been part of the system too, just needs a little adapter.

Response to questions:

B-1B can't supercruise.

Tu-144 can't. That's the main reason it wasn't in service very long at all. You can't afterburn your way across Russia and expect to be economical. Even with "Communist national prestige" funding the gas bill. Tu-144 has frankly a wing 20 years less advanced than the Concorde, and a vastly inferior lift/drag ratio. And thus WAY higher drag. And Soviet engines in the 1960's? Pretty much the definition of gas-guzzlers. Not too mention it had so much drag, that the friction REALLY heated up the airframe, to the point that it has the most powerful air conditioning system of any airliner, but it all goes to cool the skin (from the inside), thus leaving very hot passengers.

As opposed to the best Rolls-Royce has to offer.

Tu-144 is quite a bit faster than the Concorde though, faster than an F-16/18/22, and the later ones are faster than F-14's. And there's one unique one, the Tu-144LL, which can go like Mach 2.6. Nasa borrowed that one for a while.

Edited May 31, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Blackjacks and Backfires need afterburn to maintain supersonic speeds even when clean right?

[KingNor]

i've always heard that the f-18's wern't as good as the f-14s. as a navy brat growing up on navy bases all my life, there was always just SOMETHING about the f-14. it just looks RIGHT as a navy plane, like it was part of the aircraftcarrier design to have them.

its really too bad that f25 thing never made it. the few naval pilots i talked to always would make comments about how f-18 pilots were just in training for f-14 jobs.

is there anything on the web with clear cut comparisons of how the f-14 out classes the f-18 that would be readable by an amature like myself?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

it wasnt the community that wasnt abl;e to adjust it was the higher ups. Its not the tomcat community's fault at all that the thing got waxed, adter all some of the people(this is documented in rear admiral gilchrist's TOMCAT! book) that were making the decisions to axe the tomcat in favor of the hornet were people who had nothing to do with flying but were stiull high ranking naval officers. Some of these people were submariners, no not the S-3 viking kind but the real sumbamriners who man submarines. So with that some people had no clue of what they were voting for, to them all that mattered was money and political reasons. Tomcat 21 would probably be able to supercruise without a doubt and its manueverability would be increased, after all this was an upgrade to an already existing plane that the grumman engineers already were familiar with, NOT an all new plane like the super hornet.

I hate to say it but the super bug can only replace one plane ligeitimately in terms of succession and outdoing, the A-7 corsair. The E/A-18G is nice btu tehy took out the gun. Yea I know its an ECM plane but I dont give a shi*. Guns are always nice. And hell its already a super bug just withøut gun and with pods, it is still a capable strike fighter.

Most of you are right the tomcat was built as a dual bonmber and fighter since its inception. Tomcats were chosen to do CAS and FAC in afghanistan and operate from land bases to coordinate with the air force as well as escorting B-52s. And where was the supposedly god like superhornet ready to combat threats of today? Nowhere near it thats what.

threats may change, over times enemies get better and smarter, why the hell would you shoot yourself in the foot and settle for less? Some of you got the wrong idea, jsut kuz the tomcat takes longer to repair and maintain dont mean the whole squadron aboard a carrier will be grounded till repairs are done. NO squadron lifts off all at once. they alternate. Otherwise there is no use for alert 5 stance.

Neova ffrom what I understand ASF-14 was all new bvuild with a DRAMATICALLY different fueselage(yea it looked awesme but nothing like your normal tomcat) and was to have nuke capability and way miore than the ST21 was to have,. There was also a proposed variant called quickstrike but i forgot what it had.

SO yes tomcat was always meant to be a bomber its just the higher ups that consist of hornet mafia and others whoe have no idea whjat fleet premier front line fighters should be made the decisions not to uyse tomcat as bomber later on and made it so they allied with cheney and axed it.

F-14tomcat 21, NATF or naval Yf23...I hope to god whatever replaces the hornet can outdo the tomcat and A-6 in its respective roles as well.

[Coota0]

Just like the F-15 has ALWAYS been able to carry lots of bombs.

Of course that didn't stop anyone form advertising it as "Not a pound for air to ground"

[Coota0]

Tomcat 21 would probably be able to supercruise without a doubt and its manueverability would be increased, after all this was an upgrade to an already existing plane that the grumman engineers already were familiar with, NOT an all new plane like the super hornet.

How is the Super Hornet an all new aircraft?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

since its not just an upgrade, a legacy hornet cannot be converted to super hornet. Its a totally new airframe and avionics package.

[David Hingtgen]

Let's see, compared to a Legacy Hornet, the Super Hornet has:

New wings, new fuselage, new LEX's, new cockpit, new v.stabs, new h.stabs, new gear doors, new pylons, new panels/hatches, pretty much all-new "skin", new engines, new intakes, new exhausts, and other "various" changes.

I believe it can use the same nose-cone as the old one. And the landing gear is quite similar.

PS--F-18 can't replace the A-7 IMHO---can't carry as much stuff nor as far. The Super Hornet can now (I think) carry ALMOST as much stuff, but when it does, it's got so much drag it can't go supersonic at low level WITH afterburner, and thus has no range or speed advantages over the A-7 during a typical bombing mission.

[Nied]

Here's a huge complaint of mine about the F-35, one that should never come up... THE REAR VISIBILITY SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!

All fighters built in the last 25 years have had buble cockpits so you can see the bad guys sneaking up on you so why doesn't the F-35?

Actually if you look at the pictures of the final production models, only the F-35B (the STOVL variant) has sucky rear visibilty. All X-35 versions had crappy rear visability because they were designed to be quickly modified between the different version, but rest assured, once the real aircraft start coming off the factory lines they will have proper bubble canopies.

[Nied]

Sadly, that's not true, from the very beginning Grumman made the Tomcat a capable bomber. In Afghanistan and Iraq it has performed beautifully as a bomber(better than any Hornet can). They were slinging bombs under the F-14 as far back as development, meaning early 70's.

The only reason they started getting serious about making the Tomcat a bomber was because they retired the A-6 Intruder (another plane that had tons of life left in it). The A-6F would have kicked ass... anyway, the A-6 was the last dedicated carrier based bomber. They retired it for no good reason and started slinging bombs on Hornets and Tomcats as a result.

I can't help repeating this, the F-18 is a universally inferior fighter compared to the F-14 and utterly inferior in the bomber role compared the A-6. So naturally the F-18 'super' Hornet will replace EVERYTHING. They also intend to make the F-18 an air to air refueler and an ECM plane (thus replacing the Hawkeye and Prowler and Viking), so there will literally be nothing on U.S. Carriers but F-18's of one sort or another. Only the distant reality of the F-35 will break up the monopoly.

Eventually, the F-18 will run into some of the new Suchoi's, and I'm sorry to say the Su-27 and up will make mince meat of the Hornet, then who will defend the Carriers and the rest of the fleet? Hope the Air Force is nearby with the F-15s and F-22s.

Personally, I think the F-18 has become a hopeless curse on the U.S. Navy for as far as the eye can see. Has a plane with so little merit ever received so much accolades and rewards?

I don't think he was saying that the F-14 couldn't be made into a good bomber quickly or that it wasn't a capable one once it was modified as such. He saying (quite correctly) that the Tomcat comunity resisted taking on those roles for thier "pure fighters" until it was too late, and the Hornet Mafia was entrenched (and good buddies with Cheney).

[Skull Leader]

man, both versions of the JSF are ugly as hell (except from above, that's kind of cool).

2 things:

(1) where are the thrust-vectoring ports on the STOVL version?

(2) the STVOL version doesn't just have sucky rear visability... has ZERO rear visability... always a "good" thing on a dedicated fighter... oh well, they could hire ex-Crusader and Corsair II pilots who would feel right at home in those things.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Skull Leader

[Nied]

man, both versions of the JSF are ugly as hell (except from above, that's kind of cool).

2 things:

(1) where are the thrust-vectoring ports on the STOVL version?

(2) the STVOL version doesn't just have sucky rear visability... has ZERO rear visability... always a "good" thing on a dedicated fighter... oh well, they could hire ex-Crusader and Corsair II pilots who would feel right at home in those things.

The F-35B (the STOVL variant) doesn't have thrust vecorting ports like on the Harrier. It has dedicated a dedicated lift fan behind the canopy (which is why it has such poor aft visibility) and it's engine nozzel rotates downward. As for point 2, well considering that the primary role for the F-35B will be ground attack (to replace USMC AV-8Bs, USAF A-10s, and RAF GR.9s) with a secondary role as a fleet defence interceptor (to repalce RN Sea Harriers) it doesn't really need much in the way of aft visibilty does it?

Edited May 31, 2004 by Nied

[Mislovrit]

Why did the U.S. Navy want the F-35 instead of yet another Hornet varient?

[David Hingtgen]

They wanted a stealthy plane. All the RAM in the world won't make the F-18 stealthy. USAF has their pick of stealth--F-117, B-2, F-22. Navy has NO stealth, neither fighter nor bomber. Needed something, might was well get the F-35. Though of course, the F-22N would have been a world-beating aircraft, most likely. And if they'd have gone with the swing-wing version as a Tomcat replacement...

Edited June 1, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Heh YES! the only plane that I feel could have legitimiately replace and outdo the tomcat, the NATF. Already planned to have the phoenix or AAAm before being canned, could run circles around existing planes, and swing wings woujld have made it function better as a bomber than thje AIr fporce F-22. but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo

for the first time in years the air force now has the navy PWNED. ZTHis hasnt happened since the 50s!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

DAvid or whoever has the scan or pic on their harddrive,

Most of us here have not seen the ASF-14.....there was a proposal(quickstrike or ASF) that was shown in magazines and on the net, it was just a black and white blueprint or greyscale, whichever...but yes tomcat 21 is not the only design actually shown there was ASF or quickstrike, whoever has this can you please do us a favor and post it here? Its not Tomcat 21 I am SURE since it looked radically different and this tomcat proposal was an all new build not a retrofit to older cats.

[Mislovrit]

They wanted a stealthy plane. All the RAM in the world won't make the F-18 stealthy.

So there is some intelligence in the USN procurement department. Or they have already tried and failed to make a stealth Hornet or fit a modified F-18 frame around a F-35.

[ewilen]

How stealthy would a swing wing NATF have been?

Regarding all the Super Hornet controversy, I'm personally agnostic but I think it might be worth one's while to read a few Usenet posts by William "Bill" DuBois, who was a Navy officer involved in the Super Hornet program. Of course he's in favor of the Super Bug, so his bias needs to be taken into account. But from reading his posts I think he's an excellent spokesman for the program.

Here are his author profiles from Google groups:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&...t265%40aol.com+

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&...v-emh.navy.mil+

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&...macconnect.com+

(Not all of his posts are about the Hornet, or even about airplanes. It seems he also has a real tomcat for a pet.)

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

A swing wing NATF would probably be just as stealthy as the F-22 it is based on is. The wings wouldnt really be curved and such, and plus this is lockheed we are talking about here, if the rockwell B1B lancer can have some stealth characterestics having those exponentially biger arse wings compared to the tomcat , then I am sure the NATF would be a piece of cake to make stealthy. Plus most weapons could be carried internally like the F-22, so no weapons needed on wing to sacrifice stealth.

that guy may be a good spokesman but his info on the tomcat doesnt seem too logical nor knowledgeable, I really doubt the super bug would have outdone the ST21 in strike capability. MAts has a lot of info on ST21 and from all accounts only the NATF would have been the better replacement.

[ewilen]

Mislovrit, the Super Hornet does incorporate some stealth features, but it's not in the same class as an F-22 or F-35, apparently.

Shin, you think the Air Force has whipped the Navy? Not so fast...if the F-22 is cancelled or curtailed to a handful of planes, the Navy "wins".

[ewilen]

Shin, I wonder what part of what Captain DuBois has written is illogical or shows lack of knowledge?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

as you said he is biased. From what I read in his posts he is incredibly biased, you can't just right off ST21 and say the super bug will out perform it in EVERY aspect, because that is not true at all. I think he just likes the super just as much as I like the tomcat. But hes more biased.

[ewilen]

Shin, I am not saying he isn't biased. But you said he is ignorant and illogical. Surely you can point to a factual inaccuracy or fallacious argument to demonstrate your point.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

well he said something like "the super bug will outdo the tomcat in strike and other capabilities" ie=tomcat is mucho inferior. NO offense to him of course but to say something of that matter makes me feel like he is ignoring the facts and such. Tomcat is and COULD be a way better platform than it is now but cheney axed it. Even in its present state it is kicking ass. Super bug has not vbeen nor will it be everyones cup of tea and as david pointed out earlier, it cant even outdo the corsair 2 as a bombtruck.

[David Hingtgen]

Super Hornet's RCS has been reduced to approximately that of a Glass Falcon, which is basically "any F-16 with a gold canopy". Basic Hornet RCS is bigger than an F-16's. Later Hornet's RCS is down to F-16A level. F-16C's/Glass Falcons have lower RCS than older ones. Later F-16's do have RAM, just harder to spot. Super Hornets have been brought down to the latest F-16's RCS.

Which is still orders of magnitudes larger than an F-22/35.

[Coota0]

Shin you're being biased too. You claim that Dubois is being illogical, but you couldn't even quote him.

[David Hingtgen]

Can't find any images at all of the AST-21 nor ASF-14. Basic F-14 derivative summary:

Quickstrike F-14: Add FLIR, LANTIRN, new HUD/cockpit/avionics and generally all night-attack options/equipment of the F-15E. Add LGB's, HARM, SLAM, Harpoon, Maverick. Add 24 additional hardpoints (2x2 plus 4x5) to have double even the F-15E's bomb carrying capacity. Basically the "Strike Cat". At this point, already beats the Super Hornet for payload/range, and costs less and flies faster.

Super Tomcat 21: Everything the Quickstrike has, plus modified gloves for more fuel, new access panels to cut maintenance labor in half, upgraded engines to supercruise, improved flaps, and double the radar's power. Well now we're just WAY better than the Super Hornet. Oh, and lots of mods to lower the RCS.

Attack Super Tomcat 21: As above but with thicker outer wings for more fuel, new drop tanks for more fuel, even better flaps, and some of the A-12's systems. No range problems here! And can still go Mach 2. What the F-111 should have been. But sorta stealthy.

ASF-21: Go back to your standard F-14D, but add in the ATF's engines, weapons, and systems. Basically would be a quite fast, supercruising F-14 with very good weapons. Don't think it'd have the range/payload advantages of the others.

All in all--bigger planes are easier to work with/modify, and they'll always be inherently longer-ranged with bigger payloads. All the mods in the world won't give the F-16 a range or payload capacity equal to the F-15, nor will even the Super-Duper-Mega Hornet come close to what the F-14 can do. The bigger the plane, the more proportionately large the fuel/payload becomes. Take 2 very similarly designed planes, but one is 50% larger. It'll have 60+% more fuel, not 50%. That's just how it works. At the extreme end, the larger airliners can carry more than their own structural weight in fuel, and they're not stuffing their fuselage with fuel cells, nor carrying external tanks.

Edited June 1, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hmm never thought it would outdo the bomb cvapacity of the mud hen too! awesome stuff...also from what I read in MATS, the ST21 mounted most of its bombs INBETWEEN the engine nacelles! So it wouldn't ad any drag and it could still move like a fighter with all them bombs! that and like david pointed out, retained SPEED,

truly an awesome bird. Loaded with enough bombs close to an A-6, range of an already big tomcat,RETAINED SPEED AND MANUEVERABILITY....wow. Super bug can do that>? mah ass!

Coota0 Posted on May 31 2004, 08:48 PM

Shin you're being biased too. You claim that Dubois is being illogical, but you couldn't even quote him.

Edited June 1, 2004 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Shin you're being biased too. You claim that Dubois is being illogical, but you couldn't even quote him.

yes but see I think it is obvious and I stAted this before, that I am biased towards the cat. Although I feel he is more biased towards the bug.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Quickstrike F-14: Add FLIR, LANTIRN, new HUD/cockpit/avionics and generally all night-attack options/equipment of the F-15E. Add LGB's, HARM, SLAM, Harpoon, Maverick. Add 24 additional hardpoints (2x2 plus 4x5) to have double even the F-15E's bomb carrying capacity. Basically the "Strike Cat". At this point, already beats the Super Hornet for payload/range, and costs less and flies faster.

Add that and the fact that it would have supercruised, and still retained its manueverability as a FIGHTER, and you have a supersonic supercruising, fuel and bomb laden, A-6 with self defense capability. Add a TARPS pod and BAM add recon and bomb assesment real time imagerey!

[Nied]

It apears as though any RCS reductions made for the ST-21 were merely perfunctory aplication of RAM. It still has the same hugely returning intakes with the variable inlets leading right to the exposed fan blades (though it may use radar blockers similar to the Super Hornets, though that would cut down on any speed advantage). Now I haven't ever found pictures of the AST- or ASF-21 but I don't see how they could have signifigantly reduced the RCS of those intakes while still maintaining any of the original Tomcat's high speed performance.

That and I don't see how adding a few extra access panels are going to make up for design defiencies in the airframe. There's not a whole lot you can do to improve maintainability without re-designing the airframe.

[Lynx7725]

That and I don't see how adding a few extra access panels are going to make up for design defiencies in the airframe. There's not a whole lot you can do to improve maintainability without re-designing the airframe.

I can draw an analogy for you here.

In the early days of PC computing, components are standardized (PCI, etc. etc.) and it's often fashionable to scratchbuild your own system. This was before the era of Dell and other big computer manufacturers stepping in, okay?

The casing for PCs then were horrible. They are often a single metal frame with attachment points for hardware, but designed with little thought of maintenance or accessibility. Customizers often end up with nicks and scratches due to the (sharp) frame designed to secure components.. but not for users to reach them.

Nowadys, PC casing are much more user friendly. My current system casing can strip out entire cages for easy installation of harddrives and other peripherials, the entire PC power supply can be detached and replaced (previously power supply are as good as welded to the frame...). This makes maintenance MUCH easier, and replacement of parts much easier too.

But structurally-wise, externally my PC is still a darn box.

In a similar fashion, in theory, ergonomic design of the interior of the airframe, with special emphasis on accessibility, replacability and maintenance, can easily cut maintenance cost down significantly on the ST-14.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

That and I don't see how adding a few extra access panels are going to make up for design defiencies in the airframe.  There's not a whole lot you can do to improve maintainability without re-designing the airframe.

I can draw an analogy for you here.

In the early days of PC computing, components are standardized (PCI, etc. etc.) and it's often fashionable to scratchbuild your own system. This was before the era of Dell and other big computer manufacturers stepping in, okay?

The casing for PCs then were horrible. They are often a single metal frame with attachment points for hardware, but designed with little thought of maintenance or accessibility. Customizers often end up with nicks and scratches due to the (sharp) frame designed to secure components.. but not for users to reach them.

Nowadys, PC casing are much more user friendly. My current system casing can strip out entire cages for easy installation of harddrives and other peripherials, the entire PC power supply can be detached and replaced (previously power supply are as good as welded to the frame...). This makes maintenance MUCH easier, and replacement of parts much easier too.

But structurally-wise, externally my PC is still a darn box.

In a similar fashion, in theory, ergonomic design of the interior of the airframe, with special emphasis on accessibility, replacability and maintenance, can easily cut maintenance cost down significantly on the ST-14.

I agree with Lynx, especially with the technology today, the tomcat could have been made much easier to maintain. Of course to the hornet mafia this was BS. but it is true, it would have been much easier to maintain. THe ST21 is like a dream plane, it SHOULD be used but politics prevents it from even being made. From the MATs page to the research I do on my own all over the net and to even book and TV programs I have watched since childhood, it all leads me to believe(along with david's comments) that ST or quickstrike really should have been the way to go. THe super hornet couldnt do the F14D's job with smoke and mirrors as stated by rear admiral paul ghilchrist in his TOmcat! book, so lets see a superbug try to do the quickstrike tomcat's job.

its like this. F-8 was ideal for its time. People and the pencil pushers said HEY!" ACm and all that garbage dont exist no more...so lets take out the gun and make the new plane fast as hell...oh yea make its main armnbament BVR"

next thing you know a war hit and phantom pilots were regretting not having a gun and not being able to manuever well(lets face it, though duke and driscoll were the sole aces of that war, do you think theyd really want to dogfight in that thing against a mig 17? no.......they won because they were very skilled and trained after 1969 in ACM at topgun, phantom maybe nice and all but its just not the plane for the dofgfight)

People now say "crap dude cold wars done no bear bomber or blackjack will come attacking our carrier...we gotta worry about terrorists in mountains and crap"

I only HOPE history does not repeat itself and we see a inevitable screw up where we realize we use the wrong plane and we underestimate threats. Remember in the 60s ACM was thought to be a threat of yesteryear. Bombers can always be a threat. Sure a 3rd world country wont go bankrupt buying bears and blackjacks but wqhos ton say they need to buy a lot, it only takes one bomber to take a fleet down.

Edited June 1, 2004 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[Nied]

A swing wing NATF would probably be just as stealthy as the F-22 it is based on is. The wings wouldnt really be curved and such, and plus this is lockheed we are talking about here, if the rockwell B1B lancer can have some stealth characterestics having those exponentially biger arse wings compared to the tomcat , then I am sure the NATF would be a piece of cake to make stealthy. Plus most weapons could be carried internally like the F-22, so no weapons needed on wing to sacrifice stealth.

It's not about how curvy the wings are, the biggest factor influencing stealth is aligning all of the leading and trailing edges. That would be absolutely impossible with a swing wing since the angle of the wing is different depending on what flight regeime the aircraft is in. It apears that Lockheed's NATF and A/F-X designs were optimised for their wings fully swept, which makes sense for an aircraft that would be spending alot of time cruising at supersonic speeds. The only problem is that if it slows down for an attack run or dogfight it would suddenly become quite visible on radar (still smaller than most modern aircraft, but quite a bit larger than a F-22).