What you think about this BS or not ?

[wsoul2k]

Just found this article from Janes

 

what is your opinion

 

http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/Stevenson%20F-22%20Brief.pdf

[warthogmadman987]

By James P. Stevenson, Sponsored by the Straus Military REFORM Project...

 

Of course this is a bias paper. I would think a lot of that info that he used was made up or came info that wasn't from actual tests but what was thought the f-22 could perform up too. I would think that a lot of that information was classified.

 

I firmly believe that is all BS:thumbup:

[ARM505]

Refer to this forum's FAQ, look under the rule "F22 pwns everything, always."

 

E.O.D.

 

 

;)

[ARM505]

Still, it's interesting, if quite biased and full of assumptions. If the numbers are right (I refer to the cost of the aircraft only now), I'd prefer 1800 F16's to 190 F22's!

[GGTharos]

INterestingly enough, the F-22's would get you farther in air superiority than that number of F-16's.

 

And the cost figures are not that simple: Remeber that each aircraft requires spare parts and a ground crew who also require resources, ie. living, equipment, pay, etc.

[britgliderpilot]

I think he's talking out of his arse :P

 

There are some uninformed comments, some daft comments, and some downright wrong comments in it.

 

 

The bit where he's comparing a 20mm cannon to a WW2 .50cal BMG, and the F-22 to Voyager particularly made me chuckle . . . . .

[Zayets]

If the costs are right,then give me 1800 F16 instead 200 F22 :D

[britgliderpilot]

If the costs are right,then give me 1800 F16 instead 200 F22 :D

 

GGTharos makes an interesting point - you've got at least nine times the maintenance and support personnel for that mathematics . . . . . grin.

[Pilotasso]

The paper states the F-117 had higher loss rate than the F-16 wich is NOT true. I remenber at least 3 were shot down and 1 crash landed on a farm field.

 

Night hawk single loss was due to serious tactical msitakes, so its advantages were nullifyed by incompetent use.

[Pilotasso]

The paper also vastly overrates the usefulness of air to air anti radiation missiles. Obviously the author has no idea how (not) efective they are.

 

Theres another crucial misconception: it states steath is invisibility leading to the common mistake that once anyone picks it up on radar has beaten made it obsolete it even if that hapened at short range only. Stealth is there for first shot capability, nothing more, nothing less. It also states that radars will be off in 4rth Gen fighters, then I dont know why they gave the trouble of designing the most expensive item on the raptor wich is the radars dome. There is still margin for dogfights as radars range are reduced by stealth but by no means it will be a WW2 eye aimed fight.

 

 

And that part of F-22's are visible first...OH MY :megalol:, at 40 miles when the raptor launches the AMRAAM, I would like to see who will be able to spot it on radar much less by eye...

 

 

yet another thing, the paper loses total credibility by stating the F-15 has greater T/W ratio. The F-22 may be heavier but it also has twice the thrust (not twice the weight) and lower wing loading. Na dwhere did they got those perfomance graphs?! are they already declassifyed?

[britgliderpilot]

Hmmn - might they be using YF-22 data?

[Zayets]

GGTharos makes an interesting point - you've got at least nine times the maintenance and support personnel for that mathematics . . . . . grin.

 

Not necessary. You can canibalize 1/5 of them for spare parts reducing also the maintenance hours/costs :D. Besides ,how much is the maintenance of a Viper compared with the Raptor. Because if we speak about maintenance then let's calculate it correct.

[Pilotasso]

Maintenance costs is what bought the falcon for my country. Unfortunatly the airframes we got were so basic that we were required to upgrade them straight away and regularly ever since. Our MLU's are slow to leave the production lines and so far only 1 has made a flawless convertion and become mission capable. The others do fly but have so with certain restrictions. This happens because we are doing 3 other upgrades along with MLU. I wish we had aquired them with all those features from factory.

 

Despite this we made quite an impression when a couple of them flies abroad once a while. They out detect and out shoot all other MLU falcons in europe. foreign pilots have been reported to be very curious to check them out in the pit.

[GGTharos]

Not necessary. You can canibalize 1/5 of them for spare parts reducing also the maintenance hours/costs :D. Besides ,how much is the maintenance of a Viper compared with the Raptor. Because if we speak about maintenance then let's calculate it correct.

 

... So instead of buying fewer planes and more maintenance, you cannibalize 1/5th of the planes. WTF sort of logic is that?

Every air force that has gone that way has done so because they're had no other choice, and their remaining aircraft are -not- in very good shape.

 

Cut down maintenance time and costs from what they're supposed to be and you drop your own air force out of the sky. Alternatively you could reduce flight time for the aircraft ... either way, you lose.

 

Why do you think Raptor maintenance is longer or more expensive? These things are built with maintenance in mind.

[Zayets]

... So instead of buying fewer planes and more maintenance, you cannibalize 1/5th of the planes. WTF sort of logic is that?

Every air force that has gone that way has done so because they're had no other choice, and their remaining aircraft are -not- in very good shape.

 

Cut down maintenance time and costs from what they're supposed to be and you drop your own air force out of the sky. Alternatively you could reduce flight time for the aircraft ... either way, you lose.

 

Why do you think Raptor maintenance is longer or more expensive? These things are built with maintenance in mind.

You have two sentences that contradicts themselves. On one hand maintanance cost is key and on the other hand maintenance costs can be as much as it is as long as the airforce doesn't drop out of the sky.

It makes perfect sense that Raptor maintenance is more expensive than Viper.Even if they are built with maintenance in mind.Reducing the cost of it , that is. Also, your statement (the one that includes WTF) doesn't contradict me. I said parts, not aircrafts which can be in a VERY bad shape but still useful for spare parts.

[Shaman]

F-22 pwns all ! :gun_smilie:

[GGTharos]

No, you completely misintepreted what I said - wether on purpose or not, I don't know. ;)

You need to pay maintenance or your airforce stops flying - cannibalizing aircraft is stopgap and indicative of lack of resources, forethought and planning.

 

Why does your air force of 1800 aircraft have aircraft which are in bad shape in the first place?

I'd rather have 190 aircraft that'll take out 4-6 of yours every sortie and continue to fly. If you have 1800 aircraft and some are 'in bad shape', and I only have 190 - even though the PER AIRCRAFT cost is higher for me to buy and maintain, it doesn't matter so much when I can attrit 4-6 aircraft of yours per my aircraft, and have a good chance that ALL of my aircraft will return home.

 

All I need is a few good initial sorties, and suddenly the 10:1 odds go down to something along the lines of 4:1. But it gets better ... they were never 10:1 in the first place, because you're cannibalizing a bunch of your aircraft, and your lack of maintenance ensures grounding of more aircraft due to issues.

 

This isn't a realistic scenario, certainly - it ignores a lot of things that you -can- achieve with superior numbers ... but on the other hand you're forgetting something:

 

Those 22's will be flying with F-15's and F-16's. The 22's will spearhead, trash the enemy, and then your demoralized, low on fuel 1800 F-16's will have to deal with a numerically superior force of F-22+F-15+F-16.

[Zayets]

No, you completely misintepreted what I said - wether on purpose or not, I don't know. ;)

You need to pay maintenance or your airforce stops flying - cannibalizing aircraft is stopgap and indicative of lack of resources, forethought and planning.

 

Why does your air force of 1800 aircraft have aircraft which are in bad shape in the first place?

I'd rather have 190 aircraft that'll take out 4-6 of yours every sortie and continue to fly. If you have 1800 aircraft and some are 'in bad shape', and I only have 190 - even though the PER AIRCRAFT cost is higher for me to buy and maintain, it doesn't matter so much when I can attrit 4-6 aircraft of yours per my aircraft, and have a good chance that ALL of my aircraft will return home.

 

All I need is a few good initial sorties, and suddenly the 10:1 odds go down to something along the lines of 4:1. But it gets better ... they were never 10:1 in the first place, because you're cannibalizing a bunch of your aircraft, and your lack of maintenance ensures grounding of more aircraft due to issues.

 

This isn't a realistic scenario, certainly - it ignores a lot of things that you -can- achieve with superior numbers ... but on the other hand you're forgetting something:

 

Those 22's will be flying with F-15's and F-16's. The 22's will spearhead, trash the enemy, and then your demoralized, low on fuel 1800 F-16's will have to deal with a numerically superior force of F-22+F-15+F-16.

 

I never misinterpret something on purpose. On the other hand I do interpret om purpose everything ;)

You see, we are talking figures that no one can prove. Nobody can say for sure that now or in the future a F22 will wipe out 4-6 F16 in each sortie. And I agree with you, it is not a realistic scenario, but not because they will fly along F15 and F16. F22 may have in the future adversaries like the F16. It is unrealistic scenario because I don't think that the number of aircrafts in the air will be that big in order to allow any uber plane to shot down 4-6 enemy aircrafts on each sortie. We are talking here only about the air combat but lets not forget that the conflicts have more than one theater.While I agree that who has the air superiority have mainly won the battle it won't be a final vitory until you actually put the foot on the ground. And there, aircrafts are out of discussion :) If an aircraft landed then well, it is like the fish out of the water :)

[Silent Warrior]

Well, there was one excercise where, I think, 2 F-22s took on 8 F-15s - F-15-vets - and thoroughly humiliated them (do correct me if I'm wrong). Controlled environment or not, save serious mistakes, the F-22 will get that first shot, at least. And so far, the discussion has been solely about the F-22 owning the airspace (or not). Let's leave the ground-entanglement for the tank-buffs.

 

*Disowns report*

[Pilotasso]

Theres only one F-22 defeat, one Superhornet somehow got in clsoe and gunned down the raptor. The 22 pilots must have messed up pretty bad for that to happen.

[tflash]

Well, I do not agree with all the slides, but certainly with the conclusion. You just have to few F-22's for that money.

 

I still think the F-16 was the best buy ever, and if the F-35A can catch up with this succes it would be a winner.

 

I liked this statement:

 

"An increase in the total number

of aircraft in aerial combat drives

the exchange ratio toward parity"

 

I really think this is true. It also nullifies the limited test scenario's where 1 F-22 takes out 6 F-16 etc. Just doesn't mean much in reality.

 

Just like deparetely flying TST missions with precision weapons against 12.000 small, highly mobile and covert rocket launchers proved a disappointing exercise, flying a limited number of F-22's against hundreds of intruders and cruise missiles could be frustrating.

 

In the endgame of WWII, Hitler had very good, but expensive to build heavy tanks like the Tiger, King Tiger and Panther. Each could kill 5 T-34's or Shermans for 1 loss ... only there where always 6!

 

I'ld go for the Viper!

[GGTharos]

Well, okay.

 

I guess the point that the Raptor is a spearhead in the air to air arena was lost on people.

 

For everything else, there's JSF ... and F-15's, and F-16's, etc :)

[hitman]

IIRC only 1 F-117 was shot down and 1 lost due to major malfunction of the right wing. Of course I only heard of the 1 being shot down. Was there another??

[nscode]

malfunction... like the malfunction in the f-16's engine :D

[GGTharos]

There was another F_117 that was hit, but recovered to base successfuly. It was not useable after this however.