what use is the F-22 ???

[IamSpartacus]

We in the UK went through a bit of a fiasco recently with the Typhoon (Eurofighter) programme being 10 years too late ... e.g. designed for a cold war threat that no longer existed. Nevertheless we have an orderbook of nearly 700 for European member nations and partners. There has just been an order announced for 72 of them for the Royal Saudi Air Force.

Now ... what's going on with the Amerikan's F-22 Raptor programme .... originally thousands were to be produced; and the order book has slipped down to around 180.

Might as well just cancel the whole deal (like the RAH-66 Commanche helicopter fiasco). What is the US airforce coming to these days ?.



www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_raptor_watch.html

Originally designed to duel with Soviet fighters, the Raptor seemed to be a plane without a mission; the Air Force touted the F-22 as everything from a cargo lifter to an IED-stopper. A fleet of 277 Raptors was downsized to 179 -- despite a massive PR campaign from the Air Force.


http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002341.html

With F-22 production slashed to just 180 from the 380 the Air Force says it needs, the service is scrambling to figure out how to fill the gap.

The problem is that the current air superiority force of F-15C Eagles numbers more than 300 jets. To keep watch over the U.S. and South Korea plus provide enough jets for contigencies, the Air Force is going to have to fly some of its Eagles longer than expected.

Considering that the last C-model Eagle rolled off McDonnell Douglas' St. Louis production line 20 years ago and that the last major update was the Multi-Stage Improvement Program (MSIP) in the mid-90s, maintaining the F-15C is going to require structural mods and upgrades.

[Kez]

A new age rapid response stealth fighter.

Think, what good would it not have?

[sagit]

F22 as a cargo lifter? hahahaha

[Hairyman]

The stealth capability has recently been downgraded. The performance is already eclipsed by current Sukhoi fighters.

[IamSpartacus]

Trouble with the F-22 delays & cost overruns is that the F-35 is on the horizon as the new all singin' and dancin' star of the future.

Since the perceived enemy threat has evolved since F-22 programme inception, the F-35 is cheaper and is less steathy. As Hairyman noted; steathiness isn't the bee's knees these days.


With the revsion of the FA-22 dropping its attack role to be the F-22, there are plenty of mirth with discussions of the Fighter/Attack/Recce/Cargo/ELINT variant ... or the F/A/R/C/E-22 for short.

[Nodbugger]

The stealth capability has recently been downgraded. The performance is already eclipsed by current Sukhoi fighters.

Nope.

[cranky]

F22?!~?!?!?!? WTF!?!? My keyboard only goes up to F12?!?!?!

[Directed]

The f22 is in a class by itself. The Russian fighters have no similar capabilities. Among its advantages are its sustained high speed, thrust vectoring, sensors, stealth features, advanced avionics, and ability to exchange data with other U.S. systems. In simulated combat 8 f22's killed 33 f-15c's without losing a single plain. And the F15c can hang with anything the Russians have right now.

[Plough]

I think Australia has backed the F35 to replace its FA18A in 2010. They gave the F22 the ditch.

[rayjayjohnson]

australia is replacing the antique f-111 with jsf's, but that will be years off. by the time we buy anything good, it won't be good anymore.

and the states aren't selling the f35 to anyone. at least not yet.

[Blink]

Trouble with the F-22 delays & cost overruns is that the F-35 is on the horizon as the new all singin' and dancin' star of the future.

Last time I looked, the F-35 was a compliment to the F-22, not a replacement. I think you'll find that they'll end up either extending the current production run or requesting another production run. The reason that it's not being invested in heavily at the moment is that all current military engagements don't require an air superiority fighter. Even if they go for Iran or North Korea the F-15C, coupled with AWACS, can effectively handle anything the enemy can put in the air.

[Blink]

australia is replacing the antique f-111 with jsf's, but that will be years off. by the time we buy anything good, it won't be good anymore.

and the states aren't selling the f35 to anyone. at least not yet.

They haven't even started making them yet. And I think you'll find that they will sell them to Australia, as we've invested in the program and made an order already. And the F-35 will still be better than anything we have to face when we finally get them. I'm more worried about the gap in our strike capability between the retirement of the F-111 and the introduction of the JSF. Or have they decided to try and keep them flying now?

[rusky85]

Don't we have more jets than pilots?

[rayjayjohnson]

They haven't even started making them yet. And I think you'll find that they will sell them to Australia, as we've invested in the program and made an order already. And the F-35 will still be better than anything we have to face when we finally get them. I'm more worried about the gap in our strike capability between the retirement of the F-111 and the introduction of the JSF. Or have they decided to try and keep them flying now?
my bro was stationed in amberly with the pigs for about 5 years. he tells me originally we were going to be taking a loan of US f15e's while we waited, but now i think they've decided to keep the 111s flying a little longer. not that at any one time more than 50% of them can ACTUALLY take off...

[Nuisance Value]

and the states aren't selling the f35 to anyone. at least not yet.

That will be news the British Government and BAe as they are part of the development programme.

[IamSpartacus]

The UK has ordered 150 of those F-35 thingies (the STOLV variant very similar to the US Marine's variant). Our Harriers are already on phaseout in anticipation of delivery of the F-35s and our two (new) aircraft carriers are being tailored to primarily operate the F-35.

Trouble at the mo is that Bush & his cronies have unilaterally decided to can the alternate engine supplier programme to save $2bn. The only trouble is that RollsRoyce get it in the neck and it fucks up our workshare ... plus good old Pratt & Whitney will get the fill $80+ billion in engine sales. In a nutshell its also about technology transfer.

Well the Amerikans can be smart, but in the meantime we're flogging Typhoons, Gripens and Hawks all about, and the Ruskies are doing quite well in China & India. Home markets are one thing but exports are icing on the cake.


Looking back on Directed's posting ... you'll find that the Sukhoi's will out turn and generally outfly a F-22. They tear up the shit with the F-15s and are marginally better than the Typhoon.

The F-22's advantage is range but then only if you're operating offensively in that manner. Yes the American's operate though air dominance (AWACS, EW, etc) as combined forces; .... but go up against a decent opponent and the Yanks will get well fucked over.


There's been lots of development in the Cope India (Indian / Amerikan) yearly exercises .... but best to start with this gem from a few years ago; Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time' http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

[beowulf437]

Well IamSpartacus that was an interesting article but it fails to prove anything. To quote the article itself.

"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.



Air combat is not usually decided by the type of aircraft but by the skill of the pilot. The ability of the pilot to make use of the advantages and understand the disadvantages of his aircraft is what wins in air combat. The example I like to use is you know how to drive a car right. If you entered the LeMans would you win? You probably wouldn't even qualify, even if you had a car slightly better than everyone elses.

Another thing is aircraft maintence. It takes 20 to 25 people on the ground to maintain one aircraft in the air. Few countries are willing to take on that level of expense to maintain an airforce.

These type of scenarios date back to the Korean war and the Sabres vs. Mig15s. The Sabres had their advantages, faster in a dive, tighter turn radius, better gunsight, and the Mig15s had theirs, higher rate of climb, higher service ceiling, better armament. Overall the US kill ratio was 15 to 1 and Sabres vs Mig15s was 12 to 1. The US pilots also knew when they were up against Russian pilots because they were good. In the 1990s the Russians finally released information about their air brigades serving in Korea. During the war they had a kill ratio of 3 to 1 and Mig15s vs Sabres it was 1 to 1. The difference being most of the Russian pilots had over 1000 hours of flight time with 200 to 300 hours of that in the Mig15 while most of the Chinese and North Korean pilots had only about 100 hours of flight time with 10 to 20 of that in the Mig15.

[IamSpartacus]

Fair enough Beowulf437, one of the links http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-vayu.html goes on to say

However, the fact remains that after the IAF-USAF exercise and the media blaze surrounding it, the myth of near-invincibility of the USAF has suffered a serious if not fatal blow. Certain American weaknesses in crew performance appeared during the simulated aerial combat. These confirm periodic reports of shortcomings in the capabilities of the American pilots and limitations in their range of action.

In general, the judgments made on the conduct of the American pilots in their action against the Indian pilots refer to the "absence of initiative, stereotype attitudes, blind obedience to rehearsed scenarios, lack of adaptability, etc". The American pilots are generally well trained, with very elaborate routines, but the highly structured nature of the training itself leads to a certain predictability in behaviour. This weakness leads one to question the validity of the method, especially like those being experienced.


and again for example;

This 'incident' has caused quite a brouhaha in the United States. There was a political and strategic assessment, as well as an operational rundown. In any event, what was clear was that the best fighter aircraft the American "superpower: could field was outclassed in aerial combat by the Indian fighters by a crushing nine wins to one. America was beaten at her own game - advanced technology and aerial combat.

A Times of India commentary captured the general feeling, which grasped the meaning of the limits of the exercise, as well as its psychological dimension: "What really happened is as follows: US Air Force underestimated the Indian Air Force pilots and their numerical skills. They thought these are another set of Iraqi or Iranian pilots. The numerical analysis and problem solving capability of IAF pilots are well known and are probably the best in the world. In absence of signal intelligence, satellite guidance and automated software control, the USAF faced Indians who were world class and far superior to their US counterparts. IAF recruits the country's best brains in the Air Force. It is prestigious too. USAF can only recruit as willing average or slightly above average. In addition, in absence of superior communication and jamming, the Indians proved absolutely formidable".


My overall impression is that the USAF may have become complacent in their superiority and regime of doctrine. What these IAF exercises have shown is the very necessity of such exchanges / excercises to keep both sides on their toes.

Also whilst the whole pilot, weapons platform and its support environment is paramount, it is also the rules of engagement which are usually the encumbering feature.

[Directed]

My overall impression is that the USAF may have become complacent in their superiority and regime of doctrine. What these IAF exercises have shown is the very necessity of such exchanges / excercises to keep both sides on their toes.

Also whilst the whole pilot, weapons platform and its support environment is paramount, it is also the rules of engagement which are usually the encumbering feature.

Your overall impression is based on one simulation. In one simulation, US air pilot performance was below the Indian air forces in the Indian's opinion. On the other hand, I would like to point out the performance of the US Air Force over the past 60 years, which has been far superior to any other country. Most recently in the theater of Europe over Bosnia and Iraq. Simulations are great. Real-World performance is better. You insist that the Russian jet is better at dog-fighting. I insist that the real key to air engagements today is acquisition, tracking and situational awareness. I am pretty confident the F22 is leaps and bounds ahead of any other fighter in that department bar none. You don't just look at an airframe to determine the best fighter. A fighter is a system that includes its avionics, air frame, engine, detectibility and also the training and support that goes behind it. You will find Russia lacking in the avionics and detectiblity department. AS well as in training and support.

[Nodbugger]

And as I have said before, separating the American military services is a big no no.

Saying the Indian Air Force is better than the American Air Force means nothing when it comes from a simulation. When there are rules and boundaries. Not to mention no actual lives on the line.

[dozer]

anyone who questions the superiority of the american war machine 'as a whole' is clearly retarted, this argument is now null and void.

[KrisEz]

they should really talk to IBM about ON DEMAND defense.

[astro]

australia is replacing the antique f-111 with jsf's, but that will be years off. by the time we buy anything good, it won't be good anymore.

and the states aren't selling the f35 to anyone. at least not yet.

I won't get too deep into this conversation, because I won't get myself out. What I will say, however, is that even though the F111s are 'antique', the're still an incredibly potent attack/bomber. Running at Mach 1.5 and 50 feet above the ground is one of the most incredible things to behold. Due to constant upgrades of Avionics and weapons packages, the F111s are still one of the most effective attack/bombers in service. Pity they cost so much to run, or they would have seen action in BushWar2 instead of the F/A-18s.

On a side note, it's interesting how even though they're an attack/bomber aircraft they still bear the fighter "F" designation, though, isn't it? They were originally designed as an "all-in-one" fighter, and were dropped due to costs. The navy 'B' variant was replaced by the later developed and much praised Grumman F14 Tomcat. I still prefer their original name "TFX" - Tactical Fighter eXperimental. It just sounds cool - it must be the X :)

As for the F22 Raptor, they'll always have a purpose. Same as the Eurofighter, the F35 and whatever else is out there (the Saab Gripens are incredible, by the way). While they may not have the elite russian pilots to fly against, they'll always have missions that are important at the time.

Case in point, most modern military aircraft are capable of providing BVR (beyond visual range) support of ground, sea and rotary-wing units. Think about it - if you were a blackhawk pilot rolling into an enemy area, wouldn't you like to know that there was an AIM-54 Phoenix pointing towards anything that might come towards you? I know I would. On top of that, situations like 9/11 may arise again, and it's piss-easy for an F22 to take out a passenger aircraft with no jamming equipment whatsoever.

Then again, nowadays the F22, F35, JSF etc seem redundant when their main opponent is camels.

On a final note, remember that every piece of Military hardware that we use is made by the lowest bidder ;)

[IamSpartacus]

The simple side of it is that under USA managed simulations the immortalised invincible battle proven, but nevertheless aging F-15 now gets its ass whooped. One step further than simulations are, for example, the exercises conducted with the Indian Air Force where the F-15 is again owned, not just by the latest Sukhoi off the production line, but by some older MiG & Su models flown by some very determined pilots.

The USAF has used these 'embarrassments' to good effect iin bolstering support for the F-22 Raptor, AA missile improvements, training improvements, etc ... we'll have to wait until the next big kickoff to see whether the USAF has learnt its lessons, or gets well shafted.

I still postulate that the F-22 has missed it mark and there is no real role. The F-35 and its variants will provide sufficient capability for adaptave growth in the near future ... and thus the F-22 programme should be canned.

[Nodbugger]

The simple side of it is that under USA managed simulations the immortalised invincible battle proven, but nevertheless aging F-15 now gets its ass whooped. One step further than simulations are, for example, the exercises conducted with the Indian Air Force where the F-15 is again owned, not just by the latest Sukhoi off the production line, but by some older MiG & Su models flown by some very determined pilots.

The USAF has used these 'embarrassments' to good effect iin bolstering support for the F-22 Raptor, AA missile improvements, training improvements, etc ... we'll have to wait until the next big kickoff to see whether the USAF has learnt its lessons, or gets well shafted.

I still postulate that the F-22 has missed it mark and there is no real role. The F-35 and its variants will provide sufficient capability for adaptave growth in the near future ... and thus the F-22 programme should be canned.

As I have said before these fake set ups mean nothing. They are far too different from an actual combat situation to take any of it as a representation of what a real combat situation would be like. In reality these Indian jets would have been destroyed before they had even taken off and if they had taken off a surface ship could take them out from well over 100 miles away.

[Ic3]

As I have said before these fake set ups mean nothing. They are far too different from an actual combat situation to take any of it as a representation of what a real combat situation would be like. In reality these Indian jets would have been destroyed before they had even taken off and if they had taken off a surface ship could take them out from well over 100 miles away.

So wat's the point of doing it if all it does is waste the tax payers money on a pointless exercise?

[Nodbugger]

So wat's the point of doing it if all it does is waste the tax payers money on a pointless exercise?

To give India some practice? Better international relations?

[Xythan]

Ah...Nodbugger, it has been too long...

A plain NOPE hmm? Is that it?

Look up the Russian Plasma Stealth will you?

[Nodbugger]

Ah...Nodbugger, it has been too long...

A plain NOPE hmm? Is that it?

Look up the Russian Plasma Stealth will you?

Look up Russia's financial situation.

[s3raph]

I won't get too deep into this conversation, because I won't get myself out. What I will say, however, is that even though the F111s are 'antique', the're still an incredibly potent attack/bomber. Running at Mach 1.5 and 50 feet above the ground is one of the most incredible things to behold.

Yeah, they did that over my university bar in the CBD once as a practice for a display later in the week. Bastard made me fall of my stool and spill my beer.

[Matt_R]

The F-22 was to replace the F-15, the F-35 (JSF) was to replace the F-16 in the USAF (and the Harrier in the USMC and Hornet in the USN).

Now with all the cutting of the production, the costs go up. The JSF is turning in to a real big mess and may actually end up costing more per unit than the F-22. At least the F-22 is in active service now (how cool would it be to fly the F-22 in Hawaii. Talk about a dream assignment).

In the RAAF, the F-35 is intended to replace both the F/A-18 and the F-111. It'll replace the -18 ok, but it is nowhere near capable enough to replace the -111. There has been talk of buying the F-22 instead, which would be a far more capable replacement of both aircraft.

Regarding the USAF -v- India... The USAF always holds back when training against another country, and funny how the F-15 "loss" to India came at a time when they were deciding on how many F-22's to build. Of course, the Indians could have gotten lucky - that happens too. Did anybody else see the F-22 "Kill" by the Superhornet? - in reality the Superbug would have gotten splattered long before it got to gun range.

The F-22 is certainly a great weapon, or course it isn't invincible (nothing is), but it's a damn sight better than anything else flying at the moment and will probably be the greatest manned fighter of all time. ever.

Combine the stealth and sensor integration with the speed and agility, and nothing should be able to touch it. In a real shooting war, the other guy will be dead rather quickly.

[Ic3]

To give India some practice? Better international relations?

How is it practice if you don't take it seriously?

[astro]

In the RAAF, the F-35 is intended to replace both the F/A-18 and the F-111. It'll replace the -18 ok, but it is nowhere near capable enough to replace the -111. There has been talk of buying the F-22 instead, which would be a far more capable replacement of both aircraft.

F-22 to replace both a Multirole Attack/Fighter/Interceptor and a Strategic Attack/Bomber/Electronic Warfare Aircraft? Bah!

The RAAF already has it's eggs in 2 baskets - does anyone really think they can squeeze it down to one?

[Nodbugger]

How is it practice if you don't take it seriously?

Because the US doing mediocre is still better practice for India than most countries.

Ever hear of a Handicap?

[Javaxcx]

Because the US doing mediocre is still better practice for India than most countries.

Ever hear of a Handicap?

lol, you have absolutely no comprehension of the military.

Join the army yet? Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Nodbugger]

lol, you have absolutely no comprehension of the military.

Join the army yet? Yeah, I didn't think so.

And you have no idea about international relations.

If we kicked everyones ass, like we can, people would be less likely to deal with us. Now India thinks they are have a superior Air force and gets bragging rights.

[TheMightyPhill]

Delusion.... one 'L' or two?

[Javaxcx]

Delusion.... one 'L' or two?

Might as well use two. Maybe it'll have more an impact.

America routinely does NOT "kick ass" in international training scenarios. Both competitive and joint. Nodbugger's point exists only in his head and not in practice. Seeing how he refuses to join the army (but has few qualm of sending others to warring nations), he'll never be privvy to the reality of the situation.

[Nodbugger]

Might as well use two. Maybe it'll have more an impact.

America routinely does NOT "kick ass" in international training scenarios. Both competitive and joint. Nodbugger's point exists only in his head and not in practice. Seeing how he refuses to join the army (but has few qualm of sending others to warring nations), he'll never be privvy to the reality of the situation.

Get the hell of your high horse, I'm in AFROTC. Or will be in the upcoming Fall semester.

And yes, the US is combat proven, unlike India or really much of any other country.

They are just never taken seriously.


My parents always talk about these exercises, where they had so many restrictions there wasn't a point, they were never able to put everything out that they would normally have. They were limited in nearly every aspect of the training mission, even though in a real life situation they wouldn't have certain limitations.

http://www.skippyslist.com/skippylist.html

[IamSpartacus]

Indian troops fought for the empire with great courage and honour in WW2 and earlier conflicts ... nearly 30 Victoria Crosses awarded by Britain for WW2 actions. I also seem to remember that since partition, India is ahead some 4 - nil in wars with Pakistan.

Pretty good track record.

[Nodbugger]

Indian troops fought for the empire with great courage and honour in WW2 and earlier conflicts ... nearly 30 Victoria Crosses awarded by Britain for WW2 actions. I also seem to remember that since partition, India is ahead some 4 - nil in wars with Pakistan.

Pretty good track record.


Except that is World War 2. Equipment, tactics and people have changed since then.

[IamSpartacus]

Most splendid Nod*, the Indians have heavily invested in their armed forces ... and getting back on track ... have invested much in their whole Air Force infrastructure.

Yes equipment has changed since WW2, tactics have evolved but people haven't really changed though; and they remember the sacrifices and battle honours of their predecessors.

[Javaxcx]

Get the hell of your high horse, I'm in AFROTC. Or will be in the upcoming Fall semester.

And yes, the US is combat proven, unlike India or really much of any other country.

They are just never taken seriously.

Right, you're NOT in the army kid. You're twiddling your thumbs when you could be at the very least be joining a reserve unit and completing the most basic training available. You have chosen not to do this, and yet still lay claim to have knowledge of fundamental affairs when you have ACTUAL PEOPLE IN THE ARMY telling you otherwise. Christ, you're thick. You're not in the air force yet, and the way you're going I don't see it in the near future for you either.

I'm assuming that last line means something you thought was an argumentative point. Too bad your skill with this language is shoddy at best. Further, seeing how you yourself are not readily experiencing these excerises you claim aren't taken seriously, maybe you can enlighten me as to what exactly you're not taking seriously? I might not be at liberty to discuss it by law, but since you're the all-knowing civilian hypocrite, you aren't. So spill the beans smart ass. I'd really like to know what it is you think the army isn't taking seriously.