Proof that a fighter is only as good as the pilot.

[D-Scythe]

D-Scythe,

There's one thing in your posts that makes vary bad impression to me. Your words about 4 Raptors killing an entire air force like Swarzenegger did in Comando and Stallone in Rambo I can easily ignore. But why do you always talk about total devastation, demolition and destruction?

 

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.

[nscode]

As for one and two you're more or less right. As for the psy factor you're totally wrong. Only thing stopping those pilots from going right back and trying again is the one month they must wait before flying again after ejecting, so that your spine can heal, or the lack planes.

[D-Scythe]

As for one and two you're more or less right. As for the psy factor you're totally wrong. Only thing stopping those pilots from going right back and trying again is the one month they must wait before flying again after ejecting, so that your spine can heal, or the lack planes.

 

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.

[nscode]

Yes, but I was talking about those that do survive and are able to return. And in war a killed friend is even more of a boost. These are all sad things, but that's how it goes.

[Pilotasso]

Tito dont get angry, we are just having a friendly debate (and Im not saying you are angry, just saying in advance before anyone gets so). Im not American, if my country was ever to face an F-22 fleet all my trusty F-16's would be gonners. Its sometimes hard to see things without being contaminated with national feelings, and about the raptor having no real match is a fact, and you cant rely on comradship or on the luck that if the F-22 MFD's go out in the heat of battle to say that its not so good.

 

Being "no match" doesnt mean invincible it just means that theres no other aircraft on its level, and it will be improbabale (not impossible) to defeat it.

Most airforces will run out of airplanes before getting one, imagine all 200.

 

I have no bias Against russian hardware. I always see the plane the way I think logic should dictate and not with my personal feelings.

 

Hell the spanish who my country has a historic rivalry will have the eurofighter and Im here trying to imagine how our pilots will manage in exercises not to get a beating from that plane with just ninble falcons in a few years. We will be heavily out gunned, out detected and outmanuevered.

[efs2]

What are the chances the Raptor will actually become a significant ground-attack aircraft?

 

It can carry a small amount of ATG ordnance in its internal bays, but it is also capable (or will be) of carrying more on external pylons. Either way, it seems illogical to me to use such an aircraft in such a risky role - particularly if its stealth is lost because of external ordnance. And even stealth is no good against an eyeball and an IR seeker.

Further, there are already some very good strike aircraft in the stable.

 

My take on it is that the ground-attack capabilities are an add-on to pacify Congressmen who were reluctant to pay so much money for a pure ATA fighter, and the USAF has no intention of sending its Raptors into SAM sites.

 

Or am I wrong?

[D-Scythe]

What are the chances the Raptor will actually become a significant ground-attack aircraft?

 

It can carry a small amount of ATG ordnance in its internal bays, but it is also capable (or will be) of carrying more on external pylons. Either way, it seems illogical to me to use such an aircraft in such a risky role - particularly if its stealth is lost because of external ordnance. And even stealth is no good against an eyeball and an IR seeker.

Further, there are already some very good strike aircraft in the stable.

 

My take on it is that the ground-attack capabilities are an add-on to pacify Congressmen who were reluctant to pay so much money for a pure ATA fighter, and the USAF has no intention of sending its Raptors into SAM sites.

 

Or am I wrong?

 

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.

[efs2]

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.

I was aware to some degree - probably from this forum - of the Raptor's capabilities against enemy planes based on its advanced avionics, but the planned capabilities against enemy SAM RADARs using SDBs is news to me.

 

60 nautical miles!

I surmise that would be a release from at or near maximum altitude and serious forward speed, say 40,000+ feet and super-cruise @ 1.5+ mach?

Anyway, however it gets there, that's pretty damn impressive and puts a very different spin on the basis of my question.

Used that way, Raptors - and upgraded Super Hornets? - as ground attack aircraft would have serious standoff range, removing the battlefield danger I referred to.

 

Assuming the SDBs are carried in the internal bays, Raptors could slip in undetected, or at least unlocked, by the EWR and SAM RADARs and release a payload of long-range SDBs from a safe range. They could then turn their attention to killing enemy fighters while the Super Hornets, Mud Hens and Vipers ingressed, dodging any IR SAMs and AAA, to drop their monster loads of JDAMs.

 

So how long until the SDBs (aka Super-HARMs) are ready to go?

You never know when the U.S. might want to take out SAMS and interceptors to allow deep-penetration precision air strikes to take out some sort of industrial sites hidden in widely spread out sites in cities and the countryside.

 

:music_whistling:

[D-Scythe]

60 nautical miles!

I surmise that would be a release from at or near maximum altitude and serious forward speed, say 40,000+ feet and super-cruise @ 1.5+ mach?

Anyway, however it gets there, that's pretty damn impressive and puts a very different spin on the basis of my question.

Used that way, Raptors - and upgraded Super Hornets? - as ground attack aircraft would have serious standoff range, removing the battlefield danger I referred to.

 

Probably 50 000ft (or above) launch altitude, and near the Raptor's max supercruise speed (~Mach 1.7).

 

Assuming the SDBs are carried in the internal bays, Raptors could slip in undetected, or at least unlocked, by the EWR and SAM RADARs and release a payload of long-range SDBs from a safe range. They could then turn their attention to killing enemy fighters while the Super Hornets, Mud Hens and Vipers ingressed, dodging any IR SAMs and AAA, to drop their monster loads of JDAMs.

 

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.

 

So how long until the SDBs (aka Super-HARMs) are ready to go?

You never know when the U.S. might want to take out SAMS and interceptors to allow deep-penetration precision air strikes to take out some sort of industrial sites hidden in widely spread out sites in cities and the countryside.

 

:music_whistling:

 

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.

[S77th-GOYA]