D-Scythe

Nothing I say is official ;)

I'd love to see the Super Hornet available as AI. As a flyable though? Not in this decade.

Nobody knows whether terminal velocity is reached for the AIM-120 airframe though. The pure boost configuration could give the missile a much higher maximum speed for all we know. Whatever. The physical performance of the 120C is unchanged from the B, and should be left at that. No need jumping into another OT discussion ;)

Um, no. What gave you that idea? And what on earth is "optimised" if range is less?

Just imagine the AIM-54 is launched BEFORE the missile enters terminal homing, but the missile pops up while the AIM-54 is guiding in so the Phoenix has to make the adjustment ;)

Well, he does have a point (to an extent). The AGM-65K should at least have the level of magnification of the AGM-65D. Actually, the AGM-65K should be renamed "AGM-65B" IMO - that's about how it performs anyway.

Haha, I was kidding around ;)

Ten bucks says his missile slider is not at 50% or 100%.

Probably 50 000ft (or above) launch altitude, and near the Raptor's max supercruise speed (~Mach 1.7). Actually, an F-22 carrying 12 SDBs would not have any room for AMRAAMs in its internal bays. It probably can be rigged to carry 6 SDBs, 3 AIM-120Cs and 2 AIM-9Xs though, although it makes more sense to have Raptors carry the full complement of 8 AAMs if they are to go MiGCAP, and leave another flight of Raptors to go chasing SAMs. Actually, the real Super-HARM may be the AARGM(?), the ramjet-powered successor to the HARM. Hypersonic speed, anti-radiation and GPS guidance, and more, supposedly. From the mock ups. it looks to be a bit too big to fit into the internal bays of the Raptor. I'd imagine that the first strikes undertaken by the United States would comprise mainly of B-2 bombers, F-15E Strike Eagles and air/sea-launched cruise missiles. Sweeping ahead of the main strike elements would be air-to-air F-22s accompanied by SDB-equipped Raptors and AARGM carrying Super Hornets/Vipers, with the entire strike screened by E-18 Growlers and ITALD/TALD decoys, controlled by AWACs and sharing information through FDL or JTIDS. Once the F-35 enters service, expect even more stealth fighters roaming about on fighter sweeps and SEAD duty. Oh, then factor in Allied units, like Eurofighter, Rafale and the Mirage 2000, with Meteor and MICAs AAMs for air-to-air and ALARMs for air-to-ground. In case people didn't notice, the lynchpin of such an operation would be the Raptor. They would go in first to take out the most dangerous fighters and SAMs before the most of the other elements even fence in.

The Raptor can use its AESA radar and (classified) RWR/RHAW systems to detect, pinpoint and jam any radar that's active, and then feed this data to its 6 AMRAAMs (if the radar source is airborne) or 12 small diameter bombs to attack SAMs. SDBs have a range over 60 nm depending on employment profile. Yes, as it stands currently, the F-22's A/G capabilities are largely fictional, but it's the plan to implement SDB capability as soon as possible. Maybe to please Congress, whatever. In fact, I actually think that currently JDAMs are available to Raptors now as a weapon, but I may be wrong. In any case, being so computerized as it is, it's relatively easy to turn it into a formidable JDAM/SDB truck with a software upgrade.

The Su-35, Su-27IB, MiG-29SMT and Ka-50 were supposed to enter service "within the next couple of years" more than 10 years ago :p I see your point, but the Phoenix doesn't travel Mach 5 all the time, to be fair. Yeah, I don't think an AIM-54C can behave exactly like an AIM-120 since it's a SARH missile prior to turning on its radar seeker.

Um, AWAC/EWR can pass off information gathered by other sensors to any friendly units in the area properly equipped to recieve the information.

Pretty much. The Virginia class was actually on the verge of entering service last time I checked, IIRC. Although IMO, in the short-term, more money should be allocated to upgrading M1A1s to M1A2 SEP+TUSK standard, or adding armor to HUMVEEs and Bradleys.

So they can get "Raptored" by the F-22 of the sea? If people thought that building F-22s were a waste of money, I'd hate to hear what they'd think of the SSN-21 Seawolf.

Block IIIs entered service in the 80s, IIRC. Block IVs with dual IR/radar seekers have been delayed, and although a few have been delivered, I think for the most part the program has been axed (not current on the Block IV really). Development has shifted to the SM-6 programme, whose main improvements include the AMRAAM's active radar seeker, the SM-2ER's extra range available to ships with VLS, and a two way datalink, I think. Someone who googles this can probably confirm. The Block III has a range about 75-90 km (varies depending on source). The Block IV and the SM-6 are IIRC are based on the SM-2ER, so range is likely to approach or exceed 250 km. With AEGIS, the F-35B, the F/A-18E/F, SM-2/6, ESSM and RAM, it would probably be even more difficult to attack a US CVBG even without Tomcats on patrol.

Why would the SM-2 Block III/IV need to be modified? They were designed *specifically* to attack sea-skimming cruise missiles. As long as the curvature of the earth is not an issue, I'd imagine they'd do their job exceptionally well.

More like AMRAAM, SM-2 Block III/IV and ESSM for sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles. The AIM-54C should be capable of engaging such targets as well, but I'd imagine the F-14 crews would be more occupied with keeping the high altitude Tu-22M/Kh-22 threat busy rather than bother with targets flying 20 ft from the ocean. Anyone know if the RIM-116 RAM have been incorporated into U.S. Navy aircraft carriers and Aegis surface ships yet? They'd put up a pretty thick shield too, I'd imagine.

Actually, I think it was fired 4 times, two missiles each in two separate occassions. In any case, the Iranians got a few kills with the Phoenix, so it's not exactly a "zero" return.

Um, chances are the pilots won't eject. I mean, I wish that they all could, but chances are they won't. The pilot might get knocked unconscious (or worse, killed) by the explosion, the sudden onset of G's might pin the pilot down, or the part of the fuselage the pilot is sitting in may be travelling too fast, etc. Unfortunately, there many more factors that lead up to an increased likelihood of a failed ejection than a successful one. Even if the ejection is successful, the pilot may drown, break some bones, the parachute may get carried off by the wind, or the pilot may become a POW. LOMAC, ejection is easy. A push of a button and you're outta there. Not so in real life.

Where did I say that? In fact, I think I explicitly stated that F-22s in all likelihood probably would not shoot down an entire air force, destroy every single enemy plane, or whatever. And I don't think I've ever stated that there would be total devastation, demolition and destruction of anything. I merely stated - one, the photos of the Raptor beneath the piper of a Super Bug is exactly that: a photo, nothing more; two, the Raptor is a force multiplier, making other weapons more effective at what they do; and three, the psychological impact of getting killed by god knows what is just as lethal a weapon as the AMRAAM for an F-22. The Raptor is designed to kill without being seen and escape before the enemy can respond, using superior situational awareness, stealth and supercruise the Raptor gives to its pilot. Also, at $350 million a copy, if a few MiGs manage to catch some F-22s in a dogfight, the fact that the Raptor is currently by far the most agile operational fighter in the world doesn't hurt either. The only exception I can think of is the Su-30MKI (in terms of agility, otherwise the Raptor blows it out of the competition) - I don't know much about either the Raptor or the 30MKI, so I'll reserve judgement on that. All I know is that the MKI has 3D thrust-vectoring, but the Raptor has a much greater thrust-to-weight ratio plus it's performance is not really hindered by weapons/fuel load. In any case, the 30MKIs have to make it to the merge first to prove just how agile they are anyway. I don't think I've said anything that people don't know already.

Two words: Force multiplier. Imagine what a flight of 4 Raptors would do to a force of 70 strikers and their 50 or so escorts...imagine the morale of the enemy pilots as 20-24 Flankers/Fulcrums, their best, die in a hail of Slammers before anyone even knew they were being attacked. Now, imagine would that would do to the morale of a nearby 8 ship of F-15Cs when they see 4 Raptors blitzing by at Mach 1.7 and basically knocking down the door for them to initiate their attack. And the U.S. would never go to war alone, so the F-22 would never have to fight alone. They'll likely be working closely with F-15Cs, F-16CJs, Eurofighters, Rafales, Gripens, Mirage 2000s, etc. Link these aircraft up with AWACs, Patriots and Aegis, and then you'd get a wall, literally. Even if US fighters don't kill every single enemy aircraft, they don't have to. Their psychological affect would be devastating.

Wrong. The training and spirit of the pilot is the most important factor in an engagement. Remember the Battle of Thermopylae? In any case, the F-22's stealth and Mach 1.7 supercruise allows it to engage when it wants, where it wants, so it doesn't matter if it's outnumbered 50 to 1. It's going to kill the first six bandits BVR, then turn around and run from the rest. Rinse, wash and repeat, until there are no more enemy fighters left.

Sorry, I thought you said they (the U.S. government) will cancel it. But I highly doubt anyone can over-estimate the F-22. There are probably things on that bird that are so classified people don't even know it exists, I'm willing to bet. And about the updating thing - I was talking strictly about software and external design changes.

You're putting a price on how many lives can be potentially saved because the Raptor would protect anything in the air, which would also allow ground troops to be saved on the ground because of air support? Yeah, in the short-term, with the war in Iraq, the F-22 is not the best thing for the U.S. But I gaurantee you that more U.S. troops will die in a single month of war against an adversary like China or North Korea without the F-22 clearing the skies for them. The Raptor is not just a single element in U.S. doctrine; it's a force-multiplier. It protects other aircraft from enemy jets and SAMs, which in turn allows these aircraft to protect troops on the ground, sailors in the sea, etc. It gives opportunities for other weapons (F-15s, F/A-18Es, AH-64Ds, M1A2s, etc.) to do their job more effectively. That F-16 is going to kill more SAMs if it doesn't have to worry about some MiGs chewing its six, that AH-64D is going to kill more tanks if it doesn't have to worry about those SAMs, those M2A3s are going to better support friendly troops if they don't have to worry about enemy tanks. And sure, such a large war with China may never happen, but what if it does? Are you willing to bet the lives of thousands in a future conflict on the basis that the Raptor is not needed in the current conflict?

The good thing about the Raptor is that because it uses computers so extensively it's relatively to upgrade through software improvements. Furthermore, the 10 year period between 1991 to the Raptor's IOC was more than enough time to update the design with contemporary technology (don't tell me you didn't notice the YF-22 doesn't really look like the F-22 now?). And yes, the F-22 is going to get cancelled...honestly, where do you get these ideas? Do you not realize that the F-22 is ALREADY in service? In fact, there are more F-22s in service than there are KA-50s, I'm willing to wager. This is so misinformed I'm not going to even touch it. The fact that you implied Lock On is a better source than Jane's or World Air Power journal just shows how pointless your post is.