Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/16/2005 4:52:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 6:05:37 AM EDT by 2A373]
This is something that I'm proud to say that I had a part of making it happen.


F-22A Raptor goes operational


12/15/2005 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFPN) -- The F-22A Raptor -- Air Force’s most advanced weapon system -- is ready for combat, Air Force officials announced here today.

In reaching initial operational capability, the Raptor is certified ready for operational use.

The first combat-ready Raptors are flying with the 27th Fighter Squadron of the 1st Fighter Wing here. The squadron’s deployment capability is a 12-ship package designed to execute air-to-air and air-to-ground missions.

“If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us,” said Gen. Ronald E. Keys, commander of Air Combat Command.

Declaring the transformational stealth fighter “IOC” means the Raptor’s proven capabilities are available for combat and supported by a properly trained and equipped force.

It also means the aircraft is qualified to fly homeland defense missions.

“F-22A IOC means our warfighters now have an unprecedented lethal mix of air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities at their disposal,” General Keys said. “The Raptor’s cutting edge technology brings us continued joint air dominance despite advancing enemy threats.”

Reaching the IOC milestone culminates a collaborative 25-year effort between various Air Force organizations and industry partners. The road to the IOC included was a step-by-step process. The F-22A System Program Office first turned Air Force requirements into a successful acquisition program. Then there was developmental flight test and evaluation, simulation and ground testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., and Eglin AFB, Fla. There was engine testing at Arnold AFB, Tenn., and missile testing at Holloman AFB, N.M., and over the Pacific Test Range. Also, there was tactics development at Nellis AFB, Nev., pilot and maintenance training at Tyndall AFB, Fla., and deployability here.

“The F-22A fulfills a long quest to bring fifth-generation capabilities of stealth, supercruise and precision to the warfighter today and 30 years from today,” General Keys said. “Now that we have met our first promised milestone of a fully capable, multi-mission platform ready for combat, we are already focused on furthering our integrated tactics development, refining our deployabilty, growing and training our force.”

The general said, “To add to what we learned on our successful first operational deployment to the Utah Test and Training Range to drop JDAMs (joint direct attack munition), fly against double-digit SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) at Nellis and work (close air support) with F-16 FAC-As, we will conduct our first routine peacetime exercise deployment by taking 12 Raptors to Alaska in June for Northern Edge.”

Designed to ensure America’s air dominance for years to come, the F-22A will ensure U.S. joint forces’ freedom from attack and freedom to attack, even as adversaries continue to advance their weapons and technologies, officials said.

“As I told (Air Force Chief of Staff) Gen. (T. Michael) Moseley, he and I have spent our lifetime executing, instructing and providing air dominance for the joint force. Lamentably, we have never been privileged to hold a weapon like this in our hands.

“After reviewing our test results -- seeing our operational deployment performance and talking to the pilots that will go to war with it -- I am confident the F-22A joins the combat force at a far more mature and capable level than any of our previous great aircraft, and will take its rightful place in a long line of U.S. Air Force legends of the air,” General Keys said.

www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013572







Link Posted: 12/16/2005 4:56:33 AM EDT

“If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us,” said Gen. Ronald E. Keys, commander of Air Combat Command.

Somebody may want to give this guy an update.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:01:38 AM EDT

Lamentably


Can someone clue me in to the definition of this word
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:12:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sandman67:

Lamentably


Can someone clue me in to the definition of this word



lamentable
adj

1. Regrettable, shameful or deplorable.
2. Inadequate; useless.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:20:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

“If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us,” said Gen. Ronald E. Keys, commander of Air Combat Command.

Somebody may want to give this guy an update.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:21:00 AM EDT
What a shame.



No pics?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:22:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

“If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us,” said Gen. Ronald E. Keys, commander of Air Combat Command.

Somebody may want to give this guy an update.




That is what I was thinking.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 5:47:59 AM EDT




The Iranians and Chinese are hiding in their basements right now

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 6:07:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
What a shame.



No pics?



Not any more.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:11:37 AM EDT
The bad guys are all recalibrating their radars for stealth targets. That means we might be able to sneak in B-52's through the screen because their systems and operators will refuse to believe that a radar contact that large is actually out there and drop the contact.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:19:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
The bad guys are all recalibrating their radars for stealth targets. That means we might be able to sneak in B-52's through the screen because their systems and operators will refuse to believe that a radar contact that large is actually out there and drop the contact.





dude, you might wanna up your post count a little bit
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:20:26 AM EDT
Too bad we aren't buying enough of them to be effective. Stupid thing is that if we would have just upped the oreder for 22's to replace the F-15s and F-16s with then the unit cost would have fallen to the point where the Raptor would have been price competitive with the clean sheet 35'....not to mention more capable.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:46:02 AM EDT
Armed_Scientist:

What would we then do with our huge fleet of F-15s and F-16s. I believe that we have something close to 4,000 combined. Are we going to sell them to India? Pakistan? Poland?
Defense budgets are tight and China is still far enough behind technalogically that we don't want that type of info leaking out. Although, the Saudis and the Israelies already have them; it may be a moot point. Either way, I highly doubt that we will ever have to use the F-22s air-to-air capability.

Just food for thought.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:56:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By enemy:
Armed_Scientist:

What would we then do with our huge fleet of F-15s and F-16s. I believe that we have something close to 4,000 combined. Are we going to sell them to India? Pakistan? Poland?
Defense budgets are tight and China is still far enough behind technalogically that we don't want that type of info leaking out. Although, the Saudis and the Israelies already have them; it may be a moot point. Either way, I highly doubt that we will ever have to use the F-22s air-to-air capability.

Just food for thought.



Um, retire them, give them to the guard and reserve so we actually have an expanding number of combat ready aircraft for the first time in over 20 years. The F-15c used to be the king of the skies, it now has an equal in top of the line Russian fighters, and can't really touch an EF-2000. We have to work to maintain our technological advantage at all times. We do have to replace the F-16 and F-15, my point was just that by cutting the F-22 procurment to such a low number, it drives the unit cost up, the F-35 then spends a significant ammount of money to develop a new airframe to replace the 16. It would have been cheaper to forgo the 35 and simply buy more 22s'. If we ordered, idk, 2000 22's the unit cost would be at least as low as the 35' if not cheaper. The Air Force got so sold on the 'high-low' mix that they forgot about the economies of scale.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:59:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:

Originally Posted By enemy:
Armed_Scientist:

What would we then do with our huge fleet of F-15s and F-16s. I believe that we have something close to 4,000 combined. Are we going to sell them to India? Pakistan? Poland?
Defense budgets are tight and China is still far enough behind technalogically that we don't want that type of info leaking out. Although, the Saudis and the Israelies already have them; it may be a moot point. Either way, I highly doubt that we will ever have to use the F-22s air-to-air capability.

Just food for thought.



Um, retire them, give them to the guard and reserve so we actually have an expanding number of combat ready aircraft for the first time in over 20 years. The F-15c used to be the king of the skies, it now has an equal in top of the line Russian fighters, and can't really touch an EF-2000. We have to work to maintain our technological advantage at all times. We do have to replace the F-16 and F-15, my point was just that by cutting the F-22 procurment to such a low number, it drives the unit cost up, the F-35 then spends a significant ammount of money to develop a new airframe to replace the 16. It would have been cheaper to forgo the 35 and simply buy more 22s'. If we ordered, idk, 2000 22's the unit cost would be at least as low as the 35' if not cheaper. The Air Force got so sold on the 'high-low' mix that they forgot about the economies of scale.


Except that only the USAF wants to buy the F-22. The Brits have declined. The Navy doesn't want a Naval variant. The USMC doesn't want it because it's not STOLV. etc.etc.etc.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 8:07:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 8:10:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 8:11:30 AM EDT by Armed_Scientist]

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
Originally Posted By enemy:


Except that only the USAF wants to buy the F-22. The Brits have declined. The Navy doesn't want a Naval variant. The USMC doesn't want it because it's not STOLV. etc.etc.etc.



Australia just declined as well... I cannot see anyone else being allowed to buy them despite what some guys here would like to dream..


LM are being told to slow deliveries to keep the line open I heard, someone probably expects further USAF orders down the oline.

ANdy



Yeah, the USAF asked LM to slow production of the fighter down to one aircraft delivered per month so that: A.) The line doesn't sit idle before the F-35 hits production and B.) They are hoping to nickle and dime more F-22s in additional budgets, like they did with the F-15 for years.

Edited to add: The Japanese were offered the F-22 as well
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 8:15:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 8:19:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
Originally Posted By vito113:
Originally Posted By dport:
Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:


Edited to add: The Japanese were offered the F-22 as well



Being shown it is not the same as being offered it. Japan has never had access to Stealth before, even Austrailia was only allowed inside the this year.

If Japan are offered the F-22 it will be a very reduced capability version you can be sure.

ANdy



+1. Japan may be licensed to build their own but it won't be the full blown USAF version.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 8:23:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
Um, retire them, give them to the guard and reserve so we actually have an expanding number of combat ready aircraft for the first time in over 20 years. The F-15c used to be the king of the skies, it now has an equal in top of the line Russian fighters, and can't really touch an EF-2000. We have to work to maintain our technological advantage at all times. We do have to replace the F-16 and F-15, my point was just that by cutting the F-22 procurment to such a low number, it drives the unit cost up, the F-35 then spends a significant ammount of money to develop a new airframe to replace the 16. It would have been cheaper to forgo the 35 and simply buy more 22s'. If we ordered, idk, 2000 22's the unit cost would be at least as low as the 35' if not cheaper. The Air Force got so sold on the 'high-low' mix that they forgot about the economies of scale.


+1. We need more Raptors than we are scheduled to buy. I'm guessing at the very least, twice as many.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 8:56:56 AM EDT
45 F-15A/B Air National Guard Air Defense Force
45 F-15A/B Air National Guard
126 F-15C/D Air Combat Command
90 F-15C/D Pacific Air Forces
36 F-15C/D US Air Forces Europe

342 F-15 air to air models

66 F-15E Air Combat Command
18 F-15E Pacific Air Forces
48 F-15E US Air Forces Europe

132 F-15e Strike Eagles

So we'll need at least 342 Raptors for one to one replacement of the air to air F-15s in the inventory, although in realtiy we would need more then that because the F-22 is also slated to replace the F-117a. It is unclear to me as to what extent the F/A-22 has a ground attack capability so I don't know if it is meant to replace the F-15E or if that is more suited to the proposed FB-22. I would say that the optimal buy of F-22s would be at least 350 air frames.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:07:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
45 F-15A/B Air National Guard Air Defense Force
45 F-15A/B Air National Guard
126 F-15C/D Air Combat Command
90 F-15C/D Pacific Air Forces
36 F-15C/D US Air Forces Europe

342 F-15 air to air models

66 F-15E Air Combat Command
18 F-15E Pacific Air Forces
48 F-15E US Air Forces Europe

132 F-15e Strike Eagles

So we'll need at least 342 Raptors for one to one replacement of the air to air F-15s in the inventory, although in realtiy we would need more then that because the F-22 is also slated to replace the F-117a. It is unclear to me as to what extent the F/A-22 has a ground attack capability so I don't know if it is meant to replace the F-15E or if that is more suited to the proposed FB-22. I would say that the optimal buy of F-22s would be at least 350 air frames.



Your numbers are a bit, only a bit, misleading. Likely the C/D Eagles will replace the A/B Eagles in the ANG inventory. I don't think the F-22A(new designation BTW, what is old is new again) is supposed to replace the Echo variant. As for the -117s I think we only have about 45 of them now.

We still need more F-22s, and I would guess like other programs out there there will be more built, eventually.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 9:08:20 AM EDT
They sure are a wonderful site in the skies around here.

They make a really unique sound, compare to the F-15's.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:18:22 PM EDT
My question is if the AF is going for a high-low aircraft mix, then why does the advanced capability F-22A need to be replaced on a 1 to 1 basis. While I would love to have the Govt purchase 300 or so, it dosen't make sense if the operational costs aren't much lower than the same reduction in F-15 aircraft. Especially if we are going to keep those aircraft.

What's the unit cost for the F-35 (or whatever) at the current procurement demand?
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:33:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mfingar:
They sure are a wonderful site in the skies around here.

They make a really unique sound, compare to the F-15's.



Wish I could see them in the air. You live by Langley air force base? I once stayed there for a short while when I was in the BSA. Saw my first F-117 on the ground there. (well from the control tower using binocs )
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:40:57 PM EDT
I heard Chuck Norris will be flying the Raptor.

Link Posted: 12/16/2005 12:49:28 PM EDT
Just in time, I hope China hasn't gotten their copy flying yet..
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 1:43:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
45 F-15A/B Air National Guard Air Defense Force
45 F-15A/B Air National Guard
126 F-15C/D Air Combat Command
90 F-15C/D Pacific Air Forces
36 F-15C/D US Air Forces Europe

342 F-15 air to air models

66 F-15E Air Combat Command
18 F-15E Pacific Air Forces
48 F-15E US Air Forces Europe

132 F-15e Strike Eagles

So we'll need at least 342 Raptors for one to one replacement of the air to air F-15s in the inventory, although in realtiy we would need more then that because the F-22 is also slated to replace the F-117a. It is unclear to me as to what extent the F/A-22 has a ground attack capability so I don't know if it is meant to replace the F-15E or if that is more suited to the proposed FB-22. I would say that the optimal buy of F-22s would be at least 350 air frames.




I don't know where you got your numbers from, but here is what is posted on the Air Force website.

F-15A/B/C/D Inventory: Active force, 396; Reserve, 0; ANG,126.
F-15E Inventory: Active force, 217; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0

www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=101
www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=102
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:06:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sandman67:

Lamentably


Can someone clue me in to the definition of this word



It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Its use embiggens us all.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:49:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:
This is something that I'm proud to say that I had a part of making it happen.


F-22A Raptor goes operational





Thanks for linking me to your thread.

That is still my favorite program in which I was part of.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:57:32 PM EDT
Nice
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 4:29:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:

Originally Posted By Armed_Scientist:
45 F-15A/B Air National Guard Air Defense Force
45 F-15A/B Air National Guard
126 F-15C/D Air Combat Command
90 F-15C/D Pacific Air Forces
36 F-15C/D US Air Forces Europe

342 F-15 air to air models

66 F-15E Air Combat Command
18 F-15E Pacific Air Forces
48 F-15E US Air Forces Europe

132 F-15e Strike Eagles

So we'll need at least 342 Raptors for one to one replacement of the air to air F-15s in the inventory, although in realtiy we would need more then that because the F-22 is also slated to replace the F-117a. It is unclear to me as to what extent the F/A-22 has a ground attack capability so I don't know if it is meant to replace the F-15E or if that is more suited to the proposed FB-22. I would say that the optimal buy of F-22s would be at least 350 air frames.




I don't know where you got your numbers from, but here is what is posted on the Air Force website.

F-15A/B/C/D Inventory: Active force, 396; Reserve, 0; ANG,126.
F-15E Inventory: Active force, 217; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0

www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=101
www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=102




I got my numbers from FAS.org, could be old data I suppose. My point remains the same though.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 4:30:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:06:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wolfpack:
RIP #004




It was 4014 that crashed at Nellis. Last I knew 4004 was going to Hill AFB to be used for battle damage (ABDR) repair training.


Here's 4014



Here's 4004 chilling in the climatic lab at Eglin AFB.



Top Top