F-22 Thread

[MoGas]

It remembers me on the EF-2000 pro and contra sh.., here in Austria, where the two parties fought against over newspapers. There was also something too read like "the EF-2000 can't fly in the rain..engines are stopping or when its snowing as well, then the fall out of the sky's lol".

 

So finally I can't believe that as well......but who knows!

 

cheers

[leafer]

Toughest opponent for the F-22 is Obama who stated he will veto every bill with F-22.

 

I'm not trying to start a political debate but what is the point of such an expensive aircraft? Wouldn't that money be better spent equipping the grunts?

[hitman]

Because no one else in the world has a 5th Generation fighter bomber in the fleet already that has see first strike first capabilities.

[RedTiger]

Because no one else in the world has a 5th Generation fighter bomber in the fleet already that has see first strike first capabilities.

 

Was that an answer directed at leafer? If you're being tongue-in-cheek, what aircraft are you referring to? (gratz on becoming an aircraft tech, btw :) )

[leafer]

Those countries you're thinking of won't go to war with the U.S.. I dare say that no one in their right mind is going to start a conventional war with the U.S.. These 5th gen fighter/bombers with first strike capabilities mean poo when the enemies think death is divine.

[RedTiger]

Those countries you're thinking of won't go to war with the U.S.. I dare say that no one in their right mind is going to start a conventional war with the U.S.. These 5th gen fighter/bombers with first strike capabilities mean poo when the enemies think death is divine.

 

I was gong to write this long post going into all the various scenarios of who would have such an aircraft in sufficient quantities and with enough other advanced kit to actually do some damage, but that's all just assumption.

 

/Devil's advocate mode_1

 

WHO or WHAT?

 

WHO or WHAT justifies the having the Raptor in the numbers that are being asked for? You can stay nebulous and say "unforseen 21st century threats", and that's all fine and good because you don't want to get caught with your pants down, but can it not get any more concrete than this? Shouldn't it be more concrete to justify more?

 

If we look at the number of 4th generation aircraft and point to that and say "we need to replace these with the Raptor", shouldn't we also take into account the time period when those were produced -- the Cold War, when massive conventional warfare was a possibility? We aren't even talking about whether the Raptor should be developed, we're discussing if the US should buy an ass-ton of them! The USAF already has them! When numerical superiority is already present beyond what 99% of anyone could ever hope to have with aircraft technology that no one can produced for several years let alone match numerically, is it justified to point to Cold War-era numbers and say "we need that many"? For WHO or WHAT?

 

If the WHO or WHAT does produce a Raptor-level fighter or bomber, can they make enough of them? Can they do so in a time frame that will hinder the ability to start making more Raptors? Are they going to pull the tarp off of a dozen squadrons of 5th gen stealth bombers one morning unbeknown to anyone?

 

To build upon the previous questions, I mean them to assume that we're in the future current 4th generation aircraft are out of the picture. They're sitting in the desert somewhere falling apart, they've reached the end of their service life. If the 5th gens are such a force multiplier, why do you need so many of them? The 4th gens were created on a playing field where your opponent could respond to your new toy with a new toy of his own in a relatively short amount of time. Today we're in a situation where the previous opponent can just very recently match tech level of the last iterations of 4th generation aircraft (think AESA-equipped, Aim-120D, Aim-9X, JHMCS F-15s, but cannot match the numbers.

 

Technology procurement has slowed and R&D budgets have shrunk. How quickly are the future threats likely to develop? With the entire planet so connected and monitored, isn't eveyone...like...going to literally see them from 1000s of miles away...pun intended? :D

 

/Devil's advocate mode_0

 

You know that someone in the Pentagon has the answers to WHO or WHAT, which of course are a secret that no politician would ever share since they probably point the finger at some interesting "suspects". They aren't really suspects since it all just healthy batting of ideas, thinking of all the angles. Everyone country does that, I'm sure.

[Pilotasso]

It remembers me on the EF-2000 pro and contra sh.., here in Austria, where the two parties fought against over newspapers. There was also something too read like "the EF-2000 can't fly in the rain..engines are stopping or when its snowing as well, then the fall out of the sky's lol".

 

So finally I can't believe that as well......but who knows!

 

cheers

 

In the end the country got an excellent plane. :)

[LaRata]

Bad News For More F-22 ... :(

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f-22-plane22-2009jul22,0,750816.story

 

LaRata

[Pilotasso]

Well, looks like they invested billions, get too few planes and send all those thousands to unemployment. While Im not worried, looks like a shot on the foot me thinks.

 

And some years down the road when the raptor has well below the original 187 planes someone will scream that the US has barely any air superiority planes. Note: even less than Europe.

 

The politicians expect the world to keep as it is for the next 40 years, and I think its a terrible mistake. The remainder Raptors wont last even 20 more years. They may be all scraped after they fall a given number. After all you cant justify keeping maintenance and logistics for a hand full of planes.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Pilotasso

[topol-m]

Well, looks like they invested billions, get too few planes and send all those thousands to unemployment. While Im not worried, looks like a shot on the foot me thinks.

 

And some years down the road when the raptor has well below the original 187 planes someone will scream that the US has barely any air superiority planes. Nore: even less than Europe.

 

Agree on that. The F-35 is not capable to completely replace F-22 as an air superiority fighter.

[GGTharos]

The unemployment thing is a non-issue. The gap in air power is the issue.

[RedTiger]

I wonder if the F-22 will go down in history as the "Betamax" of modern fighters. Superior to what came before and its nearest competition, but having too many perceived disadvantages unrealted to combat performance to allow it to become the standard.

 

5th gen air superiority: back to the drawing board?

[tflash]

There is nothing really wrong with F-22; the debate is only about the numbers needed. The defense secretary thinks the jet is only required in a limited number of scenarios, so 187 would suffice.

 

The real problem is that you cannot replace the F-16/F-15 force one for one by newer jets, since both F-22 and F-35 cost substantially more and it is clear the supposed reduced maintenance costs will never materialise.

 

One could argue the choice for 5th generation aircraft has been made too early.

 

Inevitable, the USAF fighter force will shrink. I guess it is a wise decision to speed up F-35 acquisition, but some think a case could be made to buy an additional batch of 4.5 gen aircraft.

 

I would certainly agree that to maintain a large fleet of F-22 just in case and not being able to do bread-and-butter missions in the mean time is not quite economical.

[Pilotasso]

The plane nevertheless broke the death Spiral. They will never make another one as expensive as this one.

[RedTiger]

The plane nevertheless broke the death Spiral. They will never make another one as expensive as this one.

 

Yeah, and there may be nothing "wrong" with it, but someone thinks we don't need that many 187 may suffice, but someone doesn't think so. I guess it is inevitable. There was an uproar about the F-15 back in the day, and that was in the middle of the Cold War and the USAF was stuck with the Phantom, which SUCKED. Well, not really, but I've never been a fan of it.

[RedTiger]

Bumping this thread to ask a question: What is Pierre Sprey's and the remnants of the "Fighter Mafia" beef against the F-22? I was reading something today and wondering about this.

 

He, Boyd, and the Fighter Mafia had some understandable points back in the 70s and 80s, but I'm having trouble understanding what their problem is now unless they know something about the F-22 that others do not.

 

Do they think that a low-observability 5th gen fighter can be done cheaper? The only point they've made that is arguable is based on costs. They make various points around the cost, like that it eats up money that could be used to modernize other equipment (no idea if this is true or not), but other stuff sounds crazy.

 

What's their angle? In other words; why do they think the USAF would be better without the F-22?

 

EDIT: for clarity!

Edited August 7, 2009 by RedTiger

[GGTharos]

They're jealous because they didn't want to admit that bigger is better and it always has been ;)

[RedTiger]

They're jealous because they didn't want to admit that bigger is better and it always has been ;)

 

Are you joking? I'm serious, I can't tell if you are or not. I understand what you mean about the "bigger is better", but do you seriously think its just jealousy? Perhaps because a lot of their ideas turned out to be wrong?

[GGTharos]

There's a matter of pride in each idea.

 

Watching their F-16 get utterly, completely owned in BFM by a 65000lbs raptor was likely hard on them.

[CE_Mikemonster]

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=72842

 

Found this today - It's not a specific thread on the F-22 but does degrade into one (by the second page).

 

Namely whether the F-22 needs a HMS, and to what degree. It covers the major theories on why it doesn't have one - Technical difficulty or lack of funds?

 

Impartially, it seems to me that the answer is halfway - The F-22 is so effective already it's not seen as cost-justified to develop a working HMS.

Therefore it's been shelved, despite the fact that the F-22 is not at full A-A and A-G potential without one.

[GGTharos]

A lot of F-22 stuff has been technically shelved, but a lot of ... interesting things are being done with it that the public isn't being told.

[Groove]

The F-22 is a BVR fighter, not a WVR / dogfight plane.

 

I think the dogfight statistics of possible F-22 engagements showed that no HMS is necessary, especially as the D version (afaik) will get additionally AESA antennas on the sides of the nose.

[GGTharos]

Actually the F-22 is a dogfighter. It's just not its primary mode of use.

[tflash]

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=72842

 

Found this today - It's not a specific thread on the F-22 but does degrade into one (by the second page).

 

Namely whether the F-22 needs a HMS, and to what degree. It covers the major theories on why it doesn't have one - Technical difficulty or lack of funds?

 

Impartially, it seems to me that the answer is halfway - The F-22 is so effective already it's not seen as cost-justified to develop a working HMS.

Therefore it's been shelved, despite the fact that the F-22 is not at full A-A and A-G potential without one.

 

There are several published interviews with key F-22 pilots that clearly state that they want JHMCS. No need to "talk" that away. It's just bummer that F-22 for now is stuck with AIM-9M and no HMS.

 

Just like it is totally unbelievable that Rafale still has no laser designation pod and Typhoon is still struggling with even the most basic A2G load. I guess in the height of the cold war some people lost focus and got trapped into high-tech tunnel vision.

 

Of course the F-22 has tremendous capabilities, not in the least through its ALR-94. But some huge, damning mistakes have been made and USAF leadership has payed a price for it. It is no coincidence those responsible for decade-long F-22 policies have been shown the door.

 

As F-35, a true 21st century design, will take up speed you will inevitably see that a lot off goodies for the F-22 will be considered no longer cost-justified.

[Groove]

Actually the F-22 is a dogfighter. It's just not its primary mode of use.

 

And not secondary. You dont want ANY f-22s in Dogfight, not even against F-5. Did you forget our discussion on that topic ? ;)