F-22 Raptor "sucks"

[Ukr_Alex]

Oh and I think the mods will close this threads due to all the politics.

 

 

So lets get back on topic.

 

 

Oh yeah, the F22 sucks, flanker rocks now pass me ma beer and pop corn.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk, please drop the politics.

You might not like to hear what I say. Facts are hard to come by nowdays, and even harder to draw conclusions out of available facts.

 

Nevertheless, I am out of this senseless discussion.

 

Regards,

[Guest IguanaKing]

I use my credit cards, but I don't carry a balance. I pay them in full at the end of the month. I own both my vehicles, I paid cash. It sucks having to wait till you have enough money but that's how I like to operate. I did the same with my house, paid cash. So now the only payments I have are for electricity, water, interweb, etc.

 

I've found that I won't buy anything if I can't pay for it when the credit card bill is due. I like it that way.

 

That's a good way to live, but even the guys who have debt can still live within their means, pay it all off quickly, and not be on "foodstamps". :D

[Guest IguanaKing]

You might not like to hear what I say. Facts are hard to come by nowdays, and even harder to draw conclusions out of available facts.

 

Nevertheless, I am out of this senseless discussion.

 

Regards,

 

Fine, go away with your "facts" then. I guess you wish to ignore the rest of my post following the quote that angered you so much. May I ask one last question of you before you storm off? When did you come to the US? What year was that?

[Rhen]

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

 

No one that knows anything about radar or stealth will tell you otherwise. In the Raptor or Nighthawk, you CAN fly through most any radar. You just can't get too close to the receiver. It's all about detection ranges. You can get a helluva lot closer in a F-22 or F-117 than you could in a conventional aircraft. It's all about minimizing your RCS and maxing detection ranges on bandits. The Raptor does both. It allows me to get closer to the threat before I'm detected. It's not a magic invisibility cloaking device.:P We learn the strengths and weaknesses of the jet and employ it accordingly. Tactics are being developed even as we speak to maximize these strengths and minimize the weaknesses.

 

To others that say that you have to prove the mettle of an aircraft in combat - well you're right - to a point. The Eagle was bought without going into real combat, but it, and the pilots who fly the Eagle, have gone through millions of fights in training. The tactics were developed without having fired a shot in anger. To not look at what you'll be flying in combat with a critical eye is tantamount to flying blind with one arm tied behind your back and half your brain back at the O'club. Every pilot who flies combat aircraft know how it works and how their adversaries aircraft work. But saying that the Raptor sucks because it's not proven in combat is like saying that you'll not visit the Psychiatrist because he's not psychopathic so he'll never understand what you're going through... :P

[GGTharos]

And I'd like to add, as close as you can get in a Raptor in a 'clean' environment, imagine a stand-off jammr causing that precious S300 to have to lower its gain (it'll do so automatically) ... you get -even closer-. ;)

 

So imagine that this thing could pick up your F-15 200km away ... the Raptor, let's say, cuts this down to 1/10th. Or even let's say, 1/5th.

 

So, 40km. Funny thing is, the Raptor can release an SDB from nearly TWICE that distance and hit your S300. With a stand-off jammer, you could say, cut the detection range in half ... not so good!

 

Of course, this is a very limited, 'laboratory' type example. But it should give you an idea of the enormous advantage that a stealth aircraft -can- provide.

 

And to boot, not -only- is the detection range decreased, but this wreaks /absolute havok/ on actual missile guidance systems!

[Ukr_Alex]

:P

And I'd like to add, as close as you can get in a Raptor in a 'clean' environment, imagine a stand-off jammr causing that precious S300 to have to lower its gain (it'll do so automatically) ... you get -even closer-. ;)

 

So imagine that this thing could pick up your F-15 200km away ... the Raptor, let's say, cuts this down to 1/10th. Or even let's say, 1/5th.

 

So, 40km. Funny thing is, the Raptor can release an SDB from nearly TWICE that distance and hit your S300. With a stand-off jammer, you could say, cut the detection range in half ... not so good!

 

Of course, this is a very limited, 'laboratory' type example. But it should give you an idea of the enormous advantage that a stealth aircraft -can- provide.

 

And to boot, not -only- is the detection range decreased, but this wreaks /absolute havok/ on actual missile guidance systems!

 

Well thats great and all but Ill be sitting right by my S300 with my cooler and an AK to shoot down that cruise missle:P

 

And I wonder how a patriot can cope with that F22.

[GGTharos]

A patriot will cope with an F22 pretty much in the same way an S300 would ;)

 

The SDB isn't a cruise missile - it's a bomb.

[Ukr_Alex]

 

The SDB isn't a cruise missile - it's a bomb.

 

bomb cruise missle.....my AK will take care of it ;) Sorry I get tottaly lost between russian and english abbriviations

[Guest IguanaKing]

bomb cruise missle.....my AK will take care of it ;) Sorry I get tottaly lost between russian and english abbriviations

 

Heh...how about those cyrillic translation errors. Those are fun too aren't they? :D

[TucksonSonny]

No one that knows anything about radar or stealth will tell you otherwise. In the Raptor or Nighthawk, you CAN fly through most any radar. You just can't get too close to the receiver. It's all about detection ranges. You can get a helluva lot closer in a F-22 or F-117 than you could in a conventional aircraft. It's all about minimizing your RCS and maxing detection ranges on bandits. The Raptor does both. It allows me to get closer to the threat before I'm detected. It's not a magic invisibility cloaking device.:P We learn the strengths and weaknesses of the jet and employ it accordingly. Tactics are being developed even as we speak to maximize these strengths and minimize the weaknesses.

 

To others that say that you have to prove the mettle of an aircraft in combat - well you're right - to a point. The Eagle was bought without going into real combat, but it, and the pilots who fly the Eagle, have gone through millions of fights in training. The tactics were developed without having fired a shot in anger. To not look at what you'll be flying in combat with a critical eye is tantamount to flying blind with one arm tied behind your back and half your brain back at the O'club. Every pilot who flies combat aircraft know how it works and how their adversaries aircraft work. But saying that the Raptor sucks because it's not proven in combat is like saying that you'll not visit the Psychiatrist because he's not psychopathic so he'll never understand what you're going through... :P

 

Let face it: the real workhorse in the Yugo/Iraq wars was the F-16 and in smaller numbers the F-15 heavy supported by AWACS together with the EW aircrafts (electronic Warfare) and even then tons of cruise missiles were fired to do the job which was supposed to be done by F117/B2 (even the tactical nuclear stock was used for that, even the B52 came up).

It was also kind of an embarrassing situation having the so stealth B2 surrounded by a shield of conventional fighters (not less than a tenfold) of all kind to protect it.

Anyway the F-22 will be the first fighter plane ever who will rely for 100% on his computer.

(If his main-computer shuts down the plane goes down)

As being a programmer for about 14 years, I have my doubts, forgive me for that!

Let’s hope his backup computer doesn’t works with a Sony battery.

And maybe after the B2 and the F117 disaster this time the F-22 project will work.

[tflash]

I also think the debate doesn't need to be political. It also is not bean-counting. Affordability is a valid military concept.

 

- No one should doubt the F-22 is built to higher specs than any competition

- It is of course a way better plane than Flanker and Eagle

- If you can choose, of course you fly Raptor. That's why I would be driving a porsche instead of my Opel Astra if I had a choice.

- The specs where made at the time when everyone expected ever evolving Flanker armadas, possibly Berkuts

- this threat just didn't materialise: current Flankers are not more than a match for current Eagles, they also do not come in overwhelming numbers to this day

- the budget overruns to achieve the F-22 specs make even those of the Typhoon pale away. I think only the Nimrod MR.4A is an even crazier endavour.

- budget overruns equals cutting someone else's budget. SO: LESS maintenance for F-16's, less training hours, less fuel and spare parts at airbases. The F-15E community is already not so happy with this situation.

 

I'm saying that a less radical follow-on to the Eagle would have been a wiser choice. The Navy got booooed away for not replacing the Tomcat with a superfighter but instead chosing the Pentagon bookkeepers' favorite.

 

And yes indeed: while providing sterling service the superbug is saving money every day of every conflict. The money you need to continue the warfare. If our mayor would have to buy a plane, it sure would be the Superbug ;)

 

A "Super Eagle" of some kind, say at 1 third the price of a Raptor could have done miracles allready. Since on this thing we all agree, Rhen. The Eagle rocks. It was expensive then but did not have comparable budget overruns.

[Pilotasso]

And I'd like to add, as close as you can get in a Raptor in a 'clean' environment, imagine a stand-off jammr causing that precious S300 to have to lower its gain (it'll do so automatically) ... you get -even closer-. ;)

 

So imagine that this thing could pick up your F-15 200km away ... the Raptor, let's say, cuts this down to 1/10th. Or even let's say, 1/5th.

 

So, 40km. Funny thing is, the Raptor can release an SDB from nearly TWICE that distance and hit your S300. With a stand-off jammer, you could say, cut the detection range in half ... not so good!

 

Of course, this is a very limited, 'laboratory' type example. But it should give you an idea of the enormous advantage that a stealth aircraft -can- provide.

 

And to boot, not -only- is the detection range decreased, but this wreaks /absolute havok/ on actual missile guidance systems!

 

I know virtualy nothing on optics and electromagnetism, but I heard intensity of emmition, and then of reflection, decreases with the square of the distance, thus is not proportional like you said.

The chances of detection at 40KM is still very low, as an example to demonstrate this, the Raptor has to swich RCS augmentation in peace time to be detected by airport radars, and they are pretty damn potent. The local airport radar can track aircraft almost all the way to madrid.

[tflash]

I think indeed it makes no sense at all to doubt the Raptor's RCS performance. And it's no trick, it is fundamental.

Like I said, the enemy will not make the mistake of trusting his S300 and wait like a sitting duck in his HQ bunker. He will reply with networked, redundant, low-intensity, embedded warfare. Every houshold will have its rocket launcher and igla missile. Every trashbin filled with IED's. Every strategic meeting will take place in a kindergarten. Every leader will have dozens of lookalikes and namesakes.

 

So I think, if you like a game, its better to keep the competition close enough. Otherwise they choose another play.

[S77th-konkussion]

Let face it: the real workhorse in the Yugo/Iraq wars was the F-16 and in smaller numbers the F-15 heavy supported by AWACS together with the EW aircrafts (electronic Warfare) and even then tons of cruise missiles were fired to do the job which was supposed to be done by F117/B2 (even the tactical nuclear stock was used for that, even the B52 came up).

It was also kind of an embarrassing situation having the so stealth B2 surrounded by a shield of conventional fighters (not less than a tenfold) of all kind to protect it.

 

Anyway the F-22 will be the first fighter plane ever who will rely for 100% on his computer.

(If his main-computer shuts down the plane goes down)

As being a programmer for about 14 years, I have my doubts, forgive me for that!

Let’s hope his backup computer doesn’t works with a Sony battery.

 

And maybe after the B2 and the F117 disaster this time the F-22 project will work.

 

 

lol there you go son- hang on to that last thread you have lol.. Lose the envy & jealousy, son. Make a life for yourself. Same for the rest of you who are so woefully inept that you need to change the topic to health care, voting fraud, and whatever that other anti-war cause was.. That horse died 40 yrs ago. Imagine-a Canadian criticizing someone else's health care system, LMAO

[355th_Paulie]

Imagine-a Canadian criticizing someone else's health care system, LMAO

 

:no_sad: Since when are canooks aloud in this forum??? :D

[Rhen]

I also think the debate doesn't need to be political. It also is not bean-counting. Affordability is a valid military concept.

 

Howdy, Mr. Bean Counter!:P

 

Affordability is NOT a valid military concept. Economy of force - applying the force required to do the job and no more - is a valid military concept. The cost of the F-22 or the rest of the military for that matter, is left up to our civilian leadership, not the military. We ask for things, they give.. or not. Not our choice. When the civilian leadership directs us to do something, it's always going to be expensive, and sometimes messy. That's what militaries do. Redecorating with high explosives and fragments of lead is usually messy.

 

You know, you guys in Belgium spend WAY too much on your monarchy. If you took that money and put it into something that makes more sense, like social programs, and became part of the Netherlands again, then you wouldn't have to spend anything on defense either... ;) . Look, what you think about what the US spends on things is about as interesting to me as me talking about what your country spends on its things.

 

- No one should doubt the F-22 is built to higher specs than any competition

- It is of course a way better plane than Flanker and Eagle

- If you can choose, of course you fly Raptor. That's why I would be driving a porsche instead of my Opel Astra if I had a choice.

- The specs where made at the time when everyone expected ever evolving Flanker armadas, possibly Berkuts

The Eagle was developed to counter the MiG-25, which is unarguably a crap dogfighter, but it can go high and fast and paired up with a long range missile, it's a significant threat - but now, its a better short-range reconnaisance platform. So, if US hadn't developed the Eagle, we'd still be flying Phantoms instead of Eagles. The Raptor was made for air superiority in varying threat environments. Are you telling me, that this capability is not needed? This is the first new fighter aircraft in the USAF inventory since the 1970s. Are you saying that the US should go with a 1/2 measure, instead of a full measure of upgrade, because you deem it's not necessary for the US to upgrade? :lol:

- this threat just didn't materialise: current Flankers are not more than a match for current Eagles, they also do not come in overwhelming numbers to this day

- the budget overruns to achieve the F-22 specs make even those of the Typhoon pale away. I think only the Nimrod MR.4A is an even crazier endavour.

- budget overruns equals cutting someone else's budget. SO: LESS maintenance for F-16's, less training hours, less fuel and spare parts at airbases. The F-15E community is already not so happy with this situation.

 

I'm saying that a less radical follow-on to the Eagle would have been a wiser choice. The Navy got booooed away for not replacing the Tomcat with a superfighter but instead chosing the Pentagon bookkeepers' favorite.

:huh: Yep, looks like you are saying that it's not necessary to upgrade a fighter that was born out of the Vietnam war - the Eagle, with a fighter born out of late '80s - early 90's tech. I'm glad you're not a bean counter... because if you were, we'd probably have F-16 in air defense role instead of the Eagle. To me, that would be scary.

 

And yes indeed: while providing sterling service the superbug is saving money every day of every conflict. The money you need to continue the warfare. If our mayor would have to buy a plane, it sure would be the Superbug ;)

 

Spoken like a true bean counter! :megalol:

 

A "Super Eagle" of some kind, say at 1 third the price of a Raptor could have done miracles allready. Since on this thing we all agree, Rhen. The Eagle rocks. It was expensive then but did not have comparable budget overruns.

 

Whoops! My bad, we'd be using the superhornet instead of the viper for air superiority. So with your argument, since you don't like the US upgrading from early 70s tech to early 90s tech, we should go for something in between - say 80s tech. Then i guess we'd all be flying hornets. It's a nice plane, but was never meant to hold any type of high ground for long. In an engagement against a hornet, I usually win almost every time, that would scare me too. Nothing can beat an aircraft that was designed to maintain air-to-air superiority in the first place. If your country can't afford anything but multirole aircraft, that's your country's choice, it doesn't have to be mine.

 

Oh, btw, we have a super Eagle, already. The AESA Eagle, is that & it will complement the Raptor in it's role maintaining air superiority over the battlefield.... so yeh, we already got that, but it's still time to upgrade.

[GGTharos]

Let face it: the real workhorse in the Yugo/Iraq wars was the F-16 and in smaller numbers the F-15 heavy supported by AWACS together with the EW aircrafts (electronic Warfare) and even then tons of cruise missiles were fired to do the job which was supposed to be done by F117/B2 (even the tactical nuclear stock was used for that, even the B52 came up).

It was also kind of an embarrassing situation having the so stealth B2 surrounded by a shield of conventional fighters (not less than a tenfold) of all kind to protect it.

 

Anyway the F-22 will be the first fighter plane ever who will rely for 100% on his computer.

(If his main-computer shuts down the plane goes down)

As being a programmer for about 14 years, I have my doubts, forgive me for that!

Let’s hope his backup computer doesn’t works with a Sony battery.

 

And maybe after the B2 and the F117 disaster this time the F-22 project will work.

 

Ever programmed a real-time system? (Do you know what a real-time system is?)

[nscode]

even the tactical nuclear stock was used for that, even the B52 came up)

 

B52 was here to do heavy carpet bombing of oil refineries.

[tflash]

Yeah, Rhen, I have to agree: the hard facts of life are that the USAF already has the F-22, while I'm still driving my Opel Astra. Bummer :(

[Guest IguanaKing]

 

Anyway the F-22 will be the first fighter plane ever who will rely for 100% on his computer.

(If his main-computer shuts down the plane goes down)

As being a programmer for about 14 years, I have my doubts, forgive me for that!

Let’s hope his backup computer doesn’t works with a Sony battery.

 

 

No, actually the F-22 won't be the first plane to rely 100% on its computer. Ever hear of the FLCS in the F-16? There is no physical connection between the stick and the control surfaces. That system seems to be pretty reliable though, once they figured out that they need to use lacing cord to bundle the wires instead of zip ties.

 

I'm not a big fan of integrated EFIS either, but there are a few systems out there that really perform quite well. I certify and sometimes reprogram those systems for a living. There's a nice little dual Chelton system out there that is subjected to high negative and positive Gs (sometimes as high as 12 for a short duration), on a daily basis, in a Zivko Edge 540. Everything else in the plane, avionics-wise, has s**t the bed because of the G loads more than once, but that EFIS system has been bulletproof. I love how some people like to point out problems encountered in RDT&E as a sign of how "terrible" the Raptor's reliability is. That's what RDT&E is for...working the bugs out of the design. Its simply not possible to have a glitch free flight test program

[Pilotasso]

I think indeed it makes no sense at all to doubt the Raptor's RCS performance. And it's no trick, it is fundamental.

Like I said, the enemy will not make the mistake of trusting his S300 and wait like a sitting duck in his HQ bunker. He will reply with networked, redundant, low-intensity, embedded warfare. Every houshold will have its rocket launcher and igla missile. Every trashbin filled with IED's. Every strategic meeting will take place in a kindergarten. Every leader will have dozens of lookalikes and namesakes.

 

So I think, if you like a game, its better to keep the competition close enough. Otherwise they choose another play.

 

I also see missconceptions on this thinking.

Because the F-22 has been tested against similar systems such as the patriot, hauk, Nike etc. Planning would never let raptors flying directly above S-300 so it could be shot down.

Also, the raptor is not 100% dependent on stealth, people tend to forget the reason why the F-117 is going to be phased out is because Stealth can be defeated in the future on an airframe specificaly designed after it for all its missions. The F-22 has capabilities wich do not render it useless even if it could be tracked. You wont shoot it down automaticaly by detecting it, but also you will have to deal with extreme AESA radar range, high altitude supercruise (some books sugest up to 80000 feet), Super agility and engine power to overcome any energy loss during manuevering. If anything can happen against the raptor is loosing Stealth past BVR range and then you still have to surpass every other aspects of its designs.

Chances are that none of the projected aircraft, including Russias 5th gen aircraft will have any specific advantage, but rather aimed at some parity.

 

I personaly doubt this, Russia already stated that its next aircraft wont be as ambitious as it could be due to economical reasons, and the technology and research is to be shared presumably with India. The configuration of the aircraft is to be similar to that of the JSF, i.e. it wont carry over all of the flanker virtues although I could be an overall better aircraft to face current fighters, but it will never be an air dominance fighter. Of course this is all acadmic but when you compare the resources and theclhology, experience takin into the F-22 one wonders if eastern indutries, or even europe could ever hope to match.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Thank god! You just can't help but take some shortsighted dig at the U.S., it's servicemen, it's people, etc.

You are so wrong when you say something like this about me!

 

I already put you once on my ignore list. I will just have to do it again.

 

Thanks,

[nscode]

I also see missconceptions on this thinking.

Because the F-22 has been tested against similar systems such as the patriot, hauk, Nike etc. Planning would never let raptors flying directly above S-300 so it could be shot down.

 

and defence planning would be done so that you never know where that is.

 

I personaly doubt this, Russia already stated that its next aircraft wont be as ambitious as it could be due to economical reasons

 

this was long ago. they're not so tied down economicaly now. still, i wouldn't expect them to go anti-raptor full ahead, simply 'couse it's not a threat to them. but, some other people are interested in that field and it's just natural to include them in development to cut costs. I would expect them at the same time be quietly working on something brand new of their own. I would compare it with the intel/amd. you had those so-and-so amd 386es, then they weren't to be heard of in the 486 times, but then out of nowhere came the K6 and pwned intel ass :)

[Guest IguanaKing]

and defence planning would be done so that you never know where that is.

 

Its kinda hard to electronically hide Big Bird. Without detection by Big Bird, Clam Shell and Flap Lid aren't all that effective in knowing where to look. Just speculating of course. :smilewink: