F-22 Raptor "sucks"

[Guest IguanaKing]

I still find it amussing that some people think that you can grab a couple of your F-22s and fly into a country bypass all Sams bypass the air forces and win a war.

 

I doubt you can fly into Moscow on your little F-22 and bypass all the S-300s and the rest of the SAMs they have around the city...

 

Yeah, its probably a bit of overkill, since all Mathias Rust needed was a Cessna 172. :smilewink:

[Rhen]

You're right Ukr_Alex, why use a $350M Raptor when it could be done with a $50K Cessna 172 flown by a kid. :music_whistling:

 

It's amazing the number of people who have no experience in real air combat who seem to be experts in what should be bought and what shouldn't be bought for a replacement for the Eagle. Just because you guys play a fighterpilot on the computer, please don't assume you understand what works and what doesn't in real life .

 

When you put your pink little behind in the seat of a fighting jet, you're betting your life and the lives of your wingmen/women on your skill and the abilities of the jet you're flying. You've studied the tactics and the capabilities of your jet and the adversaries you'll meet up with. You've trained all your adult career for one thing. To strap 20 tons of aircraft to your ass to go up and do battle with others who are doing the same thing. You pray to God that you'll not make a mistake so big that it kills your wingmen or jeopardizes your mission, and of course, for your own pink little behind.

 

When it comes to the Raptor, I'd strap my ass into that thing and go up against anything any air force could field EASILY in a 1v1. I'll pit my 4 ship of Raptors against any 8 or 12 other aircraft you can field. With what I know of the Raptors capabilities in any conceivable air war that could be entered regardless of the other guys IADS.

 

You also make the mistake of thinking the Raptor is going into any conflict as a single ship/only group ensuring air superiority. It's not. It's going in with the support of F-15s, F/A-18, F-16, WW, EWR, SAM batteries, AWACS, JSTARS, RIVET JOINT, tankers, bombers... you get the picture. If it has to go into a situation where some of this is missing, then it's got the best possible attributes to accomplish the mission than ANY other jet you can name that's operational or about to be operational.

 

Finally, as a pilot, I don't give a feck how much the damn jet costs. I only care about what it can do and how I can use that to accomplish the mission, get my flight back home, and save my own ass from being a cloud of blood and guts. I'll take the Raptor over anything else. It will do all these things better than anything else, period.

 

Now, when you start thinking like a fighter pilot, instead of like a bean counter, then we can talk (unclassified) specifics.:thumbup:

[Rhen]

Yeah, its probably a bit of overkill, since all Mathias Rust needed was a Cessna 172. :smilewink:

 

my timing sucks, that's why I didn't become a WSO:P

[Guest IguanaKing]

Bah...you probably thought of it first Rhen, my post was just shorter. :D

[Ukr_Alex]

Damn how big of a new as*hole do you fellas wanna rip me?

 

 

Fine, your fleet of F22s is King. It will win wars, Bagdad style....

 

Who said bow to Flanker? Who said I even like the Flanker? Who said that me being a Slav means anything?

 

 

Why are you all so insecure?

 

All I said is that I dont see the F22 fly and drop a bunch of bombs on moscow if its expected. If you dont agree fine. Prove me wrong. Or respect my opinion and have something to add.

 

 

An idiot knows that the F22 is the most advanced, most lethal thing out there. However you all make it out to be the next coming of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Just be realstic, if you think that it can fly through all the radar there is kill every sam there is FINE..........Fly on. :pilotfly:

[Ukr_Alex]

"F-117's in 1991", "Bagdad", "most heavily defended city in the world " rings a bell? Would you believe it back then?

 

you mean their SA-2s and SA-6s? 60s and 50s technology? besides being ill-prepared at that?

 

 

And why you calling me comrade? I hate everything down to the bone about USSR and what it stood for.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

"F-117's in 1991", "Bagdad", "most heavily defended city in the world " rings a bell?

Rings a bell? Ohh how funny. Well, first of all there were 42 countries against one in 1st Gulf War. Rings a bell?

 

Don’t get me wrong, it is good that Sadam is gone. However, it is misleading to be RINGING THE BELLS when there is 5 aircraft against 1 in the theater.

 

And F-117's did not fly alone. Same as B-2' over Yugoslavia or future F-22's over ... Well, what country is next on the list?

[Guest IguanaKing]

 

All I said is that I dont see the F22 fly and drop a bunch of bombs on moscow if its expected. If you dont agree fine. Prove me wrong. Or respect my opinion and have something to add.

 

Eh-hem...support aircraft? There's no such thing as the lone ranger in a strike. You might want to read through Rhen's post again. He's an actual Eagle driver, so he may know a thing or two, just hear him out. ;)

 

An idiot knows that the F22 is the most advanced, most lethal thing out there. However you all make it out to be the next coming of Jesus Christ.

 

Well...it had better be if its replacing our beloved Eagle in the years to come. :D

 

 

Just be realstic, if you think that it can fly through all the radar there is kill every sam there is FINE..........Fly on. :pilotfly:

 

Again, this is not what LO aircraft do. They don't fly through any radar, they fly around it. The lower RCS makes it that much easier for them to do. Think of radar coverage as an array of overlapping hemispheres for a conventional aircraft. Then, decrease the overall size of those hemispheres so they no longer overlap...there you have the gaps that LO aircraft can slip through. The F-22 even has the advantage of his RWR giving him a fairly detailed representation of that imaginary picture, right there in his own helmet, so he knows exactly where to fly to avoid detection. Well...that's what I read years ago in Airman magazine anyway...it may just show on his panel and not in his helmet. If there is ever a US attack on Moscow, the shiznit has definitely hit the fan, and it won't be a quick strike by manned aircraft. The conditions will still need to be right for a strike, stealth aircraft just make "preparing the battlefield" a little easier, but there are still going to be SEAD and EW guys out there getting shot at, and some of them dying. Raptors just help to limit the risk to those guys.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Finally, as a pilot, I don't give a feck how much the damn jet costs.

Well, the pilot, you might not care about the cost. However I do. And do you know who I am? I am a TAXPAYER. You, the pilot (if you are a military pilot) work for me. It is not the other way around.

 

You the pilot might not care about the cost, but I am told I will not have a social security benefits when I retire. And that is after me paying in that fund for several decades. And my kids, and kids of my friends might not be able to afford to go to university. And gas is more expansive every day, so I can not afford …

 

You might not give a “feck” about the cost, however Soviet Union collapsed economically. It was the COST that brought them down.

[Ukr_Alex]

Well Americans live well enough to be able to afford 350million jets.

 

I doubt a couple of fleets of F22s will put a dent in American living standarts. ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yeah, yeah, he works for you...but its not you who dies if he doesn't have a clear advantage over the enemy. How much does it cost you to replace him? How about his F-15? How many F-15s did you pay for to do the same job as a single F-22? How many F-15s were lost? How many pilots died? Who takes care of their families after they are killed? $250,000 instant death benefit under the current SGLI (my figures are a year old though), plus yearly salary for...well...basically as long as his spouse lives. Again...its a pretty complex picture, there are many more factors involved than you seem to realize. :smilewink:

[Ukr_Alex]

Eh-hem...support aircraft? There's no such thing as the lone ranger in a strike. You might want to read through Rhen's post again. He's an actual Eagle driver, so he may know a thing or two, just hear him out. ;)

 

 

 

Well...it had better be if its replacing our beloved Eagle in the years to come. :D

 

 

 

 

Again, this is not what LO aircraft do. They don't fly through any radar, they fly around it. The lower RCS makes it that much easier for them to do. Think of radar coverage as an array of overlapping hemispheres for a conventional aircraft. Then, decrease the overall size of those hemispheres so they no longer overlap...there you have the gaps that LO aircraft can slip through. The F-22 even has the advantage of his RWR giving him a fairly detailed representation of that imaginary picture, right there in his own helmet, so he knows exactly where to fly to avoid detection. Well...that's what I read years ago in Airman magazine anyway...it may just show on his panel and not in his helmet. If there is ever a US attack on Moscow, the shiznit has definitely hit the fan, and it won't be a quick strike by manned aircraft. The conditions will still need to be right for a strike, stealth aircraft just make "preparing the battlefield" a little easier, but there are still going to be SEAD and EW guys out there getting shot at, and some of them dying. Raptors just help to limit the risk to those guys.

 

 

I agree man. I do. And I know it has a very low radar signature. Its a great piece of kit. My point is simply that I dont see it fly through some heavily defended (S-300s all around) peice of land like its a Sunday drive in a Ferrari around Cote d'Azur. And thats what I picked up from this thread so far...

 

Not some SA-2 taliban village....but a properly networked well equiped city, field or whatever...

[Ukr_Alex]

Yeah, yeah, he works for you...but its not you who dies if he doesn't have a clear advantage over the enemy. How much does it cost you to replace him? How about his F-15? How many F-15s did you pay for to do the same job as a single F-22? How many F-15s were lost? How many pilots died? Who takes care of their families after they are killed? $250,000 instant death benefit under the current SGLI (my figures are a year old though), plus yearly salary for...well...basically as long as his spouse lives. Again...its a pretty complex picture, there are many more factors involved than you seem to realize. :smilewink:

 

 

Personaly I dont see the issue with its price if its proved to be capable of what so far heard about it.

 

Besides once again. 350million is a problem for Russia. 350 million is not a problem for US.

 

Its all proportionate anyway because the American factory worker who puts the bits together makes 20x more then his Russian counterpart...So so a 20x price difference in the final product is once again proportionate.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Nope, it won't be a Sunday drive, and nobody who knows anything about this stuff is going to think otherwise. The order of battle will depend on threat assessments, and Moscow would definitely represent a high threat environment. The first shots into that area would most likely be 109s of some variety, whether it be air, sea, or ground launched to try and take out IADS and command and control assets. Then, SEAD and EW aircraft go in...that's when airmen start dying. Anything that will help make their job less dangerous...I'm all for it. It saves lives, it saves equipment, and it saves money. Not to mention the side-effect of not as many Russians having to die. But, its all theoretical of course, if it ever does happen I have my emergency war plan in place. It involves a lawn chair, a case of beer, and sitting right outside the fence of the Space Wing at Buckley AFB. :D

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Again...its a pretty complex picture, there are many more factors involved than you seem to realize. :smilewink:

You missed the point Iguana. I don’t want him to die. I am not against investing in military technology. And I am not against (just) wars.

 

However, I am strongly against unnecessary military expenses and unjust wars. After all, it is me who is paying for all of that.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Nope, I didn't miss the point. "Just" or "unjust"...how does the quote go?... "To secure peace is to prepare for war." Or, is it, "The price of peace is eternal vigilance." Its putting up a strong front that prevents the unthinkable. Again...you need to consider more factors when determining what costs are "unnecessary". You may find that keeping older, less capable hardware costs more in all of those areas. :smilewink:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Well Americans live well enough to be able to afford 350million jets.

Says who? What is “well enough”? 10 million children in USA without health insurance? Soldiers on food stamps? Is that well enough?

 

Our standard of living is good on average. However, things are not as sweet at Hollywood is often portraying it. And definitely is not as good as Clinton or Bush are telling that it is.

 

I doubt a couple of fleets of F22s will put a dent in American living standarts. ;)

And couple of fleets of aircraft carriers, and couple of fleets of F-15’s, and couple of fleets of military space aircrafts, and … One could look at some numbers however, from what I know, we in USA do not have the highest standard of living in the world. And we do have the list amount of vacation comparing to all other industrial countries in the world.

 

Do you realize that we in USA spend more on military then all of the countries of the world COMBINED. What do we get for that? Democracy in Iraq? :) That’s for naïve’s …

[Guest IguanaKing]

Hajduk, please drop the politics. The "soldiers on foodstamps" thing, although a fun anti-war tactic, couldn't be further from the truth. Its not your fault though, Hollywood also tends to paint a bad picture as well. Even the AF IG team thought it was true until they got the facts from AFRC. Examples you see in the papers are cases of blatant fiscal irresponsibility, anybody can get too far in debt, even Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, or Marines. ;)

[Rhen]

My point is simply that I dont see it fly through some heavily defended (S-300s all around) peice of land like its a Sunday drive in a Ferrari around Cote d'Azur. And thats what I picked up from this thread so far...

 

Not some SA-2 taliban village....but a properly networked well equiped city, field or whatever...

 

Nobody who has any neurons in his cranium is telling you it's a walk in the park to fly and fight in the Raptor... at least I'm not going to tell you that. What I am going to tell you is that it's easier to fly and fight in that kind of environment - or any, for that matter, if you do it in a F-22 as opposed to an F-15. As I've said before, regarding the Raptor - the sheer increase in SA that you get when you fly that bird is worth the price, then put a RCS on it the size of a medium sized marble, and we've got the icing on the cake. Now stick a couple of Slammer D's on it and we've got a cherry on top. The Eagle's the best plane I've ever flown, but it's no Raptor - the Raptor lives up to it's name as a 5th gen jet.

 

I am, however, not blind to it's shortcomings - I know them like I know the shortcomings of the Eagle. Any pilot wants to know the best and worst about their jet.

[GGTharos]

They -can- afford it, period. And what do you mean 'We'? ARE you an american taxpayer?

 

The F-22 is an aircraft designed to meet future threats, and wether they happen to arise or not is no reason to -not- build it.

 

This isn't some piece of kit that'll just simply fail. It's something 'in the arsenal'. And what are armies? They're arsenals. And you had -better- update that arsenal or else!

 

Note that when your arsenal is more expensive, you also tend to have better combat power! The two are quite closely related.

 

So, either you like being a superpower, or you like to claim you once -were- a superpower.

 

It's really quite that simple.

 

As for benefits issues and whatnot, I suggest you look elsewhere, not military spending. It is elsewhere that such needs are shoved off ... because there's definitely plenty of money going other places.

[Rhen]

Do you realize that we in USA spend more on military then all of the countries of the world COMBINED. What do we get for that? Democracy in Iraq? :) That’s for naïve’s …

 

What's this "we" stuff? You don't write like a native citizen of the US. Are you naturalized? Are you really a citizen as you purport to be?:music_whistling:

 

It's always nice to jump the fence and criticize your neighbor, instead of looking in you own house for problems.

 

What the US spends on defense is exorbitant - but, whether you like it or not, the US is a superpower. There's precious few of those out there. China's one. Japan has the money, but not the constitution that allows it to spend money on military equipment. Russia, could be again, but they've not had the economy to support being a superpower. India is taking steps to become a superpower. Are you criticizing what India or China are spending to get aircraft, aircraft carriers, submarines, tanks from Russia - when major segments of their population go hungry?

 

I don't want to get into a political discussion with you anyway. You're entitled to think what you think about the US and I'm entitled to think and VOTE the way I want to in the US, so let's just confine this discussion about the merits of the F-22 as a fighter aircraft and whether it's capable of performing its mission vice other aircraft with similar missions.

[Rhen]

They -can- afford it, period. And what do you mean 'We'? ARE you an american taxpayer?

 

 

DAMN! I'm always a day late and a dollar short... :smilewink:

[Guest IguanaKing]

True. I know plenty of people who make 10 times what soldiers make and they are in debt too. It has to do with living within your means. Those that max the credit cards out and only pay the minimum monthly balance soon find themselves forced to declare bankruptcy. I've seen that with Stockbrokers and Lawyers. It doesn't matter who or what you do for a living, if you aren't responsible enuf to stay on top of your bills you get the shaft.

 

Yup. It just seems more prevalent among military personnel because many of them are still kids, and getting in over your head is often a young persons mistake. I know...I've been there...and I didn't, for one second, blame the AF. My bro had the advantage of learning from my f-ups, along with my constantly saying "Now...don't do what I did." :D He got paid almost as much as a Marine Corps Sergeant in combat in Iraq as he did in his civvie job. As a Marine Corps Reserve civvie after the AD commitment, he made about $61,000 per year, not bad for a 24-year-old kid. Then there were all of the cool things which the prez helped mandate, like giving him a break from interest on his mortgage while in combat. And...YES...he always had body armor, so lets just get that out of the way right now. Sometimes the supply lines couldn't keep up with the rate of advance, but the equipment was there.

[Ukr_Alex]

Says who? What is “well enough”? 10 million children in USA without health insurance? Soldiers on food stamps? Is that well enough?

 

Our standard of living is good on average. However, things are not as sweet at Hollywood is often portraying it. And definitely is not as good as Clinton or Bush are telling that it is.

 

And couple of fleets of aircraft carriers, and couple of fleets of F-15’s, and couple of fleets of military space aircrafts, and … One could look at some numbers however, from what I know, we in USA do not have the highest standard of living in the world. And we do have the list amount of vacation comparing to all other industrial countries in the world.

 

Do you realize that we in USA spend more on military then all of the countries of the world COMBINED. What do we get for that? Democracy in Iraq? :) That’s for naïve’s …

 

 

Well the States are a walking distance from where I lvie I know plenty of people there and they are living well. You can work at Walmart and still have a house. They live better than the(eastern bloc) any point in the history of the whole Eastern Bloc. Actualy whose ahead of them. Those few Scandinvian countries and thats it. And Luxemburg shouldnt even count:P

 

Anyway you seem to imply your a US citizen so you should know better.

 

And because US spends that much they are the only superpower. And will remain that way for a very long time.

 

 

I like the States, sure I dont like some things, but thats in every country.

 

The fact that they can spend nearly half a trillion $ on military and still be able to drive a 10mpg Cheavy down the high way and then cook a nice steak on that propane BBQ proves to me that they are doing somethig right.

 

 

 

But I still dont see the damn F22 fly through any radar :P And sure the F22 fans seem to acknowledge that now :P

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

They -can- afford it, period. And what do you mean 'We'? ARE you an american taxpayer?

Yes I am and I am proud of it. Are you?