It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Well there was a thread about the air-force removing the "A" from the name, would would mean that they skipped the whole attack role. They actually managed to drop a couple of bombs, but they cancelled the project if I remember correctly...
General Ronald E. Keys, Commander of Air Combat Command, made the historic announcement at Langley Air Force Base, Va., from a Raptor hangar near his headquarters. “The F-22A fulfills a long quest to bring 5th generation capabilities of stealth, supercruise, and precision to the warfighter today and for decades to come,” said General Keys in an Air Force news release. “If we go to war tomorrow, the Raptor will go with us.”
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Well there was a thread about the air-force removing the "A" from the name, would would mean that they skipped the whole attack role. They actually managed to drop a couple of bombs, but they cancelled the project if I remember correctly...
Flight International - 20 Dec 2005
The US Air Force is celebrating the F-22 Raptors service entry, but US troops on the ground in Iraq are unlikely to feel as joyous
Theres something discomfiting about spending tens of billions of dollars more on a weapon that virtually everyone realises is useless in the ongoing war against faceless insurgents and terrorists. [snip]
USAF Chief of Staff Gen Michael Mosely agrees "In the role that we're in now with F-15E's carrying 2,000 pounders and F-16's carrying 500 and 2000 pounders, does the F-22 bring us something significantly different to this fight this afternoon? The answer is no."
[snip]
Calling it the F/A-22 for three years might have been a shrewd marketing gimmick by the air force brass but it cannot overcome the reality that the Raptors being delivered today are not optimised for ground attack missions............the first multi role capability will not arrive until at least the end of this decade.
Originally posted by Canada_EH
As intelgurl posted the A was dropped or moved for other reasons. On the digital news letter they say that the A was moved to the end of hte name ie F-22A but I have to say I've never heard of the reason intelgurl gave, though it does make sence.
Originally posted by waynos
looks like an example of management speak to me. 'mission capable' seems to be a newly invented made up term, the question I ask myself is why? Surely if the F-22 was fully operational in the air to air and air to ground roles they would just say 'fully operational'. Do they mean that they can hang bombs on it and release them? If so that would qualify as 'mission capable' but then it could also, equally, apply to ANY aeroplane in service. On the other hand does the Raptor have a fully functioning A2G precision guidance capability yet? A senior USAF general seems to believe not.
I'm as in the dark as you are but wht would a general tell Flight that it will not be capable of supplaqnting the F-16 and F-15E until the end of this decade at the earliest?
Originally posted by intelgurl
The F-22 had the "A" dropped from the name because the "F/A" was considered a Navy prefix.
Originally posted by intelgurl
In fact, if you look at all the jet fighter aircraft the US has had, the F/A-18 is the only "F/A" designated aircraft I can find. Not even the F-117 which is nothing but an A2G aircraft. Interesting, huh?
[edit on 1-24-2006 by intelgurl]
Originally posted by intelgurl
Ghost,
No need to go off on a tangent here, what General Moseley implied about the "F/A" designation being a Navy nomenclature was in jest, not an official policy statement.
Originally posted by ghost
So the Hornet's correct designation is just F-18 and the F/A is unofficial?
Tim