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
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 9/28/2005 6:56:32 PM EDT
Lockheed Martin Delivers 50th F/A-22 Raptor to the U.S. Air Force

MARIETTA, Ga., Sept. 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ --

Lockheed Martin delivered the 50th F/A-22 Raptor air dominance fighter to the U.S. Air Force today, marking another milestone in this revolutionary stealth aircraft program. The Raptor can dominate airspace anywhere around the globe, around the clock, and survive in contested airspace better than any other aircraft in the world.

"Fifty Raptors -- more than two full squadrons -- are in the hands of U.S. Air Force men and women charged with ensuring total air dominance for our nation so that all soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen can do their jobs," said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics executive vice president and F/A-22 general manager.

"Air dominance has been a vital element of every conflict since World War I. The Raptor is a leap forward in capability necessary to maintain our ability to own the high ground for the next four
decades. We're proud to be a part of this achievement and look forward to continuing to provide the men and women defending our country an overwhelmingly effective weapon system."

This 50th F/A-22 will join Raptors flying today as part of the 1st Fighter Wing's 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley AFB, Va.

Sixty-three of the 83 fighters now on contract have completed final assembly.

All remaining aircraft scheduled for delivery to the Air Force in 2005 are on the flightline in Marietta undergoing flight tests and final preparation for delivery.

The United States fought hard to gain and maintain air superiority, and this unmatched success is evidence that not a single soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine on the ground has been lost to enemy airpower since the Korean War.

The United States takes this achievement seriously, and the F/A-22 Raptor takes air superiority to a new level in the 21st Century by ensuring air dominance at a time when there are very real threats in the world.

The F/A-22 dominates any adversary through unmatched performance achieved through stealth, supercruise speed, agility and a complete view of the battlespace achieved with the advanced sensor suite embedded in the aircraft.

The F/A-22 will enable combat commanders to change the way wars are fought over the next 40 years.

The F/A-22 Raptor entered full-rate production in April 2005 after Department of Defense approval, transitioning the Air Force's premier fighter program to a new level of confidence and maturity.

Another major program milestone, Follow-On Test and Evaluation, is under way. This important
testing, which explores additional combat capabilities of the aircraft, is the next step toward Initial Operational Capability slated for later this year.

In addition to Langley AFB, the F/A-22 Raptor is currently flying at three other bases across the United States:
* Testing is conducted at Edwards AFB, Calif.
* Tactics development is ongoing at Nellis AFB, Nev.
* A full squadron of Raptors is based at Tyndall AFB, Fla., for pilot and maintainer training.

The F/A-22 Raptor, the world's most advanced 5th generation fighter, is built by Lockheed Martin in partnership with Boeing and Pratt & Whitney. Parts and subsystems are provided by approximately 1,000 suppliers in 42 states.

F/A-22 production takes place at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics facilities in Palmdale, Calif.; Meridian, Miss.; Marietta, Ga.; and Fort Worth, Texas, as well as at Boeing's plant in Seattle, Wash.

Final assembly and initial flight testing of the Raptor occurs at the Marietta plant facilities.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 6:58:20 PM EDT
KA3B, you've been around long enough that you should know better - you can't post a thread like this without at least one pic of the plane.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 7:18:45 PM EDT
I saw one take off from DM AFB here in Tucson with 4 f-16s at its side.... Dont know what the hell it was doing here though...¿?
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 7:21:24 PM EDT
Wow the original number of several hundred has been whittled down to 83.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 7:39:12 PM EDT
IBT-EuroTrashFighter from Vito113!
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 7:44:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
KA3B, you've been around long enough that you should know better - you can't post a thread like this without at least one pic of the plane.



PREACH IT BROTHER!!!!
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 7:48:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 7:49:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ARDOC:
Wow the original number of several hundred has been whittled down to 83.



Neg, 83 airframes are all that are currently payed for through fiscal year 05, current plans call for a procurment of between 184-and 320 aircraft, depending on what gets decided in confrence between the house and senate.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 7:57:04 PM EDT
Yes but the original procurment was for over several hundred. Now its only a few every year.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 8:01:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ARDOC:
Yes but the original procurment was for over several hundred. Now its only a few every year.



Yeah, and we were supposed to have 150 B-2s, 300 B-1s, the Navy was supposed to have several hundred A-12s.....they are always short changing the military, at least this time we have UCAVs in the pipe that are going to be one hell of a force multiplier.

Also, as far as development programs go, the F/A-22 is an example of what not to do. 20 years from inception to production? Are you kidding. The SR-71 went from the drawing board to the air in less then 8 years, and it was much more revolutionary for it's time then the 22' is now. Fixed cost, fixed time table contracts are the way to go in the future, enough of this cost plus waste.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 1:04:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kill-9:
KA3B, you've been around long enough that you should know better - you can't post a thread like this without at least one pic of the plane.



Here's some that I posted in this thread.
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=392285&page=1













Link Posted: 9/29/2005 1:16:10 AM EDT
Cool, now we just need a lot more.

:)
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 1:30:57 AM EDT
Sigh...



Link Posted: 9/29/2005 1:55:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 1:57:42 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 1:56:40 AM EDT
This plane is going to really kick ass in any upcoming conflict.

Max
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 1:59:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Already the F/A-22 is 'last years model'… the Killer Drones will be along shortly, supposedly, the F/A-22 will be vectored to it's targets by an AWACS so they can stay passive, (which can be shot down), so will the drones so what's the big advantage?



The F-22 is a bit of a 'last hoorah' for the US, sort of like the Eurofighter is for you guys.

The fighter-jock lobby is strong, but these are coming along nicely:

Link Posted: 9/29/2005 2:09:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 2:54:32 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 2:17:22 AM EDT
Where are the F22s being stationed? I wanted to work on those, but separated before they were even close to being delivered.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 2:24:07 AM EDT
Cool. I never really looked closely at an F/A 22. Are all the weopns contained within it's belly? From these pictures i can see no missles/bombs under the wings like older aircraft have. Keep in mind that i know jack about aircrafts.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 2:30:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WooDy_the_infidel:
Where are the F22s being stationed? I wanted to work on those, but separated before they were even close to being delivered.



Edwards
Nellis
Tyndall (my follow-on after I leave Kunsan)
Langley
And Elmendorf has been selected to be the next base after Langely receives all of theirs.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 2:35:50 AM EDT
Those are very nice pics just added 1 to use as my background
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 3:50:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Yawn………

If it has an engine it has a heat signature, if it has a heat signature you can get a missile lock… both the Euro and Russian Heat seekers outrange US Sidewinders… Ditto Radar homing missiles, you're outranged by a up to 100%.

In 1996 I was at Farnborough as a guest of BAe when a Rapier SAM battery tracked a B2 inbound without problem using it's IR tracker. Wonder why ALL Russian and Euro fighters are fitted with very long range passive IR search and tracking equipment? The Russians know all about 'Stealth' they came up with the math after all, so does Britain, we passed you all the details in 1962 in the 'Dawson' report, read about it in Ben Rich's autobiography.

If the F/A-22 is so 'invisible' why does it have all those chaff and flare launchers? After all, supposedly the other fighter will never see it goes the hype.

Contrary to popular myth Stealth can be tracked by radar, older radars do it… I know of two incidents when Royal Navy T42 Destroyers tracked B2's on their 'old' radars, and on one occasion vectored two RAF fighters to an intercept much to the surprise of the USAF pilots.

Too many trade off's with high stealth aircraft… the F-35 is a better compromise, high stealth on the frontal aspect only making for a simpler design and build.

Already the F/A-22 is 'last years model'… the Killer Drones will be along shortly, supposedly the F/A-22 will be vectored to it's targets by an AWACS so they can stay passive, (which can be shot down), so will the drones so what's the big advantage?


The F'A-22 is a hugely expensive way to get a handful of fighters and bleed the USAF dry in the process…

ANdy



Shhhhhhh!!! You know how truth hurts some folk's feelings.

Yes...you are quite right. Low Observable (stealth) technology does not make a vehicle invisible. It merely decreases the engagement window.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 5:37:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 5:42:04 AM EDT

The United States fought hard to gain and maintain air superiority, and this unmatched success is evidence that not a single soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine on the ground has been lost to enemy airpower since the Korean War.


Link Posted: 9/29/2005 5:44:19 AM EDT
The World's Greatest Fighter.

10 years too late.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 5:47:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 5:53:13 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 5:49:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 5:51:18 AM EDT by 2A373]

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By PBIR:

The United States fought hard to gain and maintain air superiority, and this unmatched success is evidence that not a single soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine on the ground has been lost to enemy airpower since the Korean War.





Wrong…

Quite a number of US Navy and USAF aircraft have been shot down by Soviet aircraft during the Cold War and a lot were shot down by Vietnamese Aircraft over Vietnam…

ANdy



Better read that again.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 5:51:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Yawn………

If it has an engine it has a heat signature, if it has a heat signature you can get a missile lock… both the Euro and Russian Heat seekers outrange US Sidewinders… Ditto Radar homing missiles, you're outranged by a up to 100%.

In 1996 I was at Farnborough as a guest of BAe when a Rapier SAM battery tracked a B2 inbound without problem using it's IR tracker. Wonder why ALL Russian and Euro fighters are fitted with very long range passive IR search and tracking equipment? The Russians know all about 'Stealth' they came up with the math after all, so does Britain, we passed you all the details in 1962 in the 'Dawson' report, read about it in Ben Rich's autobiography.

If the F/A-22 is so 'invisible' why does it have all those chaff and flare launchers? After all, supposedly the other fighter will never see it goes the hype.

Contrary to popular myth Stealth can be tracked by radar, older radars do it… I know of two incidents when Royal Navy T42 Destroyers tracked B2's on their 'old' radars, and on one occasion vectored two RAF fighters to an intercept much to the surprise of the USAF pilots.

Too many trade off's with high stealth aircraft… the F-35 is a better compromise, high stealth on the frontal aspect only making for a simpler design and build.

Already the F/A-22 is 'last years model'… the Killer Drones will be along shortly, supposedly the F/A-22 will be vectored to it's targets by an AWACS so they can stay passive, (which can be shot down), so will the drones so what's the big advantage?


The F'A-22 is a hugely expensive way to get a handful of fighters and bleed the USAF dry in the process…

ANdy



Well of course you get an IR lock if youre at close range, can see the target and know exactly where to point the IR tracker.

At what range did the T42s detect the B2? How does that compare to their detection range of a B52 or B1?
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 5:57:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By PBIR:

The United States fought hard to gain and maintain air superiority, and this unmatched success is evidence that not a single soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine on the ground has been lost to enemy airpower since the Korean War.





Wrong…

Quite a number of US Navy and USAF aircraft have been shot down by Soviet aircraft during the Cold War and a lot were shot down by Vietnamese Aircraft over Vietnam…

ANdy



Better read that again.



+1
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 5:58:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 5:58:27 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:17:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PBIR:

The United States fought hard to gain and maintain air superiority, and this unmatched success is evidence that not a single soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine on the ground has been lost to enemy airpower since the Korean War.





Weren't there sailors killed when the USS Stark was hit by an Exocet launched from an Iraqi Mirage?
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:18:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Wrong… Quite a number of US Navy and USAF aircraft have been shot down by Soviet aircraft during the Cold War and a large number were shot down by Vietnamese Aircraft over Vietnam… ANdy

He typed that enemy air power has not destroyed OUR troops on the ground. That proves we have air superiority because our air power destroys THEIR troops on the ground.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:24:18 AM EDT
I thought everyone already knew that stealth doesn't make planes invisible. That reminds me of shitty democrat debate tactics...argue against an argument that the opposition is not making.

Also, the AWACS can be seen and shot down IF enemy fighters can get past the screen of F-22s....

Also, it is a lot easier to track an aircraft at an airshow where it flies low to the ground. When the plane is coming at 40,000 feet, intentionally avoided mudspikes, and attacking unkown targets from unknown directions things get a bit tougher. Yes the air is colder higher, but 8 miles stretches the range of many heat-seaking SAMs.

Also the US stealth aircraft don't NEED weapons that equal the range of the enemy aircraft if the enemy aircraft can not detect them at the same ranges.

The US uses stealth technology in conjunction with other strategies. This is ignored quite often by the stealth aircraft bashers. You'd think from the basher's arguments that our goal is to fly 1 aircraft to engage one target and that is that. In reality stealth is used by the US as a force multiplier, not to win a war single handedly. The US military is built around jointness, not around the idea of a single wonder-vehicle. (Many wonder vehicles in fact.)

Something tells me that Vito would endorse the Sopwith Camel over the F/A-22, the Enfield No.1 Mk4 (or whatever) over the M-16, and the Centurion over the M1A2SEP...I'm wasting my time.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:28:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:31:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 6:31:43 AM EDT by PBIR]

Originally Posted By mcantu:

Originally Posted By PBIR:

The United States fought hard to gain and maintain air superiority, and this unmatched success is evidence that not a single soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine on the ground has been lost to enemy airpower since the Korean War.





Weren't there sailors killed when the USS Stark was hit by an Exocet launched from an Iraqi Mirage?



Yes that is true. However, Iraq was not technically our enemy in 1987.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:36:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mcantu:
Well of course you get an IR lock if youre at close range, can see the target and know exactly where to point the IR tracker.

At what range did the T42s detect the B2? How does that compare to their detection range of a B52 or B1?



You dont have to point the IR tracker, it does the work itself. As for range, I've heard 90 miles from another member here. I dont know if thats with optical enhancements to extend the range or not.
If its not using optical zoom, then stealth is pretty much worthless as most of the aircraft we would be negaging today (that pose a threat to begin with) are or can easily be equipped with IR tracking equipment.

I'm not saying the Raptor is a failure, but we're putting too much trust in stealth. Additionally, the 2nd hand gear we've faced in the past 10 years is in no way a comparison to what we would face if we engaged a superpower in combat (read: China)
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:39:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
The United States fought hard to gain and maintain air superiority, and this unmatched success is evidence that not a single soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine on the ground has been lost to enemy airpower since the Korean War.



You know I guess I've always know that, but to hear it put that way is kind of awesome.

Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:40:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:42:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By natedogg42:
Also, the AWACS can be seen and shot down IF enemy fighters can get past the screen of F-22s....






Ditto the Ruskies… they have designed a rather cute very long range Anti Radiation Missile called the Kh-31P especially to take down an AWACS and are selling it to the Chinese.

ANdy

OH that is just swell
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:45:03 AM EDT
Zoomies, give us the tale of the tape in F-22 v. the PLA's wonderkid:

Chengdu J-10 gen 4
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:45:54 AM EDT
I live in Midtown Atlanta and occasionally we get buzzed by the F-22s leaving Marietta. I was pumping gas back in June just before this hellacious thunderstorm blew up and two F-22s came ripping over Piedmont fairly low before doubling back to wherever they were headed. I nearly dropped the nozzle.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:51:40 AM EDT
I was on a plane to atlanta a month and a half ago. The company flew me first class and I ended up sitting next to Larry Lawson(guy mentioned in article). That guy was cool.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:03:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
So remind me again how a big lumbering E-3 radiating like a motherfucker can avoid getting shot down if the BG's are willing to take significant losses to break through the screen.

The E-3 is the bait plane to get the enemy crews moving. Then we destroy the enemy planes on the ground or while they are taking off.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:26:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 7:29:21 AM EDT by natedogg42]

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By natedogg42:
Also, the AWACS can be seen and shot down IF enemy fighters can get past the screen of F-22s....




So remind me again how a big lumbering E-3 radiating like a motherfucker can avoid getting shot down if the BG's are willing to take significant losses to break through the screen. Don't tell me it can't be done, it can and has in exercises, it's the RAF's 'Party Trick' and that's using it's old clunker Tornadoes. That's the reason the RAF has fitted it's E-3's so they can carry missiles for self defence against a 'leaker'.

Ditto the Ruskies… they have designed a rather cute very long range Anti Radiation Missile called the Kh-31P especially to take down an AWACS and are selling it to the Chinese.

ANdy



Are you brain-dead? I said that it can be shot down if the enemy gets past the F-22 screen. That would be a situation where they would be able to. Please forgive me for having doubts about Russian tech claims...their T-72s sure rocked our world in GW1, and their elite MiG-29s...oh dear.

I wonder how many aircraft it would take to down an AWACS bum rush style, it obviously depends on the strength of the defense but I can't see even China throwing away 50 planes to hit an AWACS. China doesn't have very many aircraft contrary to popular belief. They are the world's largest air force simply due to the fact that their inefficient system requires them to have more airmen. With uber-lee33t!11! pilots like Wrong Way Wong Wei and their uber J10s, I feel threatened...really.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:28:57 AM EDT
In a real war however, the enemy runways would most likely be simultaneously smashed with standoff weaponry and the like but we can keep fantasizing about the ub3r l33et air battle that will 5up3r pwn! the US....yawn....the Russki l33t gear lovers can keep fantasizing about this year's wonderweapon before it turns into last year's dud.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 8:56:43 AM EDT
As far as the range gap between the US and EADS air to air offering, it is something that is worrysome, but does anyone know what the range is for an AMRAAM launched at Mach 1.3? I recall reading somewhere that launching an air to air missile at over mach one significantly increases it's range.

I do wish that DARPA would hurry up and get the scramjet powered aam they are working on into production, it'd be nice to pop PLAAF J-10s at 200 miles range.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:00:31 AM EDT
That plane is so bad ass.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:06:56 AM EDT
Drones are a dead stick.

Sorry but your not going to be able to do much of anything *Hot* with them due to latency. They might be useful in the strike role, but in precision engagement, CAS, and Superiority roles latency puts you 1-2 seconds behind the enemy... or outside of the ooda loop.

You could base the controllers in a nice forward position, but that negates the benefit of drones.

The real benefit will be as force multipliers, a flight of drones accompanying live pilots on thier missions to serve as ammo mules and countermeasures platforms (Or squires in the lexicon).

Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:10:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By natedogg42:
In a real war however, the enemy runways would most likely be simultaneously smashed with standoff weaponry and the like but we can keep fantasizing about the ub3r l33et air battle that will 5up3r pwn! the US....yawn....the Russki l33t gear lovers can keep fantasizing about this year's wonderweapon before it turns into last year's dud.



You mean like Tomahawks? The ones the Ruskies claim a .8 to .98 kill ratio against when using S-300 in anti missle roles?

Well shit, I feel safer already.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:10:08 AM EDT
My brother works for Lockheed Martin. He made some of the parts for the F/A-22 Raptor. He gets real cool stuff from Lockheed Martin. Sometimes he shares.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:15:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Colt_SBR:
My brother works for Lockheed Martin. He made some of the parts for the F/A-22 Raptor. He gets real cool stuff from Lockheed Martin. Sometimes he shares.



Pics?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top