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

[RvETito]

I' reading this thread and two things made me wonder:

1. Many people claimed the Raptor being far superior than anything that flies in the modern skies. What makes so sure about that? How many a2a (training)engagements has it done versus latest russian and european fighters? And does any of you have any 1st hand info about this aircraft and it's capabilities? I seriously doubt that, because there's only one thing we can say for sure- everything about it is highly classified and it's amazing and in some aspect rediculous how many statements(based on a single picture) we can read here as they'd been said by Raptor's developers. What are your sources? Jane's? Air Power Journal? Air Force Weekly? Flight International? The net? Sorry, but none of these is a valuable source. I'm sure that years must pass before some real info about this(and only) aircraft be released to the public. Untill this happens- fly Lock-On:D

2. Read again the upper paragraph but instead of Raptor read SuperHornet.

[Pilotasso]

1. Many people claimed the Raptor being far superior than anything that flies in the modern skies. What makes so sure about that?

 

The last time I checked, the Raptor enjoyed 400 to nill kill rate in exercises and none of its victims ever got a clue the F-22 was there. Any 3rd gen aircraft including Su-27's and Migs will have the same difficulties.

By now it must be a kill ratio of 500 or even 600:1.

I Also advise you to read some books.

 

With a price tag of 150 million Dollars, with stealth, with AESA low probablity of intercept (the radome lets pass but blocks all other radar signals), Supercruise, long range high altitude (probably the heighest ceiling of all), the best cockpit arround and some exotic electronic warfare capabilities more than suprasses anything else. If it wasnt as deadly as its price tag bill it would have long been cancelled and the Superhornet and AESA F-15's would take its place.

 

As for the European fighters, the Typhoon is probably the next most advanced and capable fighter in the world but its development had made some concessions for what is possible to have with a certain budget. the Rafale and gripen were made for economy, with respective more conservative requirements demanded on development and more reduced budgets.

 

As for the russian aircraft, well, russia hasnt made a totaly full blown new aircraft concept since the flanker in Soviet russia back in 1977 to counter the eagle wich it did to some success when compared to the F-15A with Sparrows. Ever since the breakup all russia did was to adapt and upgrade aircraft for export and very very limited augmentation of its own AF. In fact Russia post 1991 has more mothballed plans for upgrades than the aircraft actualy upgraded!!!

And all of these upgrades were made with very limited development funds and dragged over more than a decade.

 

Russian Aircraft have received these electronic and cokcpit upgrades with technology based(drums: brrrrr brrrrr brrrr TCHHHHHHHHHH!) from the west. And then those examples went mostly for India and china.

 

Totaly new aircraft VS Upgraded 30 year old aircraft. The new aircraft in my book gets the favours by far.

[RvETito]

The last time I checked, the Raptor enjoyed 400 to nill kill rate in exercises and none of its victims ever got a clue the F-22 was there. Any 3rd gen aircraft including Su-27's and Migs will have the same difficulties.

By now it must be a kill ratio of 500 or even 600:1.

 

What do you mean by "last time I checked"? Were you there?

 

I Also advise you to read some books.

 

Don't you worry, I've read a lot of books- real US and russian flight and maintenance manuals. And this what I call a book when I have to build my opinion about any aircraft's capabilites. And of course, there's no way I could have access to any of those books concerning the Raptor, that's way I'm lets say relatively suspicous about it's absolute dominance.

 

Most people here look at the things black and white. As an aircraft engineer I'm used to look grey, i.e. searching the truth somewhere in the middle. And I believe this is the right way to judge things.

 

With a price tag of 150 million Dollars, with stealth, with AESA low probablity of intercept (the radome lets pass but blocks all other radar signals), Supercruise, long range high altitude (probably the heighest ceiling of all), the best cockpit arround and some exotic electronic warfare capabilities more than suprasses anything else. If it wasnt as deadly as its price tag bill it would have long been cancelled and the Superhornet and AESA F-15's would take its place.

 

Lets assume all this features are true, there are some very important issues you didn't mention. What is Raptor's reliability and safety? Because the more complex equipement you have the more complex malfunction can occur. Take a look at how long took it's development. First flight of YF-22 in 1991 and first plane in active service in late 2005. True, inovations takes big time to polish but still, like any other combat aicraft, the Raptor will have to prove it could achieve the reliability and functionality of F-15 and F-16. It's just too young and absolutely new concept so I don't think any of us, people in this forum, have an idea if it will grow up and reach the service life of it's predecessors. What's the point of having this technology when it's on the ground for maintenance. I'm sure Lockheed Martin has the potential to make it work as planed in the next few years. But every aircraft has passed through that- child sickness- lets hope the biggest adversary of the Raptor- the US governement- will not cancel it. Because they reduced the number quite a lot. However, I don't think they are going to cancel it. They've invested so much money in this program that it would be quiet stupid to bury them, like they did with the RAH-66.

 

To be honest, I doubt the F-22 is ever going to see real a2a combat. One thing impressed me in an interview of some USAF chief from december 2005- he said: Yes, we have great technology, but this doesn't warm up the hearts of our troops on the streets of Baghdad or Kabul. End of quote.

 

30-year old technology vs. new technology? Well, not quiet. The Raptor program is already...(where are the drums:D)...20 years old. If you call this new- good on you!;)

[D-Scythe]

What do you mean by "last time I checked"? Were you there?

 

 

 

Don't you worry, I've read a lot of books- real US and russian flight and maintenance manuals. And this what I call a book when I have to build my opinion about any aircraft's capabilites. And of course, there's no way I could have access to any of those books concerning the Raptor, that's way I'm lets say relatively suspicous about it's absolute dominance.

 

Most people here look at the things black and white. As an aircraft engineer I'm used to look grey, i.e. searching the truth somewhere in the middle. And I believe this is the right way to judge things.

 

Lets assume all this features are true, there are some very important issues you didn't mention. What is Raptor's reliability and safety? Because the more complex equipement you have the more complex malfunction can occur. Take a look at how long took it's development. First flight of YF-22 in 1991 and first plane in active service in late 2005. True, inovations takes big time to polish but still, like any other combat aicraft, the Raptor will have to prove it could achieve the reliability and functionality of F-15 and F-16. It's just too young and absolutely new concept so I don't think any of us, people in this forum, have an idea if it will grow up and reach the service life of it's predecessors. What's the point of having this technology when it's on the ground for maintenance. I'm sure Lockheed Martin has the potential to make it work as planed in the next few years. But every aircraft has passed through that- child sickness- lets hope the biggest adversary of the Raptor- the US governement- will not cancel it. Because they reduced the number quite a lot. However, I don't think they are going to cancel it. They've invested so much money in this program that it would be quiet stupid to bury them, like they did with the RAH-66.

 

To be honest, I doubt the F-22 is ever going to see real a2a combat. One thing impressed me in an interview of some USAF chief from december 2005- he said: Yes, we have great technology, but this doesn't warm up the hearts of our troops on the streets of Baghdad or Kabul. End of quote.

 

30-year old technology vs. new technology? Well, not quiet. The Raptor program is already...(where are the drums:D)...20 years old. If you call this new- good on you!;)

 

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.

 

1. Many people claimed the Raptor being far superior than anything that flies in the modern skies. What makes so sure about that? How many a2a (training)engagements has it done versus latest russian and european fighters? And does any of you have any 1st hand info about this aircraft and it's capabilities? I seriously doubt that, because there's only one thing we can say for sure- everything about it is highly classified and it's amazing and in some aspect rediculous how many statements(based on a single picture) we can read here as they'd been said by Raptor's developers. What are your sources? Jane's? Air Power Journal? Air Force Weekly? Flight International? The net? Sorry, but none of these is a valuable source. I'm sure that years must pass before some real info about this(and only) aircraft be released to the public. Untill this happens- fly Lock-On

 

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.

[Crusty]

One fact I know about the f22 is, it costs a lot,....my opinion is it costs waaaaaaay too much for what it will give back

More a "hey look what we can do" than a usefull tool, a bit like all the silly gadgets we get these days fullfilling "needs", that dont exist beyond some marketing nerds reality

[D-Scythe]

One fact I know about the f22 is, it costs a lot,....my opinion is it costs waaaaaaay too much for what it will give back

More a "hey look what we can do" than a usefull tool, a bit like all the silly gadgets we get these days fullfilling "needs", that dont exist beyond some marketing nerds reality

 

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?

[nscode]

If such a war would happen, China would just use some tactical nukes and EMP 'em all out of the sky.

[RvETito]

The good thing about the Raptor is that because it uses computers so extensively it's relatively to upgrade through software improvements.

 

Agree.

 

Furthermore, the 10 year period between 1991 to the Raptor's IOC was more than enough time to update the design with contemporary technology

 

You talk about this like it's a piece of cake. Do you know that the Raptors currently in service don't have ANY air-to-ground capabilites? Guess why- because otherwise LM would hold the release for at least 2 more years since they are not ready with the a2g weapon system yet. Wasn't it the inital idea to create a MULTIROLE 4th generation fighter? So in this issue, the F-22 is still in development.

 

(don't tell me you didn't notice the YF-22 doesn't really look like the F-22 now?).

 

No comment...

 

And yes, the F-22 is going to get cancelled...honestly, where do you get these ideas?

 

Now tell me where exactly I said it's going to be cancelled. You must have read something else.

 

Do you not realize that the F-22 is ALREADY in service?

 

Of course I know, as I said- as a pure interceptor.

 

In fact, there are more F-22s in service than there are KA-50s, I'm willing to wager.

 

So what? I hope this doesn't have anything to do with the incoming Black Shark add-on. :D:D:D... Like why they modelled this chopper instead of serial machine like F-22A:D Anyway, your example is a poor base for comparison.

 

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.

 

Easy now. Where's your sense of humor? It's rediculous to say that a PC game, be it a flight simulator, can be a base of judging modern jet fighters. I guess I have to be straight then. What I said was- untill there's released unclassified 1st hand info about F-22A do something more meaningfull like play Lock-On, or go see a movie, or have a beer with friends etc, instead of interprete rumours and journalists' statements as a 100% truth. I'm so far of making any connection between F-22 and Lock-On as I could be. And I hope such will never happen.

[RvETito]

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?

 

May be you(and not only) are overestimating this aircraft. From my point of view it's a wonderfull airplane and WILL probably become the best fighter, but let the LM finish their job. Overestimation is never a good advisor.

[Pilotasso]

 

Lets assume all this features are true, there are some very important issues you didn't mention. What is Raptor's reliability and safety? Because the more complex equipement you have the more complex malfunction can occur. Take a look at how long took it's development. First flight of YF-22 in 1991 and first plane in active service in late 2005. True, inovations takes big time to polish but still, like any other combat aicraft, the Raptor will have to prove it could achieve the reliability and functionality of F-15 and F-16. It's just too young and absolutely new concept so I don't think any of us, people in this forum, have an idea if it will grow up and reach the service life of it's predecessors.

 

Reliability?!

 

DOnt tell me Russian aircraft came out of the factory in 100% reliable...

 

Every aircraft has had to clear some edges in development and russian aircraft are no exception. Mig-29 And Su-27 crashes are well known during development and in some ocasions there were very public demonstrations of this.

I dont see how you use the reliability issue as an achiles heel of the Raptor when every aircraft passes through this same stage.

Yes the raptor has had software problems but instead of dumping the whole machinery they will have to replace the sofware instead.

 

Yes 20 years have passed since the development of the raptor but it had changed though this time. There are external differences and what is externaly evident hides what have been changed on the inside. Throughout this period russian aircraft had only recieved upgrades and even then these were delayed constantly. There are probably less AESA Migs than there are f-22's and all the rest of the M and K's are still a fraction of the total wich the majority of them are still 80's vintage.

 

The European Aircraft took no less time than the F-22 to develop and then the F-22 had a vastly bigger budget.

 

No its not invulnerable, but with so potent of an aircraft that entire airforces would be demolished before 1 would get destroyed.

[Pilotasso]

Agree.

You talk about this like it's a piece of cake. Do you know that the Raptors currently in service don't have ANY air-to-ground capabilites? Guess why- because otherwise LM would hold the release for at least 2 more years since they are not ready with the a2g weapon system yet. Wasn't it the inital idea to create a MULTIROLE 4th generation fighter? So in this issue, the F-22 is still in development.

 

Heres another perspective:

 

The Mig-29 as well as the flanker only carried rockets and free fall bombs for most of their operational lives. They have only recently be upgraded to carry guided AG weapons, so they are almost 30 years old but still in development... ;)

 

Oh BTW the F-22 can already carry iron bombs and JDAM's FYI.

[RvETito]

DOnt tell me Russian aircraft came out of the factory in 100% reliable...

 

I won't. Some of them(mainly the RD-33 engines) are still far away from the average standarts for reliability. I work for few years as an civil aircraft maintence engineer and I have experience with both russian and US built machines. Defenitely the american maintenance system is much better and user-friendly which is function of the better reliabality of the aircraft. But this is subject to a totaly different story and I don't see how it can be connected with this thread(Reminder: Proof that a fighter is only as good as the pilot.). You guys turned it into OT.

 

Look, one must be crazy to compare the F-22 and the MiG-29/Su-27. I'll say it's meaningless. I think it's even pointless to compare the serial MiG and Su with the F-16C and F-15C. The only reasonable comparison is MiG-29A vs. F-16A and Su-27vs.F-15A. Here there's a reasonable base to opose these aircraft. The F-22 still doesn't have an oponent, at least not in the face of another fighter. If you take your time to read my posts more carefully you'll read that IMO the biggest adversary of the Raptor is... the US governement:D I don't know why people always go in this direction in such threads- USA vs. Russia, and everything turn into discussion as between sport fans. I only once mentioned russian planes and it was about that the F-22 hasn't met any of them(nor european like EF, Grippen) in excercises. Can you prove me wrong for that one?

 

 

No its not invulnerable, but with so potent of an aircraft that entire airforces would be demolished before 1 would get destroyed.

 

Here we go Star Wars!!!Let the Force be with you!!!

 

Seriosly, lets not forget what unite us here- a great flight simulator and leave the demoliton to the militaries.

[D-Scythe]

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.

[RvETito]

Sorry, I thought you said they (the U.S. government) will cancel it.

 

No problem, mate;)

 

There are probably things on that bird that are so classified people don't even know it exists, I'm willing to bet.

 

There you go- my point exactly!

 

All I'll tried to say is that I would like first to have in my hand a real book about this(or any other) a/c in then make any conclusions about it.

[hitman]

I cant wait until the US Navy switches to a Catamaran style fleet. Surely everyone else cant wait either right? Just like when the F-22 entered service. A nice, big juicy plane that puts technology forward at least a decade ahead of the world. But so unbelieveably expensive only a limited number can be mass produced. Think China is going to care about a fleet of these aircraft??? They are flying aircraft from the 50's still, in combination of the newer aircraft they recently purchased. Numbers ALWAYS defeats technology, no matter how far along technology is.

 

Only example I can see that numbers can be beaten is here. An anteater eats ants out of the ant mound, but the anteater can be eaten by a swarm of another type of ant. Now picture a man in a bugproof suit with a flamethrower. He better have enough gas.

[169th_Crusty]

If such a war would happen, China would just use some tactical nukes and EMP 'em all out of the sky.

 

Tac nukes vs. Raptors, hmmm

I think the scenario would be slightly different...

[23rd_SATAN]

Wow, you guys will argue about anything...

[D-Scythe]

I cant wait until the US Navy switches to a Catamaran style fleet. Surely everyone else cant wait either right? Just like when the F-22 entered service. A nice, big juicy plane that puts technology forward at least a decade ahead of the world. But so unbelieveably expensive only a limited number can be mass produced. Think China is going to care about a fleet of these aircraft??? They are flying aircraft from the 50's still, in combination of the newer aircraft they recently purchased. Numbers ALWAYS defeats technology, no matter how far along technology is.

 

Only example I can see that numbers can be beaten is here. An anteater eats ants out of the ant mound, but the anteater can be eaten by a swarm of another type of ant. Now picture a man in a bugproof suit with a flamethrower. He better have enough gas.

 

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.

[hitman]

And what happens when you finally run out of fuel, weapons and supplies? You can only hope that you have enough missiles in the inventory to kill them all, and its almost guaranteed that not every missile will hit its target. 50-1 may be sufficient, but what about 100-1?

[D-Scythe]

And what happens when you finally run out of fuel, weapons and supplies? You can only hope that you have enough missiles in the inventory to kill them all, and its almost guaranteed that not every missile will hit its target. 50-1 may be sufficient, but what about 100-1?

 

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.

[Yellonet]

As for proof; you've all seen Iron Eagle III haven't you?

[RvETito]

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? I can't see any common thing between this and the thread nor Lock-On. But one thing is sure- you have a lot of potential to work for Tom Clancy. Anyway, I'm done with this thread, it went too much OT.

[GGTharos]

4 raptors would definitely 'thin the pack' ... but you might want an 8 or 12-ship for the size of the force mentioned, with an equal amount of F-15's following up.

[Cosmonaut]

I don’t think you cant really tell much of anything about the situation the F22 pilot found himself in. They could have simply been testing ACM, with the Raptor allowing the F18 on its tail then seeing how long the Hornet could stay with the F22. .. Now I’m a huge fan of the Bug so I hope he stung the Raptor where it hurt but I don’t think there’s enough info in the pic to assess the ability or capability of ether pilot or aircraft. It is however a great picture so thanks for sharing .. nice find :)

[nscode]

If it was about that, he wouldn't click the gun, now would he. (and we know he did by that black square, that i've thought is something censured :D)