Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/20/2019 5:07:11 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/17/2006 2:31:08 PM EST
The F-22 Raptor is said to be invisible...until it isn't
ASK THIS | April 19, 2006

Analysts liken fighter plane to a WWII Messerschmidt, saying it is a technological marvel with the latest weapons but that it will be poor in combat.

Q. Can the Raptor see the enemy first, outnumber it, outmaneuver it, and kill it quickly?

Q. How does the Raptor stack up against the F-16?

Q. Why did Congress cap production of the Raptor at half the number sought by the Air Force?

This report first appeared in the Panama City News Herald.

By Ed Offley
eoffley@pcnh.com

It was the most impressive fighter aircraft seen to date.

Designed around a breakthrough technology, it was heavily armed with the latest air-to-air weapons and was capable of flying faster than its enemies and destroying previously invulnerable enemy aircraft.

One British pilot called it “the most formidable fighter” that the world had seen to date. Its pilots said it was a delight to fly.

Yet military historians today say the German Messerschmidt 262 fighter had little effect on the air war over Europe during World War II, and two military aviation experts last week warned that the U.S. Air Force has likely set itself up to repeat the harsh lesson of the Me-262 “Stormbird” in a future conflict against an adversary with a modern air force.

Simply put, said Pierre Sprey and James P. Stevenson, the F-22 Raptor is shaping up to be the Sturmvogel of the 21st century: a dazzling piece of technology that fatally ignores some of the unbending realities of aerial combat.

On surface, the Raptor debate ended six months ago. After years of controversy, the Air Force and Defense Department reached a final agreement on the Raptor program, with DoD and Congress approving full production of the stealth fighter while capping the program at 183 aircraft, a 50-percent reduction of the 381 planes that the service had long said it needed at a minimum.

(For Tyndall Air Force Base, where the Raptor pilot training program is located, this has meant a reduction in training squadrons from two to one, with 29 of the sleek fighters to be used in preparing pilots for combat units.)

But to Sprey, a founding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” group that during the 1960s and 1970s ramrodded the F-15, F-16 and A-10 programs into being despite fierce internal opposition, and military author Stevenson, who has written extensively on the Navy’s F/A-18 and A-12 fighters, the Air Force has created a major crisis in its future combat capability by sticking to the Raptor program.

The two analysts presented their stark findings to a symposium at the nonprofit Center for Defense Information on Friday in Washington, D.C. The two analysts provided their findings to The News Herald, and Sprey elaborated on the issues in a telephone interview.

Sprey said his briefing focused on the time-tested factors that define an effective fighter plane: (1) See the enemy first; (2) outnumber the enemy; (3) outmaneuver the enemy to fire, and (4) kill the enemy quickly.

“The Raptor is a horrible failure on almost every one of those criteria,” Sprey said.

The stellar attribute of the F-22 — its invisibility on enemy radar due to a computer-aided stealth design — is a “myth,” Sprey said. That is because in order to locate the enemy beyond visual range, the Raptor (like every other fighter) must turn on its own radar, immediately betraying its location.

Nor is the aircraft design effective simply because its advocates insist so, Sprey said. The 1980s-era F-117 stealth fighter was supposed to be invisible too, but post-Gulf War studies showed that the aircraft had been spotted by Iraq’s ground-based radars, he said.

And in the 77-day aerial campaign against Serbia in 1999, the adversary’s “1950s-era radar” managed to locate and shoot down two F-117s, Stevenson pointed out in his presentation. The situation is actually worse today, he said, because many nations have acquired advanced missiles that can home in on radar emissions.

“Who do you want in a dark alley?” Stevenson asked. “The cop with the flashlight, or the crook with a gun that fires light-homing bullets?”

Because the Raptor ultimately ballooned into a weapon that costs $361 million per copy, even Congress could not stomach the total program cost exceeding $65 billion, Sprey said. As a result, the Air Force is now committed to fielding a fighter program that lacks sufficient numbers to prevail in a major conflict, however effective the individual aircraft may be.

“Hitler had 70 Me-262s in combat,” Sprey said. “They were crushed by the force of 2,000 inferior P-51s that the United States had in the air.”

Early reports from mock deployments of the Raptor also show a major shortfall in the fighter’s sustainability in combat, Sprey said.

“The F-16 costs one-tenth of the F-22 and flies three times as often due to the issues of stealth, complexity and maintenance affecting the Raptor,” Sprey said. Sustainability and the number of aircraft available to fight on any given day, he added, are “vastly more important” than the quality of the F-22. “You have to have numerical superiority to win.”

On the last two points, maneuverability and capability for a “quick kill,” the two analysts assert that the Raptor is inferior to the F-16 and several allied fighter designs in the crucible of “energy-maneuverability.”

“Some (experts) assert that in the next air war,” all of the radars will be off and the air war will merge to air combat maneuvering,” Stevenson observed.

The Raptor’s performance in that mode will be “disastrous,” Sprey added.

“The only thing that will bail the U.S. Air Force out of this mess is the fact that they still have a lot of F-16s in service,” Sprey said, “The day they send the F-16s to the ‘boneyard’ is the day the service becomes a non-Air Force.”

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00197
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 2:34:33 PM EST
The problem with cost reporting is that they always divide the development work by the number of birds, and add it to the actual price of the individual plane. Nice way to get people to think something's a lot more expensive than initially thought.

Kharn
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 2:36:33 PM EST
Um wrong on several counts... But hey, I'm not a media expert. Given the 4 criteria:

(1) See the enemy first; Raptor prolly has the most advanced radar and fire control in the world not to mention passive sensors and awacs integration

(2) outnumber the enemy; Ok, its boned there cuz congress won't buy it.

(3) outmaneuver the enemy to fire: Raptor is fast it can supercruise i.e. supersonic w/o afterburner (speed=life), plus it has thrust vectoring = highly manuverable

(4) kill the enemy quickly; it uses the best US missles, and has off boresight capability. Better or at least equal to other top fighters.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 2:40:33 PM EST
Always knew the Raptor was an overpriced peice of shit.
I've read all the public tech literature, I knew it would be a flop.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 2:42:58 PM EST
Man, that article is full of so much bullshit, I don't even know where to begin. In fact, it's so off base that it isn't even worthy of commenting on.

BTW, I will make one comment.....in regards to the cost. Had we not whittled down the order from the original planned 750 to 180, the cost per plane would have been about $90 million.

So in essence, what we have done is pay the same amount we would have paid for 750 planes, while only getting 180. Now doesn't that just make a ton of sense?
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 2:43:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/17/2006 2:55:14 PM EST by Tehranasaurus_Rex]
http://i3.tinypic.com/vr50cl.jpg

http://i3.tinypic.com/vr4w0i.jpg

Here comes the VFA 11 SuperBug! He shoots! He scores!headbang.gif


Looks like the USN has a great and worthy replacement for the F-14 in the F-18F
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 2:55:06 PM EST
BTW, I just saw this part:


“Some (experts) assert that in the next air war,” all of the radars will be off and the air war will merge to air combat maneuvering,” Stevenson observed.


It sounds to me like whatever so-called "experts" said this need to go back to expert school.

No radars? ACM in the merge?

Folks, those days are what's over. These days, everyone has off bore sighted IR missiles that are VERY lethal. The Ruskies have them. The Israelis have them. Most European nations have them. The Chinese have them. We have them. With these weapons being honed to a deadly edge, it's going to be suicide to get within visual range. All the pilot has to do is turn his head, acquire the target and fire a missile. So what will likely happen is that both planes end up dead.

So no, I don't envision the day of radars to be over. And no, we won't be going back to Korean style furballs inside a phone booth. In order to survive, developing weapons that outrange those in the enemy's arsenal and the radars that will offer first look, first shoot ability will carry the day. Otherwise, both sides will lose.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 2:56:21 PM EST
Another fatal mistake of the Germans: Sticking with 'bolt-on' upgrades of the already successful ME109 program while cancelling the ME209 program. In other words: we don't need an F22, but a next-gen F-16/F-18 (hopefully the JSF can fill that role).
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 2:58:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 3:14:29 PM EST
Whats this about 2 F-117's being shot down in Kosovo? I only remember 1. And Damn Klinton for not bombing the wreckage. The Serbs shipped it to the Russians and Chinese immediatly.

I do agree that we don't have nearly enough of them though. We should definatly buy more of them.


-K
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 3:20:46 PM EST
Several key points to be made here:

Dr. Pierre Sprey is one of the foremost aviation experts alive today. He is one of Col. John Boyd's famous "Acolytes" and one of the influential men who helped Boyd lay down the requirements for both the F-15 and F-16. Sprey is not someone you ignore in this type of debate. He makes some very interesting points.

Not being privy to the technical data on the aircraft, including such issues as the capabilities and limitations, the physical characteristics of the LPI radar, the actualy flight envelolpe energy numbers, and the overall effectiveness and suitability, I can't make a decision on this argument.

That said...frankly there is no substitute for raw numbers, especially when you consider that at any time, a hostile nation might be able to develop a good anti-LO technology, thus largely negating our lead.

Hope we don't have to find out if Dr. Sprey is correct.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 3:22:13 PM EST
That guy is smoking some good shit.



First, the Yugos did not use 1950s era radar to shoot down the F117A, in fact it is rumored that they were using new chinese acustical tracking radar to do such a thing along with the newest Russian SAMs.


Second, AWACS and future sat based radar can be uploaded to the Raptor that still has a powered down search radar thus not giving up its position.


Third, it seems to kick the ass of a F15 which kicked everyone elses ass in actual combat.

Four, hate hate hate
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 3:24:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Whats this about 2 F-117's being shot down in Kosovo? I only remember 1. And Damn Klinton for not bombing the wreckage. The Serbs shipped it to the Russians and Chinese immediatly.

I do agree that we don't have nearly enough of them though. We should definatly buy more of them.


-K




Why do you think we "accidently" bombed the fuck out of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade? Because they had pieces of the wreckage to be shipped back home.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 3:43:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/17/2006 4:00:50 PM EST by Charging_Handle]

Dr. Pierre Sprey is one of the foremost aviation experts alive today. He is one of Col. John Boyd's famous "Acolytes" and one of the influential men who helped Boyd lay down the requirements for both the F-15 and F-16. Sprey is not someone you ignore in this type of debate. He makes some very interesting points.


It seems he is still heavily promoting the F-16. I wonder if he has a bit of bias going on there? Not wanting to see his concept go away? Why would he keep endorsing the F-16, a 30 year old design, that is ALREADY inferior to a number of aircraft the enemy has in their arsenal? We know that isn't the answer. The MiG-29, even with rather crude radar and electronics, is a very tough match for the F-16. And the MiG-29 is a 1980's aircraft. The F-16 is inferior to the SU-27/30/33/35 etc.

Being the F-22 eats F-15's and F-16's for breakfast in mock engagements up until this point, I don't see how he can make some of those assertions. Numbers are one thing. But they aren't everything. In the 1980s, we were vastly outnumbered by the Soviets. But we had much better quality. I would have taken the F-14's F-15's, F-16's, and F-18's we had in service at that time over the much bigger fleet of Mig-21, MiG-23, MiG-25 and SU-15's the Soviets were depending on. In that matchup, I firmly believe quality would have won over quantity.

Besides, it's not like we are putting all of our marbles into the F-22 basket. We are planning on building and putting into service some 1763 F-35's. These look to be cheap, quality fighters on par with the F-16 in terms of cost and more effectiveness. It's basically a more stealthy F-16. So we'll still have plenty of numbers if we need them, with the ability to quickly produce more if needed. From all reports I have heard thus far, the F-35 will at least be equal to the F-16 in terms of maneuverability. Some think it will exceed it. And it's thrust to weight ratio should be outstanding, making it both a good angles as well as energy fighter. If you look at the raw numbers, I think the F-35 will be far more capable than the F-16. It is similar in size, it's weight is good, it has pretty good total wing area and it has a beast of an engine....one that's in the 40,000 lb max thrust range. With similar numbers and a much more powerful engine, I think the F-35 is going to be a very formidable little jet. I certainly don't see us giving up anything by transitioning from F-15's/F-16's to F-22's/F-35's. But we do gain in many areas. Then of course we have the UCAV's coming along in development also. These can outmaneuver current missiles! And they can be fielded in huge numbers once we put them into service. So we are by no means falling behind.

Again, I will respect Dr. Sprey for his background and the stuff he did in the past. But on this issue, I have to wonder if he's really up to speed on the F-22's abilities. It seems to me he didn't even understand the F-22 had the ability to do data links, which will transfer radar pictures to other planes and allowing them to target and fire, without ever turning on their own radar. Then he was discussing stealth, as if he thought stealth meant the designs were suppose to be "totally invisible". Hell, the average tv viewer who watched Wings on Discovery would have known better than that in the early 90's. That makes me wonder what else he doesn't know about the design. Some of the stuff mentioned was just totally inaccurate.

Ah well, I suppose we'll see. My opinion? I think this Sprey guy's thinking is still stuck in the 1970's and his own bias leads him toward high agility conventional aircraft. I bet he would LOVE the latest Sukhoi designs and would be delighted if we created something like say, the SU-37. However, what would be the purpose of trying to develop something that is essentially only EQUAL to what the enemy already has? Shouldn't we be looking to stay ahead? And his emphasis on close-in dogfights also supports my argument. He is denying the benefits of stealth and radar, leaving out many of the Raptors capabilities and exaggerating it's weaknesses...while failing to mention how the new all-aspect, helmet mounted IR missiles nullify manuverability. The ability of an aircraft to turn slightly tighter than another matters little when all the pilot has to do to shoot is simply point his head at the enemy fighter. I have seen enough video of the F-22 in action to realize that's ability to maneuver is just fine. It certainly seems more maneuverable than the F-15 it's replacing. So is this guy being genuine? Or is he getting paid by someone at Boeing to down the Lockheed product, so they can sell more Super Bugs or a planned updated Eagle?
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 3:51:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Several key points to be made here:

Dr. Pierre Sprey is one of the foremost aviation experts alive today. He is one of Col. John Boyd's famous "Acolytes" and one of the influential men who helped Boyd lay down the requirements for both the F-15 and F-16. Sprey is not someone you ignore in this type of debate. He makes some very interesting points.

Not being privy to the technical data on the aircraft, including such issues as the capabilities and limitations, the physical characteristics of the LPI radar, the actualy flight envelolpe energy numbers, and the overall effectiveness and suitability, I can't make a decision on this argument.

That said...frankly there is no substitute for raw numbers, especially when you consider that at any time, a hostile nation might be able to develop a good anti-LO technology, thus largely negating our lead.

Hope we don't have to find out if Dr. Sprey is correct.


While I respect the good gentleman's past record. There are several claims in that article that give me pause. For instance, the two F-117s shot down over Serbia. His assertion that an F-16 costs 1/10 of an F-22, and the F-16 having 3 times the up-time compared to the F-22. I'd say he's wrong on one, picking his numbers on the second, and doesn't have enough information on operational F-22s to make a complete assesment on the third.

I have to wonder which contractor's payroll he's on.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 3:54:13 PM EST
Interesting....................

I see that numbers of F-22's in service will be an issue, 180+ vs the 360+ requested.

Even worse, if it is true, that every flight hour requires more miant, than current fighters. That could be just "teething" of a new system. So 5 years from now the flight hours vs maint could be much more favorable.

But, if it is true, adding to the fact that 50% of what was "needed" are to be purchased, there could be a real problem. The best fighter in the world doesn't help unless it is armed, fueled, and near the threat.

50 year old fighter-bombers can rule the air........................... when they are the only ones in it.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 3:59:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Interesting....................

I see that numbers of F-22's in service will be an issue, 180+ vs the 360+ requested.


I got dollars to doughnuts that says we don't stop at 180. I don't think we'll get up to the 700 or so the USAF wanted, but I doubt we stop at 180 and probably will get close to 360 eventually.

Unless it turns out to be a total pig.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:00:06 PM EST
comparing the raptor to the 262 is a flawed argument. the 262 was introduced by a losing side of a lost war. it was like trying to paddle out to sea in a canoe during a tsunami. for all its advancements, the 262 was far too little, far too late. the USAF definately does NOT have its back aganst the wall.

as for the raptor's stealth being defeated by having to turn on its radar: of course that would happen, but the f-22 is designed to never have to turn on its radar. it integrates its systems not only with other raptors, but with awacs and ground based radar.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:01:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Several key points to be made here:

Dr. Pierre Sprey is one of the foremost aviation experts alive today. He is one of Col. John Boyd's famous "Acolytes" and one of the influential men who helped Boyd lay down the requirements for both the F-15 and F-16. Sprey is not someone you ignore in this type of debate. He makes some very interesting points.

Not being privy to the technical data on the aircraft, including such issues as the capabilities and limitations, the physical characteristics of the LPI radar, the actualy flight envelolpe energy numbers, and the overall effectiveness and suitability, I can't make a decision on this argument.

That said...frankly there is no substitute for raw numbers, especially when you consider that at any time, a hostile nation might be able to develop a good anti-LO technology, thus largely negating our lead.

Hope we don't have to find out if Dr. Sprey is correct.


While I respect the good gentleman's past record. There are several claims in that article that give me pause. For instance, the two F-117s shot down over Serbia. His assertion that an F-16 costs 1/10 of an F-22, and the F-16 having 3 times the up-time compared to the F-22. I'd say he's wrong on one, picking his numbers on the second, and doesn't have enough information on operational F-22s to make a complete assesment on the third.

I have to wonder which contractor's payroll he's on.



IIRC he is a private consultant...or was after his .gov jobs in the Five Sided Wind Tunnel. Not sure what he's up to now.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:02:48 PM EST
Didn't we go through this BS with the Abrams, Bradley, Apache, B1, F16, etc......



Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:04:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By NDT3:
Didn't we go through this BS with the Abrams, Bradley, Apache, B1, F16, etc......






seems like it happens every time we try to introduce a new MWS.... sometimes the MWS survives (F-22, B-1) some times it gets the axe (Comanchee, A-12)
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:08:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By NDT3:
Didn't we go through this BS with the Abrams, Bradley, Apache, B1, F16, etc......






Yes. The latest was with the Stryker series of light armored vehicles.

Prior to them being fielded, everyone was talking about what pieces of shit they were and how they'd be a disaster in combat. Well, now that we are fielding them in numbers, I haven't heard much complaining. In fact, most of the soldiers I've heard from who use them on a daily basis love them. They are light, quick, quiet and offer protection that's as good or better than the older M113's everyone thought we should be going back to.

It's just a fear of new stuff. You see it with every new product that comes along. Simply because whatever we have at the time is good enough and we are use to it, some think we shouldn;t ever field anything new. That's how you get behind, quickly.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:08:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By NDT3:
Didn't we go through this BS with the Abrams, Bradley, Apache, B1, F16, etc......






seems like it happens every time we try to introduce a new MWS.... sometimes the MWS survives (F-22, B-1) some times it gets the axe (Comanchee, A-12)



So far our system seems to be working.

The comparison to the 262 is poor because we had crippled Germanys ability to ramp up production, most of their good pilots were dead, hitler wanted the 262 dedicated to a bomber role.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:09:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Harlikwin:
Um wrong on several counts... But hey, I'm not a media expert. Given the 4 criteria:

(1) See the enemy first; Raptor prolly has the most advanced radar and fire control in the world not to mention passive sensors and awacs integration

(2) outnumber the enemy; Ok, its boned there cuz congress won't buy it.

(3) outmaneuver the enemy to fire: Raptor is fast it can supercruise i.e. supersonic w/o afterburner (speed=life), plus it has thrust vectoring = highly manuverable

(4) kill the enemy quickly; it uses the best US missles, and has off boresight capability. Better or at least equal to other top fighters.




The Phoneix Missle was moth balled. What other missles do we have that can engage a beyond 100 miles? The AIM-120 AMRAAM Slammer only has an range of 20 miles.
I'm sure if you upgraded the targeting system on the AIM-54 the F22 is fucked. It would never have a chance to engage the target.

Of couse what do I know, I'm just a civi with no militray experience. If the generals in the Air force think the F22 works i'm sure it does. Who needs to shoot a missles at a target 100 miles away when you can sneek in behind him and kill him up close. ? After all he won't see you
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:11:10 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:18:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:

The Phoneix Missle was moth balled. What other missles do we have that can engage a beyond 100 miles? The AIM-120 AMRAAM Slammer only has an range of 20 miles.
I'm sure if you upgraded the targeting system on the AIM-54 the F22 is fucked. It would never have a chance to engage the target.

Of couse what do I know, I'm just a civi with no militray experience. If the generals in the Air force think the F22 works i'm sure it does. Who needs to shoot a missles at a target 100 miles away when you can sneek in behind him and kill him up close. ? After all he won't see you



Quit smoking the F-14 pipe. The Phoenix was a shitty missile with low pK against non-stationary targets. The AMRAAM has a range of 40-45 miles and up to 60 on the D model. We are slacking on getting a ramjet missile like the Meteor but the AMRAAM is far and away better than the Phoenix.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:20:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:

Originally Posted By Harlikwin:
Um wrong on several counts... But hey, I'm not a media expert. Given the 4 criteria:

(1) See the enemy first; Raptor prolly has the most advanced radar and fire control in the world not to mention passive sensors and awacs integration

(2) outnumber the enemy; Ok, its boned there cuz congress won't buy it.

(3) outmaneuver the enemy to fire: Raptor is fast it can supercruise i.e. supersonic w/o afterburner (speed=life), plus it has thrust vectoring = highly manuverable

(4) kill the enemy quickly; it uses the best US missles, and has off boresight capability. Better or at least equal to other top fighters.




The Phoneix Missle was moth balled. What other missles do we have that can engage a beyond 100 miles? The AIM-120 AMRAAM Slammer only has an range of 20 miles.
I'm sure if you upgraded the targeting system on the AIM-54 the F22 is fucked. It would never have a chance to engage the target.

Of couse what do I know, I'm just a civi with no militray experience. If the generals in the Air force think the F22 works i'm sure it does. Who needs to shoot a missles at a target 100 miles away when you can sneek in behind him and kill him up close. ? After all he won't see you



The AIM-54 was mothballed for a reason. It wasn't very good. It has plenty of range but would have only been effective when used against large, slow, lumbering bombers. It didn't have the ability to maneuver at range and effectively engage, small maneuverable fighters.

BTW, the AIM-120 actually has a range of about 40 miles. Also, a new verson of the AMRAAM is in development that uses RamJet technology that will push the missile's range well out past that.....approaching Phoenix type range, but with a much higher probability to kill at max range.

Also, the Phoenix would have been little use at 100 miles against a Raptor. First, at that range, the Phoenix carrying aircraft would not know the F-22 is out there. Second, even if it did (using some sort of IRST system), it still couldn't target it at that range. And last, it is rumored the F-22's advanced radars possess some very nice abilities when it comes to electronic wizardry. So it may be able to zap the guidance source of any missile that gets launched against it.

There is a reason why the F-14 and Phoenix have been put out to pasture. There's simply far better stuff out there today.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:28:48 PM EST
I didn't realize we had so many military aviation experts here. Read a few copies of Jane's and fly the latest PC simulator and you're an expert. Boeing probably doesn't realize what a pool of talent we have here.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:32:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Interesting....................

I see that numbers of F-22's in service will be an issue, 180+ vs the 360+ requested.


I got dollars to doughnuts that says we don't stop at 180. I don't think we'll get up to the 700 or so the USAF wanted, but I doubt we stop at 180 and probably will get close to 360 eventually.

Unless it turns out to be a total pig.



I guess, I'm thinking F-14.............. it wasn't the aircraft's ability that got it replaced, it was it's maint. per flight hour requirements.

I thought state of the art design, included ease of maint in the design.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:32:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By m193:
I didn't realize we had so many military aviation experts here. Read a few copies of Jane's and fly the latest PC simulator and you're an expert. Boeing probably doesn't realize what a pool of talent we have here.


Are you new to aviation threads? This goes on all the time.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:11:32 PM EST
Tehranasaurus_Rex = vito113
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:14:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Specop_007:
Always knew the Raptor was an overpriced peice of shit.
I've read all the public tech literature, I knew it would be a flop.



So you read an article by some asshat "investigator" and you believe all the bullshit they say?


Jesus, what kind of stupidity is that?


The Raptor is the best air superiority aircraft IN THE FUCKING WORLD, dude.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:14:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:

Originally Posted By Harlikwin:
Um wrong on several counts... But hey, I'm not a media expert. Given the 4 criteria:

(1) See the enemy first; Raptor prolly has the most advanced radar and fire control in the world not to mention passive sensors and awacs integration

(2) outnumber the enemy; Ok, its boned there cuz congress won't buy it.

(3) outmaneuver the enemy to fire: Raptor is fast it can supercruise i.e. supersonic w/o afterburner (speed=life), plus it has thrust vectoring = highly manuverable

(4) kill the enemy quickly; it uses the best US missles, and has off boresight capability. Better or at least equal to other top fighters.




The Phoneix Missle was moth balled. What other missles do we have that can engage a beyond 100 miles? The AIM-120 AMRAAM Slammer only has an range of 20 miles.
I'm sure if you upgraded the targeting system on the AIM-54 the F22 is fucked. It would never have a chance to engage the target.

Of couse what do I know, I'm just a civi with no militray experience. If the generals in the Air force think the F22 works i'm sure it does. Who needs to shoot a missles at a target 100 miles away when you can sneek in behind him and kill him up close. ? After all he won't see you



The Phoenix wasn't designed to take out fighters. It was designed to engage missile-carrying Backfire bombers. The AIM-54 lacks the end-range speed and maneuverability to take out anything as fast or maneuverable as a current generation fighter.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:20:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/17/2006 5:20:48 PM EST by mmx1]

Originally Posted By 2A373:
Tehranasaurus_Rex = vito113


naah, vito would at least post pics


Miss him and his insights. You always need a wiseass to keep you on your feet.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:24:40 PM EST
There are roughly 20 Raptors parked about 5 miles from my home @ Langley AFB.

I see them flying every single day.

Don't care how much they cost, I say buy more of them and fill massive hangars with them.

I've heard that the ones here at Langley have not been beaten in the daily war games the Raptor and Eagle pilots play. In fact, last I heard the score was well over 200 to zip.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:28:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/17/2006 5:32:27 PM EST by Spade]
First up we've all already read that one F-22 handily knocks down six Eagles in a fight.



“Some (experts) assert that in the next air war,” all of the radars will be off and the air war will merge to air combat maneuvering,” Stevenson observed.



WHAT?

I'm not entirely sure what's up with this guy. He isn't fighting the last war, he's fighting several wars back. Apparently he thinks the next fight is gonna be some high speed Korea.

Shit, according to my copy of the First gulf war's Air Power Survey over 40% of the air to air kills in that '91 were Beyond Visual Range. "Coalition aircraft making use of information gathered by Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft could shoot safely at opponents that they could not see or not see well.

So if the F-22s want to, they can keep their radars off, and shoot at targets that AWACS picks up. That's the whole reason for trying to have everybody electronically linked together after all.
Also he seems to ignore that the F-22's radar changes frequencies a thousand times a second, which is supposed to make it a bitch to pick up, and a pain to jam.

Also, the F-117 wasn't an 80's design. The first Nighthawk was delivered in '82. And saying the loss of one aircraft totally blows away all stealth advances is total bullshit. Look at all the missions flown by low observable aircraft, and there's been on operational loss. If they were spotted by Iraqi radars, they didn't kill any. Nor any B-2s and B-1s during the last war. Stealth works pretty well. It isn't perfect; nothing is, but it works.

Seriously though, what's with this guy's hard on for the F-16? Personally if I didn't like the Raptor I'd be calling for more Eagles. Eagles have never had a combat loss in an air to air fight. F-16s have.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:29:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
There are roughly 20 Raptors parked about 5 miles from my home @ Langley AFB.

I see them flying every single day.

Don't care how much they cost, I say buy more of them and fill massive hangars with them.

I've heard that the ones here at Langley have not been beaten in the daily war games the Raptor and Eagle pilots play. In fact, last I heard the score was well over 200 to zip.



AGREED!

I don't care how much they have to take out of my paycheck, give them flyboys the best this nation can provide!

(Ideally, 800+ by 2012 would be nice... but it ain't gonna happen)
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:30:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By 2A373:
Tehranasaurus_Rex = vito113



Nah, they are both posting in the same thread here:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=63&t=439191&page=2

Unless there is some serious multiple personalities going on.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:32:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
There are roughly 20 Raptors parked about 5 miles from my home @ Langley AFB.

I see them flying every single day.

Don't care how much they cost, I say buy more of them and fill massive hangars with them.

I've heard that the ones here at Langley have not been beaten in the daily war games the Raptor and Eagle pilots play. In fact, last I heard the score was well over 200 to zip.



Are they loud?

I'm 5 miles from Oceana an them F18s are very noisey.



Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:36:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
There are roughly 20 Raptors parked about 5 miles from my home @ Langley AFB.

I see them flying every single day.

Don't care how much they cost, I say buy more of them and fill massive hangars with them.

I've heard that the ones here at Langley have not been beaten in the daily war games the Raptor and Eagle pilots play. In fact, last I heard the score was well over 200 to zip.



Are they loud?

I'm 5 miles from Oceana an them F18s are very noisey.






Louder than F-18s.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:40:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Spade:
First up we've all already read that one F-22 handily knocks down six Eagles in a fight.



“Some (experts) assert that in the next air war,” all of the radars will be off and the air war will merge to air combat maneuvering,” Stevenson observed.



WHAT?

I'm not entirely sure what's up with this guy. He isn't fighting the last war, he's fighting several wars back. Apparently he thinks the next fight is gonna be some high speed Korea.

Shit, according to my copy of the First gulf war's Air Power Survey over 40% of the air to air kills in that '91 were Beyond Visual Range. "Coalition aircraft making use of information gathered by Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft could shoot safely at opponents that they could not see or not see well.

So if the F-22s want to, they can keep their radars off, and shoot at targets that AWACS picks up. That's the whole reason for trying to have everybody electronically linked together after all.
Also he seems to ignore that the F-22's radar changes frequencies a thousand times a second, which is supposed to make it a bitch to pick up, and a pain to jam.

Also, the F-117 wasn't an 80's design. The first Nighthawk was delivered in '82. And saying the loss of one aircraft totally blows away all stealth advances is total bullshit. Look at all the missions flown by low observable aircraft, and there's been on operational loss. If they were spotted by Iraqi radars, they didn't kill any. Nor any B-2s and B-1s during the last war. Stealth works pretty well. It isn't perfect; nothing is, but it works.

Seriously though, what's with this guy's hard on for the F-16? Personally if I didn't like the Raptor I'd be calling for more Eagles. Eagles have never had a combat loss in an air to air fight. F-16s have.



I think in general the next air war will be more about information managment, if anything it will short and sweet, and one side is gonna loose alot of planes. In general if you are in a dogfight in a modern fighter you have fucked something up badly. The off boresight missles mean point and shoot death at short range. These days its all about using datalinks/awacs to find the the enemy, and then engaging him at long(er) range with active radar (self)guiding missiles. In the best case you kill him, if not, you try again till you do. In the worst case you put him on the defensive and then you can continue the engagment at an advantage. I think the analogy to WW2- Me-262 is fundamentally flawed; you aren't gonna huge ww2/korea like battles in the future. Rather it will be a small stealthy engaments. The one idea I think he's onto something with is that with a very tini fighter force the US could not afford many/any losses, and I think he is right about that, but then again the US has yet to loose and air-war.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:42:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:

Originally Posted By bvmjethead:
There are roughly 20 Raptors parked about 5 miles from my home @ Langley AFB.

I see them flying every single day.

Don't care how much they cost, I say buy more of them and fill massive hangars with them.

I've heard that the ones here at Langley have not been beaten in the daily war games the Raptor and Eagle pilots play. In fact, last I heard the score was well over 200 to zip.



Are they loud?

I'm 5 miles from Oceana an them F18s are very noisey.






raptors are LOUD in AB, but what jet isnt. at the speed of sound from 40k feet, you're dead before you hear it
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 7:38:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:

Originally Posted By Special-K:
Whats this about 2 F-117's being shot down in Kosovo? I only remember 1. And Damn Klinton for not bombing the wreckage. The Serbs shipped it to the Russians and Chinese immediatly.

I do agree that we don't have nearly enough of them though. We should definatly buy more of them.


-K




Why do you think we "accidently" bombed the fuck out of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade? Because they had pieces of the wreckage to be shipped back home.





....interesting.... I'd be curious to know more if you have anything to add. I had heard that the radar used was Russian (or at least that a Speznaz contingent was sent without warning/invite to clean out the underground bunkers the radar was housed in.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 7:48:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tehranasaurus_Rex:
And in the 77-day aerial campaign against Serbia in 1999, the adversary’s “1950s-era radar” managed to locate and shoot down two F-117s, Stevenson pointed out in his presentation. The situation is actually worse today, he said, because many nations have acquired advanced missiles that can home in on radar emissions.



Two F-117s? The author is powerfully stupid.




“Hitler had 70 Me-262s in combat,” Sprey said. “They were crushed by the force of 2,000 inferior P-51s that the United States had in the air.”



Reinforcing my original point, the author is fucking moron. Trying to compare the situation in late-war Germany with that of modern America is amazingly ignorant.

Link Posted: 4/17/2006 7:55:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By 2A373:
Tehranasaurus_Rex = vito113




It's like deja-vu all over again...!

Link Posted: 4/17/2006 7:57:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tomislav:



“Hitler had 70 Me-262s in combat,” Sprey said. “They were crushed by the force of 2,000 inferior P-51s that the United States had in the air.”



Reinforcing my original point, the author is fucking moron. Trying to compare the situation in late-war Germany with that of modern America is amazingly ignorant.




Agreed.


Two completely different situations and two completely different aircraft.

The Me-262 was far from what the Raptor is in the skies of today.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 8:09:54 PM EST
"The race is not always be to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet." Daymon Runyon

Purty good fighter design philosophy, too.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 8:10:05 PM EST
Not to mention, the enemy is not constantly bombing our airfields, siphoning off our best pilots and destroying our fuel supplies.

There are valid criticisms of the F-22 (cost, cost, and cost); Resorting to idiotic comparisons to late-war Germany just makes the author look like a moron.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 8:10:58 PM EST
Can we just declare war on a country with some modern aircraft and see how they do? This speculation is getting old.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 8:12:20 PM EST
My god, reporters are stupid. Period. Nobody understands the complexities of fighter combat, well, except fighter pilots. NO one knows the true capabilites of the F22 except the pilots and designers.

Passive sensors plus datalink information from AWACS would enable the F22 to kill without turning its own radar on.

Wow, how complicated
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 8:13:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tromatic:
Can we just declare war on a country with some modern aircraft and see how they do? This speculation is getting old.



We should make a bet with Russia.

Russia can get 10 of their best pilots, and put them in any of their country's production aircraft of choice.


We put 10 of ours in Raptors.


Whoever wins the simulation (no live fire, LOL!) gets ultimate bragging rights.



I'd put my money on those Raptors, however.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top