F-22 program saved!!!

[Flyby]

THat's right. Why have nukes or guns at all, right? I'm sorry, but that line of reasoning is non-sensical.

 

 

 

You're sayin' what - that such a threat won't emerge in the future? That you should drop everything when yesterday's war is over?

That people will be nice to you from now on?

What are you sayin'? ;)

:doh: Well we certainly can't give up our nukes now, can we. It's always harder to put the Genie back in the bottle. I'm saying I don't see the threat out there where the Raptor is required. In the future? Who can know that? Maybe it will be China when it decides it wants to strong-arm Taiwan (while we're too deep in debt to them to really be able to afford to intervene). It has the money to build a very strong military. I just hope it doesn't call in the markers it holds on the U.S debt. Maybe the best way to prevent that scenario is to remain economically engaged with China, pay down the debt, but not so far as to let them think they can fluff off the rest and go for Taiwan?

My reference to the Apache was simply to state that it has been used to it's purpose as a tank buster and then some. I was asking what was the purpose of the Raptor. Sure, air dominance, but where? Over whom, or what? Su35s? Su47s?

Better to be prepared, for sure, but the U.S is in a recession, and the Raptor seems to be a luxury, if I may guess at Gates' read on the project. It's just politicians in effected states, plus the political contributions by the Defense industry that are trying to squeeze a bit more juice from the suckling pig (tax payer), imo.

Great plane, no argument. Great need? I'm not so sure. I don't think I'm alone on that perspective. I guess that's all I have to say on it. I'm certainly no military or geo-political specialist. Just my opinion. You win. OK? ;)

Flyby out

Edited June 19, 2009 by Flyby

[GGTharos]

The military wanted 760 aircraft so that they could have an aircraft serve in the air superiority role for 30 years with the ability to cover all the necessary theatres.

 

As for the Prius, the F-22 pwns it in everything save fuel economy and maintenance. :P

 

Hm ... I suppose parking space too.

 

My question is, which one of the two will prevail? F-22 or Toyota Prius? Which one of the two products, thus two approaches to the future, will yield better life to its citizens? The time will tell. At this time, I bet my money on Toyota Prius.

 

BTW, we are running out of money, therefore we can not have more F-22's. Do we need more F-22's? In my view, absolutely not. I am sure our military and Lockheed Martin/Boeing will find 1001 reason why we must have 800 raptors.

[Maximus_G]

Looks like people are counting on not destroying their one advanced air dominance fighter ... I doubt it has much to do with the PAK-FA directly so much as it is one of those 'current and future threats' that the F-22 is supposed to oppose.

Though it was just a playful speculation, still the quantity was cut to 183 exactly because of lack of any comparable threat, it was one of the main reasons. I think in 2010 we can easily see a production plan of a number closer to the old USAF 381 requirement... Still not talking about ancient Cold War plans here...

While T-50 would play the role of a gollywog that's used to frighten children :D PR pwns reality, in Congress as well.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Maximus_G

[Pilotasso]

The main reason why F-22 was cut was due to petty politics. Old aircraft have still to be replaced, now 187 is not nearly enough, nor it will ensure dominance for 30 years because they are so few, that attrittion rates will efectively retire the type early and much sooner than the intended 30 years of dominance. Politicians argue its too expensive but they were the ones making so by cutting numbers, plus wasting taxpayers money for cuting short on the benifits of the billions of dollars in investiment already donne.

 

Saying that F-22 is useless today is being a bit short sided on the part of the politicians mentioning that excuse. The world has been in an arms race in asia and the middle east. Just because terrorism is on fashion lately doesnt mean you wont be having a nasty surprise more down the road. And then the same politicians will scream why UN, or NATO, or US troops doesn interveen or taking casualties.

 

Will you go to the doctor only when you are sick? ;)

Edited June 19, 2009 by Pilotasso

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I know "why" military wanted 760 aircraft. I also know why Lockheed Martin/Boeing wants as many if not more. But that's not what my country needs right now. I would say, making a half a dozen a year for the next 30 years would be very prudent thing to do.

 

However, we desperately need Prius, right now. When was the last time you fill up your gas tank? Have you seen the fuel prices? How much is your child medical insurance and university scholarship? F-22 is not going to solve these problems. And there is no threat in the world that we need F-22 to defend us from.

 

Now, you may have different idea about what you want that F-22 to do ...

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

 

The military wanted 760 aircraft so that they could have an aircraft serve in the air superiority role for 30 years with the ability to cover all the necessary theatres.

 

As for the Prius, the F-22 pwns it in everything save fuel economy and maintenance. :P

 

Hm ... I suppose parking space too.

[GGTharos]

Can't argue with that :D

 

Though it was just a playful speculation, still the quantity was cut to 183 exactly because of lack of any comparable threat, it was one of the main reasons. I think in 2010 we can easily see a production plan of a number closer to the old USAF 381 requirement... Still not talking about ancient Cold War plans here...

While T-50 would play the role of a gollywog that's used to frighten children :D PR pwns reality, in Congress as well.

[Pilotasso]

I know "why" military wanted 760 aircraft. I also know why Lockheed Martin/Boeing wants as many if not more. But that's not what my country needs right now. I would say, making a half a dozen a year for the next 30 years would be very prudent thing to do.

 

However, we desperately need Prius, right now. When was the last time you fill up your gas tank? Have you seen the fuel prices? How much is your child medical insurance and university scholarship? F-22 is not going to solve these problems. And there is no threat in the world that we need F-22 to defend us from.

 

Now, you may have different idea about what you want that F-22 to do ...

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

 

 

Having capability to interveen and reach any given part of the world still affects the sphere of influence, the defense of a countries interests and consequently the quality of life of its citizens indirectly.

[RedTiger]

Having capability to interveen and reach any given part of the world still affects the sphere of influence, the defense of a countries interests and consequently the quality of life of its citizens indirectly.

 

Don't feed the troll. That discussion will probably go no where.

 

Besides, what if I wan't a hybrid Honda Civic? ;)

Edited June 21, 2009 by RedTiger

[tflash]

F-22 is not a gaz-guzzler like the Super Airbrake or the Harrier but a very fuel-efficient aircraft that supercruises at high altitude.

 

Compared to the multi-billion dollar B-2 slowly, it's a giveaway, and imho a lot more survivable too.

[Scrape]

There are two ways to win a fight. Beat the other guy to a pulp or convince him he won't ever possibly come close to winning. The F-22 serves as the latter. Its capabilities make it something to be wary of. Down right scary if its ever turned loose on you. US F-15s have a perfect dogfight record in live combat, and it is clear that the F-22 stands above the F-15. It also has the ability to deliver precision munitions as well as dominating the airspace. The people that request the numbers...its not their fault. Their responsibility is to find a replacement to the F-15, our oldest fighter. Do we need it? Yes and no. There is an valid argument from either perspective. Depends on your stance of national defense.

[Scrape]

In the future? Who can know that? Maybe it will be China when it decides it wants to strong-arm Taiwan (while we're too deep in debt to them to really be able to afford to intervene). It has the money to build a very strong military. I just hope it doesn't call in the markers it holds on the U.S debt.

 

 

The chance of that happening is extremly nil. If it does happen then China loses big time.

 

You own a house that you purchaced at 300K. That house is now worth 100K. You havn't lost 200K only the value of the house has dropped. The only way you would loose 200K is if you sold the house for 100K. As long as you don't sell it the loss never incurs. That's why China won't cash in just yet. By putting US money into other countries we've actually secured our currency value. The US dollar will never dissapear from the world market. What's been understood as a fear is in fact a market saftey net.

[Flyby]

An interesting possible adversary for the Raptor, perhaps?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig35/

Maybe not, but quantity has a quality of it's own. Enough of these might make it interesting.

Flyby out

[Flyby]

Here's an interesting article on the Raptor;

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002672.html

[GGTharos]

Here's an interesting article on the Raptor;

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002672.html

 

 

Yeah, the bottom line is especially interesting. The pilots want more F-22's ;)

 

 

An interesting possible adversary for the Raptor, perhaps?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig35/

Maybe not, but quantity has a quality of it's own. Enough of these might make it interesting.

Flyby out

 

Interesting in what way? Maybe more like an un-stealthy opponent to JSF - the raptor will still eat the poor migs for breakfast.

[RedTiger]

The chance of that happening is extremly nil. If it does happen then China loses big time.

 

You own a house that you purchaced at 300K. That house is now worth 100K. You havn't lost 200K only the value of the house has dropped. The only way you would loose 200K is if you sold the house for 100K. As long as you don't sell it the loss never incurs. That's why China won't cash in just yet. By putting US money into other countries we've actually secured our currency value. The US dollar will never dissapear from the world market. What's been understood as a fear is in fact a market saftey net.

 

Economics FTW!

 

Seriously guys, you have no idea how much I have to bite my tongue on this board when it comes to this topic. :smilewink:

[nscode]

Interesting in what way? Maybe more like an un-stealthy opponent to JSF - the raptor will still eat the poor migs for breakfast.

 

not if it gets killed before it wakes up :)

[topol-m]

 

Interesting in what way? Maybe more like an un-stealthy opponent to JSF - the raptor will still eat the poor migs for breakfast.

 

We shall see how will it perform against equally stealthed, advanced avionics opponent like the PAK-FA (assuming it will be equally stealthed :) ). The game of cat and mouse never ends. And if the Raptor is a cat at the moment lets see how long it will keep that position before it turns to a mouse ;)

[GGTharos]

It will turn into a mouse when its successor, the F-28 arrives ;)

[topol-m]

It will turn into a mouse when its successor, the F-28 arrives ;)

 

Hehehe :thumbup: OK let`s say it differently - the dominance it has will last till several other stealth fighters emerge and its "fire first" ability goes away...

[GGTharos]

That depends on how stealthy its opponents are - what might happen in that case is a return to basically today's tactics where 'fire first' means speed, altitude, and reasonably sized rocket motor together with better ECM and ECCM. (In short, nothing changes - but I suppose the more things change, the more they stay the same :D )

 

I am just waiting for a movie where a Raptor pilot says 'PAK_FA's! No one's been this close before!' :D

[topol-m]

Well so far F-22s main advantage is indeed its stealth. In these - "speed, altitude, and reasonably sized rocket motor together with better ECM and ECCM" the Raptor is not very far from its potential adversaries or its even equal. It is the stealth they lack - but not for too long :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

I don't think that's entirely true. You could say for example, F-18E and MiG-29C both have radar, ECM and ECCM, but they're definitely not equal.

 

Better sensors (the ability to detect first, nevermind shoot first) give you better positioning (tactics). Better ECM delays the other guy's shot, better ECCM lets you take yours sooner.

 

Better/more robust ECCM also allows your sensor fusion/network to work better, which again gives you a tactical advantage. My understanding is that PAK-FA is more of a competitor to JSF than to F-22, but of course that remains to be seen. If so, I suspect it'll be like a MiG-29 (or F-16 if you prefer) trying to take on an F-15C. The F-15C will always beat it up BVR.

 

The thing here is, there's really one country that can reliably research and practice anti-stealth tactics. So nothing is equal right now.

[topol-m]

In terms of detection i`m not sure F-22 will be better. PAK-FA (assuming it`s as equally stealthy) will most definitely have a radar capable of detecting air targets at 350-450km (judging by the officially unconfirmed info of its capabilities released in media and by similar radars in production/testing). Don`t know about the EOS but probably it will be similar to the one su-35 uses. I don`t have info of F-22s ECM/ECCM being better or worse. I don`t think anyone of us could test and compare the most advanced ECM/ECCM currently used by both countries and a lot of their stats are classified. So even if the F-22 would have advantage in terms of detection (though it could be quite the contrary) it probably won`t be that significant especially if both parties use similar range weapons. Assuming the PAK-FA uses longer range weapons the eventual detection advantage F-22 has could become even more insignificant. Things are going more to parity than to dominance, unlike the situation at the moment. BTW it will be interesting to find out how much the capabilities the F-22 possesses will be lessened if we speak of global war and anti-satellite tactics are used? The US army is the most satellite dependant army and probably will suffer the most if it looses one big part of them.

[EtherealN]

First of all, apologies. I realize that this is relatively ancient stuff I'm responding to when it comes to page count, but gas prices specifically is something that I frequently find that US resident people often need a proper reality check on.

 

However' date=' we desperately need Prius, right now. When was the last time you fill up your gas tank? Have you seen the fuel prices?[/quote']

 

I took US gasoline average from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

I allowed google to convert gallons to litres and dollars to SEK (swedish kronor).

 

You pay 5,67 SEK per litre on average.

We pay 13+ SEK per litre (depends on octane, we have no government body afaik that does statistics on averages - the lowest I've seen at the station lately is around 13,1). We are not crushed by gas prices. (Nobody purchasing our export wood, iron, trucks and ball-bearings is a bigger issue though. :P )

 

In fact, we consider gas to be awesomely cheap when it hits anywhere within 10 SEK per litre. And we have zero oil so it's all imported.

 

[Ninjaedit: BTW, on that link up there, compare current US gas average to a year ago.]

 

And there is no threat in the world that we need F-22 to defend us from.

 

The F-22 system has a projected 30+ year service life, from what I recall. Are you certain that in these 30 years there will be no threat where the F-22 would be expedient?

[GGTharos]

Right now the radar for the PAK-FA is being said to detect a 3m^2 at 160km, a 0.01m^2 target at 90km.

The F-22's radar is estimated at 200-240km for 1m^2 target.

 

If those numbers are to be believed (And I'm not sure they should be), the F-22 has a significant detection range advantage, over an equally stealthy PAK-FA.

 

Assumptions are to the PAK-FA using longer ranged weapons are largely meaningless given the detection ranges vs. stealthy targets - also the USAF/USN are working on JDRADM anyway, so who knows how that will turn out.

 

Considering the use of satellites, it'll bite a lot of forces, but do keep in mind that every officer, tank driver, and troop is taught to use map and compass.

 

Further, aircraft use EINS which means the reliance on GPS is minimal. JDAMs also use EINS - so long as you correct it properly using the radar before lauching, you're ok (IIRC in tests a JDAM running on INS alone didn't suffer a whole lot in terms of accuracy).

 

Overall accuracy will become degraded without the GPS, but it won't be a huge problem AFAIK.

 

The F_22 doesn't rely on GPS for its capabilities - rather it is a sensor fusion dependent, networked fighter. If you could jam up all the comms, that is a problem.

 

This is where ECM/ECCM comes in and it's mainly a product of espionage so yes, you're right, it would be hard to compare in theory.

 

(For example it is suspected that the APG-65 was completely compromized)