Rhen

All I have to say is AIM-120D. With its two-way data link, the aircraft will update the bandits position and send the info to the missile. The missile will send the aircraft a loss of acquisition signal should it lose the bandit during terminal flight. This will allow frugal use of missiles and minimal warning to the bandit. Excellent maneuverability by the bandit is only an asset to a last ditch maneuver by the bandit to out BFM the missile. Trying to see an air-to-air missile is much more difficult than trying to see a SAM. @suntrace1: When it comes to weapons development, TACTICAL weapons, on the whole do not DIRECTLY influence politics. I totally agree with you that STRATEGIC weapons influence politics and the future course of the nation having these strategic weapons. With regards to tactical weaponry, like the F-22, it only affects politics when taken as a whole, with all other tactical weapons. When a military can use these weapons effectively and efficiently to obtain an objective of national interest, then it becomes easier to use a military solution in the future, to attain another national objective.

For those of you that still want to talk politics in this thread, I ask you to please refrain so that this thread can continue as a discussion of the F-22, its mission, capabilities, and comparative effectiveness against other aircraft of similar mission design. Please leave the politics of any country out of it, as the rules of this forum are specific about this. Thanks!

With all due respect to the nice blonde lady, and i'm sure she's well-versed in her MIT education, but IRL she knows not what she's talking about. We know all the way back to Vietnam that SAMs tend to/will be able to down more aircraft than air-to-air engagements. However, when you fly in someone elses back yard, you can't always bring all your SAMS with you in a high-intensity rapidly evolving conflict. This means that we'd suffer greater aircraft losses from their air defense system and they'd suffer greater losses NOT from our air defense system, but from our fighter aircraft. Such are the consequences of fighting in someone elses well-defended sandbox. How do we counter this threat? By leveraging technology to get the first look, first shot, to rapidly strike, and exit the area. That's the Raptor. Her other argument that may hold credence is that "fighters need bases relatively close to the conflict." Again, wrong. With refueling - and I hate to fly these types of missions, we can fly longer missions. The only thing that prevents this is crew rest and the number of missiles that can be carried. I've flown from Kadena AB Japan, to RAAF Tindal, Australia - non-stop (about 3000miles/4900km), then fought an aerial engagement and then recovered the jet. It sucks, but it can be done. Besides, that's what we have the navy for anyway.:smilewink:

You think too small, man! I'd go for the Aston Martin Vanquish - now that's a car!:thumbup:

Howdy, Mr. Bean Counter!:P Affordability is NOT a valid military concept. Economy of force - applying the force required to do the job and no more - is a valid military concept. The cost of the F-22 or the rest of the military for that matter, is left up to our civilian leadership, not the military. We ask for things, they give.. or not. Not our choice. When the civilian leadership directs us to do something, it's always going to be expensive, and sometimes messy. That's what militaries do. Redecorating with high explosives and fragments of lead is usually messy. You know, you guys in Belgium spend WAY too much on your monarchy. If you took that money and put it into something that makes more sense, like social programs, and became part of the Netherlands again, then you wouldn't have to spend anything on defense either... ;) . Look, what you think about what the US spends on things is about as interesting to me as me talking about what your country spends on its things. The Eagle was developed to counter the MiG-25, which is unarguably a crap dogfighter, but it can go high and fast and paired up with a long range missile, it's a significant threat - but now, its a better short-range reconnaisance platform. So, if US hadn't developed the Eagle, we'd still be flying Phantoms instead of Eagles. The Raptor was made for air superiority in varying threat environments. Are you telling me, that this capability is not needed? This is the first new fighter aircraft in the USAF inventory since the 1970s. Are you saying that the US should go with a 1/2 measure, instead of a full measure of upgrade, because you deem it's not necessary for the US to upgrade? :lol: :huh: Yep, looks like you are saying that it's not necessary to upgrade a fighter that was born out of the Vietnam war - the Eagle, with a fighter born out of late '80s - early 90's tech. I'm glad you're not a bean counter... because if you were, we'd probably have F-16 in air defense role instead of the Eagle. To me, that would be scary. Spoken like a true bean counter! :megalol: Whoops! My bad, we'd be using the superhornet instead of the viper for air superiority. So with your argument, since you don't like the US upgrading from early 70s tech to early 90s tech, we should go for something in between - say 80s tech. Then i guess we'd all be flying hornets. It's a nice plane, but was never meant to hold any type of high ground for long. In an engagement against a hornet, I usually win almost every time, that would scare me too. Nothing can beat an aircraft that was designed to maintain air-to-air superiority in the first place. If your country can't afford anything but multirole aircraft, that's your country's choice, it doesn't have to be mine. Oh, btw, we have a super Eagle, already. The AESA Eagle, is that & it will complement the Raptor in it's role maintaining air superiority over the battlefield.... so yeh, we already got that, but it's still time to upgrade.

No one that knows anything about radar or stealth will tell you otherwise. In the Raptor or Nighthawk, you CAN fly through most any radar. You just can't get too close to the receiver. It's all about detection ranges. You can get a helluva lot closer in a F-22 or F-117 than you could in a conventional aircraft. It's all about minimizing your RCS and maxing detection ranges on bandits. The Raptor does both. It allows me to get closer to the threat before I'm detected. It's not a magic invisibility cloaking device.:P We learn the strengths and weaknesses of the jet and employ it accordingly. Tactics are being developed even as we speak to maximize these strengths and minimize the weaknesses. To others that say that you have to prove the mettle of an aircraft in combat - well you're right - to a point. The Eagle was bought without going into real combat, but it, and the pilots who fly the Eagle, have gone through millions of fights in training. The tactics were developed without having fired a shot in anger. To not look at what you'll be flying in combat with a critical eye is tantamount to flying blind with one arm tied behind your back and half your brain back at the O'club. Every pilot who flies combat aircraft know how it works and how their adversaries aircraft work. But saying that the Raptor sucks because it's not proven in combat is like saying that you'll not visit the Psychiatrist because he's not psychopathic so he'll never understand what you're going through... :P

DAMN! I'm always a day late and a dollar short... :smilewink:

What's this "we" stuff? You don't write like a native citizen of the US. Are you naturalized? Are you really a citizen as you purport to be?:music_whistling: It's always nice to jump the fence and criticize your neighbor, instead of looking in you own house for problems. What the US spends on defense is exorbitant - but, whether you like it or not, the US is a superpower. There's precious few of those out there. China's one. Japan has the money, but not the constitution that allows it to spend money on military equipment. Russia, could be again, but they've not had the economy to support being a superpower. India is taking steps to become a superpower. Are you criticizing what India or China are spending to get aircraft, aircraft carriers, submarines, tanks from Russia - when major segments of their population go hungry? I don't want to get into a political discussion with you anyway. You're entitled to think what you think about the US and I'm entitled to think and VOTE the way I want to in the US, so let's just confine this discussion about the merits of the F-22 as a fighter aircraft and whether it's capable of performing its mission vice other aircraft with similar missions.

Nobody who has any neurons in his cranium is telling you it's a walk in the park to fly and fight in the Raptor... at least I'm not going to tell you that. What I am going to tell you is that it's easier to fly and fight in that kind of environment - or any, for that matter, if you do it in a F-22 as opposed to an F-15. As I've said before, regarding the Raptor - the sheer increase in SA that you get when you fly that bird is worth the price, then put a RCS on it the size of a medium sized marble, and we've got the icing on the cake. Now stick a couple of Slammer D's on it and we've got a cherry on top. The Eagle's the best plane I've ever flown, but it's no Raptor - the Raptor lives up to it's name as a 5th gen jet. I am, however, not blind to it's shortcomings - I know them like I know the shortcomings of the Eagle. Any pilot wants to know the best and worst about their jet.

my timing sucks, that's why I didn't become a WSO:P

You're right Ukr_Alex, why use a $350M Raptor when it could be done with a $50K Cessna 172 flown by a kid. :music_whistling: It's amazing the number of people who have no experience in real air combat who seem to be experts in what should be bought and what shouldn't be bought for a replacement for the Eagle. Just because you guys play a fighterpilot on the computer, please don't assume you understand what works and what doesn't in real life . When you put your pink little behind in the seat of a fighting jet, you're betting your life and the lives of your wingmen/women on your skill and the abilities of the jet you're flying. You've studied the tactics and the capabilities of your jet and the adversaries you'll meet up with. You've trained all your adult career for one thing. To strap 20 tons of aircraft to your ass to go up and do battle with others who are doing the same thing. You pray to God that you'll not make a mistake so big that it kills your wingmen or jeopardizes your mission, and of course, for your own pink little behind. When it comes to the Raptor, I'd strap my ass into that thing and go up against anything any air force could field EASILY in a 1v1. I'll pit my 4 ship of Raptors against any 8 or 12 other aircraft you can field. With what I know of the Raptors capabilities in any conceivable air war that could be entered regardless of the other guys IADS. You also make the mistake of thinking the Raptor is going into any conflict as a single ship/only group ensuring air superiority. It's not. It's going in with the support of F-15s, F/A-18, F-16, WW, EWR, SAM batteries, AWACS, JSTARS, RIVET JOINT, tankers, bombers... you get the picture. If it has to go into a situation where some of this is missing, then it's got the best possible attributes to accomplish the mission than ANY other jet you can name that's operational or about to be operational. Finally, as a pilot, I don't give a feck how much the damn jet costs. I only care about what it can do and how I can use that to accomplish the mission, get my flight back home, and save my own ass from being a cloud of blood and guts. I'll take the Raptor over anything else. It will do all these things better than anything else, period. Now, when you start thinking like a fighter pilot, instead of like a bean counter, then we can talk (unclassified) specifics.:thumbup:

@D-Scythe: Guess I was 6 min late to the IP on that one!

The F-86 had a good record too. Let's go back to that at $500k a pop. I bet we could buy a BUNCH of those for the price of one Raptor! :P As tech improves, we improve our warfighting capability. Why do we need a C-17? We've got the C-141 and C-130? So we can go somewhere and fight a war. We need the airlift just as we need the C3, Reconnaissance, EW, and a/a & a/g capability. We're fighting a future threat. Who's our enemy? Who knows? Possibly China - they're buying everything under the sun in aircraft, carriers, tanks, you name it. Who's their enemy? Who are they gearing up to fight? Spoken like a true civilian with no concept of fighting in a war:P :thumbup: . Let's give our troops equipment of equal capability as the prevailing enemy equipment out there... :huh: :idea: Sound's just like balanced game play! That's nice!.... Sorry, but as a fighter pilot, I want to go to war with equipment BETTER than anything else ANYBODY'S got. Don't you support our troops?:P See above - I'm 1/2 Asian and i know US and Asian cultures differ. That's what other countries have said as well. There are times where we can do things with our allies and there are times where we have to rely on ourselves. Just like any country out there, you've got to protect your populace. What will you protect your populace with? NOBODY protects their populace with today's tech. Even if we go to an all Raptor and Lightning2 air force, we'll have adopted 1990 technology to fight today's war. These aircraft were developed in the 80s and 90s. The F-15 was designed in the 70s. This IS how we spend our hard-earned money to preserve our way of living.

Ok, tflash, fair enough! :) Here's the "real" scoop. The majority of ANG/AFRES pilots are mobility pilots who fly the KC-135, C-130, C-17, C-5. Flying rubber dog crap around the world is like their real job. Not much continuation training required, just one week a month and one week a year. With regards to F-16 guard guys - they fly primarily air to mud. This skill isn't NEARLY as perishable as air-to-air. Moving mud is like driving a bike, it comes back to you quick. That's not to say that they don't train prior to a deployment. All Guard & Reserve pilots do that. They have currencies and flight hour requirements just like the active duty. However, these guys usually have lots of time in their weapons system prior to entering the guard/reserve. Granted, there are inexperienced pilots in the guard & reserve and there's Eagle drivers in the guard as well. These guys rely on the ART (air reserve technicians) or AGR (active guard/reserve) guys (guys who's primary job in life is being a full-time guard/reserve guy) personnel to train them before they deploy. The young guys tend to fly wingman off the old heads. The old heads have lots of flight time in the aircraft, so they're relying on their experience and refresher training prior to a deployment to get them up to speed. With regard to the F-16 being a viable replacement/stand-in for the F-15 in an air-to-air role, well then you've got to look at who gets the kills when it comes to dual-role guys versus dedicated air-to-air guys. We win every time - all the time. When air-to-air is your life's blood, you get good at it - better than anybody else. Dedicated A/A is always the way to go. Finally, your argument is based on maintenance now for the F-22 versus maintenance later. When the F-16 first came out, pilots had a high class A mishap rate (>$1M or loss of life/permanent disability, loss of aircraft) that was higher than the F-4. Wiring problems (chafing) caused pilots to die until all these things were worked out. Aircraft came back from sorties code 3 for major systems problems requiring aircraft grounding and repair. This will happen for any new weapons system. When these things get worked out in 3-5 years, the maintenance requirement and upgrade cost will be far less than the cost of upgrading the 3-4 F-15s that the Raptor will "force multiply." Finally the F-35 is NOT a stand-in for any dedicated A/A aircraft. You fly your F-35 and I'll fly my Eagle, we'll see who's pushing up the daisies:P . It has neither the legs that an Eagle has, the high altitude capability, nor the speed of an Eagle. You've got to get there first, hold the high ground, and kill things at range. All things neither the F-16, nor the F-35 were principally made to do.

Which you've already posted out if he cared to read it. :) About the only thing in the briefing that I'd agree with is that sometimes you've got to hold your nose when a General officer speaks. Filter through the massive amount of doubletalk and BS - (Black Shark?):smilewink: , and you might find a few nuggets of gold - but they're few and far between.:P

Fighter Pilots cost $$ The cost of getting a student pilot through UPT = Approx $1M Cost of IFF & RTU = Approx $2M Cost of training pilot for mission-ready status = Approx $3M - this gives you a 1Lt qualified to be a wingman. Cost of flight lead & instructor training + the experience required to get there = Approx $3M. Grand total $9 million USD for a mid-level Capt qualified in the aircraft and capable of flying any mission in that aircraft. This is in 2003 dollars - the last figures I remember. Now take that guy & send him/her to go fly Raptors. You then have to get a replacement for the F-15 manning position he/she left. A replacement will be ready in 5-6 years and cost approx $10M in 2006 dollars.

Sorry tflash, but you know not what you talk about. :P For every aircraft/weapons system, there's a minimum programmed flying hours requirement, to remain qualified to fly that airframe and be combat ready. Then, the events (takeoffs, landings, BFM, ACM, missile defense, instrument approaches, etc.) to remain qualified are outlined and a minimum number to remain proficient are devised. The cost of this training is built into the budget for the weapons system. This doesn't mean that the money in this pot is "raided" when there's a war, though. Using your logic, we could buy 5 F-5s for each F-16, so we should do that. That way we can just overwhelm anybody with sheer number - screw the pilots, they're cannon fodder. We'll lose a bunch, but we have a few hundred thousand of them, so we can afford to lose 30%, right? :cry: Then there's what Ghost said. You've got to have a few hundred thousand pilots and jets which need pilots, crew chiefs, avionics, weapons, electrics, hydraulics, engine - technicians, and spares. We're talking the cost of the F-22 in support equipment and salaries alone. The F-22 is a force multiplier. One F-22 does the work of 3-4 F-15s. It's only limiting factor is the number of missiles it can carry. In every other respect, the SA in the thing is fabulous. That feature alone is worth the price to any combat pilot.

Well, he's right... the F-117 DOES have a radar.... a Radar Altimeter:megalol: Wadda loada crap! Comparing the F-117s mission to the F-16s mission is like comparing the F-16CG mission to the F-16D's mission. The F-117 was made to take out targets before enemy IADS is neutralized. No self-respecting viper or mudhen driver would go on the missions an F-117 was meant to fly. Consequently, it's going to be shot down if it's claim to fame is breached - stealth. One scratch in the paint job just from refueling (the boom scraping the paint around the receptacle - which is in the same place as the A-10s - right on the nose) will increase the RCS of the aircraft by an order of magnitude. Seriously, there's only two air forces that can afford to fly Russian equipment regularly, such that their pilots are good: China and India. Russia still can't afford to continuously train pilots in the most perishable skill a fighter pilot can maintain - AIR COMBAT. Air-to-air skills get rusty after a week. When I was a 1Lt in the Eagle, I could probably kill 2/3 of field graders, and probably 85% of the wing staff because they didn't fly regularly, but I did - so long as I didn't make any major errors in my fight. There were a few, that were so good that even rusty, they were formidable. But these guys were the RARE exception. These guys were born with skills, the rest of us had to work at keeping these skills.

This is a presentation by a bad bean counter for those who have no concept of military aviation, let alone air combat. First off, the entire premise of any Warsaw Pact vs NATO conflict is based on superior technology overcoming numerical superiority. Why do you think the F-15 has multiple target prosecution capability? In any battle, you can't count on numerical superiority. Does this guy actually know how big the F-22 is? It's about the same size as an F-15 (the wingspan on the F-22 is about 2ft larger). So, using his logic, the F-15 is a piece of crap dogfighter too, because it's bigger than a -16....:megalol: The same logic applies in the F-22 vs F-18 furball. You could easily see an F-15 under that death dot as much as you'd see an F-22. If an F-15 lets you get WVR, he's Foxtrot Uniformed as well. Our tactics are to keep bandits as far out as possible and hit them with our best long pole. Why do you think pilots selected to fly the F-22 come from F-15's? It's because we have the same mission. We're all air superiority and use similar tactics - regardless of the "A" on the F/A-22 - whatever... In this regard, I'd rather go up against 6-8 F-16, F-18, Su-27, MiG-29, hell even the Su-30, as long as you give me a MSIP2 F-15 with AESA. :) My 4-ship can kick the crap out of your 6-8 ship any day. If I can detect you at 80NM and lock you up without you knowing about it and then hit you with a AIM-120D without you getting a launch warning at XXNM (Sorry I'm not gonna tell you that!!!:P ), well then mate, that's First LOOK, and First SHOT! Now multiply that by 4 bandits per Raptor, in a nice 4-ship, and tell me which aircraft you'd rather be flying? I can eat Eagles all day in a Raptor (and I'm an Eagle driver), so tell me how I'd feel going up against an Su-30?

Light-weight drones can sometimes get lost in the course of their missions. This may be in enemy or friendly territory. If it should become lost in friendly territory - there's a return address: Please give this to the addressee should it be found. The technology for these things is quite simple, it's the intelligence gathering package that will truly tell who/what nation manufactured the drone, pictures of which are conspicuously missing.

I apologize as well. Really, it looks like you've got a great site and are well on your way to having a great LOMAC squadron. Sorry for the derailment as well. Good Luck to the 9th AF and all who serve in your virtual squad. Hope to fly with (and against :smilewink: ) you guys. Good luck Paul & hope you stick with LOMAC. It's a great game that's fun to fly (even more fun to fly in an organized manner with/against other squads).

There's always room for a good flight SIM out there. Just realize one thing about Fighter Ops: When has any sim made the ambitious claim that if you get through their training program, you'll have some of the (more critical) sills taught to a real combat pilot? I think this is the first one to do that & if they pull it off, it will revolutionize the way we fly on the servers! How many of you LOMAC gods out there are the BFM gods you think you are? Fighter Ops may allow you to live up to that title if they've modeled UPT and IFF appropriately (hopefully with human IPs teaching - which is what they're talking about doing).

Pre or post 9/11? Sitting & eating in a military manner... :megalol: Then marshalling up on the drill pad outside the chow hall and marching around... :lol: Ah, the good ol' days :megalol:

I'm gonna show my age now... I was a 90 day wonder when OTS was at Medina Annex. Was there in the summer and lost 10lbs the first week in just sweat. Man, I've got respect for you guys over at Lackland - we had a tour of BMTS and that was fun for us since we could go back to OTS afterward!;) Texas all the way - then to Reese AFB for UPT, which is closed as well. :( AECP would be the long hard road. College was fun! Plus I didn't have to put up with ROTC stuff.

Ok, so you've taken your Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery - that's great! So what ENLISTED position are you applying for? What will you be doing as an AIRMAN BASIC (for those of you with an army bent, that's PRIVATE). Now if you said you passed your Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) while in COLLEGE, then, went to Officer Training School at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, then graduated and went to Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) at Laughlin AFB, TX or Columbus AFB, MS, Vance AFB, OK, Sheppard AFB, TX, graduated & THEN got accepted to Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF) at Moody AFB, GA THEN I'd say that you have the right to say that you're in "fighter school." So, you're planning to take a base tour of Langley AFB, VA, Laughlin AFB, TX, and Nellis AFB, NV - well that's pretty far from NJ. Hope you've got some money saved for the plane tickets.:P Go up to the security police at the gate and ask for a pass for the base :huh: & see how far that will get ya! :doh: Perhaps if your "vast" experience in the F-15 comes from your uncle, then perhaps you should get him to train you guys. :book: For God's sake man, how old are you? Because you're acting your age:pilotfly: Impersonating someone who flys and fights for his/her country is just bad form....:(