What you think about this BS or not ?

[hitman]

Can you post a link to this? I want info. I'll google in the meantime.

[GGTharos]

Unfortunately no, I don't collect links :( Saw it a long time ago, and haven't looked to it since.

[hitman]

I saw it in wikipedia, unfortunately no other reference I was able to find. Oh well.

[Rhen]

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?

[Guest IguanaKing]

How about that section about the F-117? It seemed to imply, that either the F-117 had a radar, or that it needed one to counter the SAMs that brought the 1 down. I loved the rear-ward visibility bit too. He seems to forget that the F-22 has something to counter that "problem". :D

[Rhen]

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.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yup, and he seems to conveniently leave out the fact that the F-117s in the Balkans theatre were all completely misused by NATO. Flying the same route, at the same time, day after day...well...eventually the enemy on the ground is going to figure out where to concentrate his air defense assets.

 

I fully agree with the rest of your post. Anybody who doubts what you say should try a scaled-down version of that. A person who's a s**t-hot rocket ace on-line in the LOMAC F-15 should take a week or two off from playing LOMAC at all, then go back to it and see if he doesn't have to shake off a little rust. And that's not NEARLY as difficult as the real thing, but it still happens. :D

[ARM505]

*Sigh* We REALLY need that F.A.Q. item stating the F22 pwns everything, always. Maybe we can add 'regardless of numbers' just to be clear too... ;)

[tflash]

I'm not saying you should rather fly a Viper instead of a Raptor, but that you should rather BUY many vipers (or later F-35's) instead of raptors.

 

Like most civilians, politicians and other armchair pilots, the bottom line for us is the cost. The Viper = 100% value for money.

 

The price tag is just WAY out a line: the money that has been poored away will evidently NOT be used to pay for training a-to-a pilots. So there will be *far less* training opportunities.

 

Reparing each little scratch on the F-22's surface is very intensive, highly qualified work but it is NOT combat flying.

 

I, like any tax-payer, go for affordability - sustainability - maintainability so that more pilots are longer in the air for a larger variety of missions.

[Rhen]

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.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yup. Let's not forget the selling point of the Viper when it was the new kid. The aircraft itself was quite a bit more expensive than the F-4, but the cost of maintenance, along with training and retaining those maintenance crews was MUCH lower per flight hour on the F-16. Add to that the cost of training a pilot to fly it, and replacing him when he's lost in combat, the costs keep going up for the F-4. That's another advantage to the F-22, its pilot, which represents about a $5 Million dollar investment (correct me if I'm wrong Rhen...just estimating), is much more likely to come back home. Each mission he returns from is money in the bank, not only in actual dollars, but in tactical experience. Add to that the undeniable fact that it FORCES the enemy to throw more of his war-fighting resources at that one thing even to have a chance of countering it, and...well...there you go. Let's also not forget how horribly expensive the F-15 was per unit when it first came on-line. 34 years later, and its combat record speaks for itself...not to mention that the adjusted, per unit cost is MUCH lower than it was in 1972 (yet it can do s**tloads more these days...much like computer technology).

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

F-22 is incredible machine! I am sure, its capabilities way are up there. However, do not believe everything military say.

 

Even F-117 was shot down and hit in the theater where NATO (read USA) had numerical advantage of 10 to 1 and huge technological advantage. Interesting enough, you don’t hear much about that conflict any more …

[Guest IguanaKing]

That's mainly because the F-117 was employed incorrectly. NATO planners treated it as if it was the invisible man, and this is not the case. Stealth doesn't make things INvisible, it just makes them LESS visible. ;)

[Rhen]

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.

[Rhen]

That's mainly because the F-117 was employed incorrectly. NATO planners treated it as if it was the invisible man, and this is not the case. Stealth doesn't make things INvisible, it just makes them LESS visible. ;)

 

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

[Guest IguanaKing]

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.

 

Thanks Rhen! I'll have to update my figures. OK........DONE! :D I get to-the-day info about officer pay from a family member in AFRC mobilization, but I don't get much info about the other multitudes of costs involved.

[tflash]

Mmmm, I'm not giving up so easily, Rhen. Of course training a pilot costs money. That's why there is such a lively ANG community filled with experienced pilots, most of them qualified for the F-16. These guys fly airliners but come in handy when you need men. Don't say me they didn't provide sterling value already in many conflicts. And most, fortunately, did come home.

 

The maintenance of a plane like F-16, of which more than 4000 are flying has become so cheap that even countries without a defense budget like Belgium can fly them.

 

We started with lightweight fighters with only 2 winders, now they have state-of-the art sniper pods and up-to-date avionics.

 

The extremely more viable F-35 will have SA comparable to F-22, just like a block 50/52+ viper has avionics comparable to anf F-15.

 

Air Force wanted 450 F-22, they will get 150 or so at soaring prices for spare parts, training, maintenance, training of support staff etc.

 

I'm still not saying the F-22 is not the better plane. Even had it cost twice the price of an F-35, it would be OK. But at $200 million, I just feel it's a ripoff.

 

But then, in the end, they'll buy both and will have made the best calculations. I agree I'm not the one who can know or decide.

[Rhen]

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.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yup, ANG Vipers are primarily air-to-mud. A buddy of mine at work is a tech with the 120th at Buckley AFB. When they deployed to Iraq, they were flying on-call CAS...and that's primarily what they trained for. Its a no-brainer, considering what they used to fly, the A-7D. Granted, in the US they are usually flying CAP, but that's against hi-jacked civilian aircraft, not anything that is going to try to find them first and kill them.

 

Much like the multi-role capability of the F-16 while flying with the support of F-15s. The F-35 is only going to be as good as the F-22s that get them to their targets in the first place. I'm a bit skeptical still about all of this new, integrated, glass cockpit stuff...but once the learning curve is overcome, it has a great deal of potential.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Which you've already posted out if he cared to read it. :)

No comments on your remark Rhen.

 

F-22 is an excellent technology demonstrator. I don’t mind spending couple-three billions of dollars to build maybe, two dozens of F-22. And if we ever need more, it would be easy to build more. BTW, there is no country in the world that will ever be able to destroy our manufacturing capabilities on our soil.

 

On one hand, we brag that F-15 has a perfect record, 100 (or more) kills with no loses. On the other hand we build something that can kill five F-15’s without a loss. Something is not right here. And why are we building so many F-22’s? Who is our enemy? If our enemy has something comparable to F-22’s it would make perfect sense to build F-22’s in great numbers.

 

The wars that we are fighting now and in far future are not going to be against big powers because they are NOT our enemies. They have common goals and similar culture as we do.

 

The question is really what is our intention with such a technology? To me id does not look like DEFENSIVE technology.

 

Nobody will ever be able to conquer United States of America. It just can not and will not happen. However, we, the United States of America can easily implode in its own misunderstanding of who we are, who are our friends or enemies and what weapon systems do we need to spend our hard earned money to preserve our way of living.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Its more than a tech demonstrator, it is currently deployed with at least 3 active AF squadrons. You don't get maximum return on your investment by creating something which is "enough to meet today's threats", it needs to be something that can meet today's threats, as well as foreseeable future threats. Today, air power means being able to deploy EGBUs without being seen...tomorrow it may, very well, be something different, like eliminating an enemy air force to achieve air superiority over the battlefield.

[D-Scythe]

On one hand, we brag that F-15 has a perfect record, 100 (or more) kills with no loses. On the other hand we build something that can kill five F-15’s without a loss. Something is not right here. And why are we building so many F-22’s? Who is our enemy? If our enemy has something comparable to F-22’s it would make perfect sense to build F-22’s in great numbers.

 

You completely misunderstand the F-22 program. The entire point of the F-22 is to provide the USAF with an undeniable threat over-match such that nothing in the next 30 years would even come close. The whole idea is to avoid the (possible) situation where the enemy does have something comparable to the Raptor, because if they do, that means more casualties that the American public can cry about.

 

It's simple really. The US public does not like casualties. Raptor prevents American casualties, either directly by protecting other US aircraft in the air or indirectly by securing air supremacy and keeping ground troops safe/ensure continual air support.

 

The wars that we are fighting now and in far future are not going to be against big powers because they are NOT our enemies. They have common goals and similar culture as we do.

 

Yeah? We thought that about Germany in the 1930s too. And during WWII we had the same political/military goals as Russia as well. Look what happened.

 

The question is really what is our intention with such a technology? To me id does not look like DEFENSIVE technology.

 

Arguably, the F-15E is not defensive technology either. Neither is the B-2A, the F-117A, the B-1B, the M1A2 SEP, F-15C AESA, F/A-18E/F, USS Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, guided missile cruisers, Seawolf SSNs, etc.

 

 

Nobody will ever be able to conquer United States of America. It just can not and will not happen. However, we, the United States of America can easily implode in its own misunderstanding of who we are, who are our friends or enemies and what weapon systems do we need to spend our hard earned money to preserve our way of living.

 

No idea what you are talking about and how it relates to the F-22 here.

[Rhen]

On one hand, we brag that F-15 has a perfect record, 100 (or more) kills with no loses. On the other hand we build something that can kill five F-15’s without a loss. Something is not right here. And why are we building so many F-22’s? Who is our enemy?

 

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?

 

If our enemy has something comparable to F-22’s it would make perfect sense to build F-22’s in great numbers.

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

 

The wars that we are fighting now and in far future are not going to be against big powers because they are NOT our enemies. They have common goals and similar culture as we do.

See above - I'm 1/2 Asian and i know US and Asian cultures differ.

 

Nobody will ever be able to conquer United States of America. It just can not and will not happen. However, we, the United States of America can easily implode in its own misunderstanding of who we are, who are our friends or enemies and what weapon systems do we need to spend our hard earned money to preserve our way of living.

 

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.

[Rhen]

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

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The entire point of the F-22 is to provide the USAF with an undeniable threat over-match such that nothing in the next 30 years would even come close.

Who will come close to USA? The last attack on our soil (9/11) was with plastic knifes and passenger airplanes. So F-22 can protect us in such attacks?

 

The whole idea is to avoid the (possible) situation where the enemy does have something comparable to the Raptor, because if they do, that means more casualties that the American public can cry about.

American public can cry all they want about casualties, however, from what I’ve seen from Vietnam until nowadays Iraq, that cry does not influence politicians decisions on how long and in what way they will wage a war.

 

It's simple really. The US public does not like casualties.

Give me one “public” that does. In the case of America (and other countries too), it really does not matter if they like it or not. Politicians will not change their way of pursuing policy based upon war casualties.

 

We ran out of Vietnam not because of all the young lives we lost, but because we lost the war. Currently, we are loosing young lives on daily basis in Iraq, yet we are not pulling out of Iraq.

 

Yeah? We thought that about Germany in the 1930s too. And during WWII we had the same political/military goals as Russia as well. Look what happened.

I don’t know what history books you were reading, however, in 1930’s we did not have the same goals as Russia. Russia was ruled by a bloodthirsty communist dictator who killed, prosecuted and imprisoned more then 20 million of its own people. So your analogy just does not stand a ground here.

 

Arguably, the F-15E is not defensive technology either. Neither is the B-2A, the F-117A, the B-1B, the M1A2 SEP, F-15C AESA, F/A-18E/F, USS Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, guided missile cruisers, Seawolf SSNs, etc.

That’s exactly my point as well. In other words, we talk peace, we participate in UN, we call UN resolutions, yet we build OFFENSIVE weapon systems and go around the world (brake same UN resolutions) telling everybody how stupid they are and how our way of living is better. And if they disagree, we use or “tools” to convince them. I don’t know how much more will people tolerate that.

 

No idea what you are talking about and how it relates to the F-22 here.

That’s fine with me.

 

This is my last post on this thread.