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.

 

Fans of the F-22 Raptor need to wake-up

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Fans of the F-22 Raptor need to wake up and face reality. While the F-22 is a technological wonder, it has it's flaws. The article below examines some of these.

The F-22 Raptor is said to be invisible...until it isn't




posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I'm no expert on the F-22, but I believe that it's ability to destroy it's target before being in sight of the enemy is being muddled up.

It's designed to take it's target out from a distance, without being seen by the enemy. If it was a dogfighting scenario, the skill of the pilots come into effect, no matter how much technology the aircraft is jammed with, a WW2 fighter plane could take out a Tornado in close combat. It all fulls into the hands of the pilots.

From miles away, there is basically no skill involved, get a lock, fire missile, run away.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
I'm no expert on the F-22, but I believe that it's ability to destroy it's target before being in sight of the enemy is being muddled up.

It's designed to take it's target out from a distance, without being seen by the enemy. If it was a dogfighting scenario, the skill of the pilots come into effect, no matter how much technology the aircraft is jammed with, a WW2 fighter plane could take out a Tornado in close combat. It all fulls into the hands of the pilots.

From miles away, there is basically no skill involved, get a lock, fire missile, run away.



I agree with you. This problem is a political one not a tactical one. In the 80's the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner after mistaking it for an F-14. There were claims made that the plane's transponder identified it as an F-14. These claims may have been true, I don't know. What I do know is that no one is going to take a chance of something like that happening again. The rules of engagement given to US pilots is going to require visual identification before a target is attacked. Ever hear of "Murphy's Laws of Combat"? One of them is "If you can see the enemy, he can see you." By the time a Raptor gets close enough to identify a target there is a good chance that the target is going to see the Raptor. That kind of puts a dent in the stealth advantage. If the Raptor is allowed to take a shot from beyond visual range it is going to need to use it's radar and that will alert the enemy. Someone needs to rework the long range television camera that the F-14 had, so that a Raptor can get a visual ID from about 40 miles.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I took me about 30 seconds of scanning through this referenced article to realize it was riddled with over-simplified explanations and down right factual errors.

I cracked up when read the quote by Pierre Sprey, who said "“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. The day they send the F-16s to the ‘boneyard’ is the day the service becomes a non-Air Force.”

A cracked up even more when I did a simple Google search on the guy, only to discover that in his day, Mr. Sprey was apparently on of the origianl chief designers of the F-16. LOL

As for Mr. Stephenson, he appears to be nothing more than an author who makes a lot of money publishing books about military aircraft, and how contractors are stealing the government blind, and how the government is covering it all up.

Not exactly impartial, expert opinion.......



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The article is flawed before it even gets going, the F-22 is VLO, or very low observability, it has never been claimed to be invisible. Just another case of tabloid dyslexia for me, jim



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The article is flawed before it even gets going, the F-22 is VLO, or very low observability, it has never been claimed to be invisible. Just another case of tabloid dyslexia for me, jim


I knew that some of the article was flawed when it referenced 2 F-117's being shot down over Bosnia. Even after noting the statements made about the motives of the people mentioned in the article I agree with the point that the article is making. Nowhere is the claim made that the F-22 is invisable, what is said is that the aircraft is flawed in the role for which it is intended.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
What I really don't understand about all this stealth stuff, is the noise that these aircraft make!

The F-117 can be heard from miles away! Even if it was at a high altitude, there's a chance an enemy fighter will hear it.

Still, they work, so I must be missing something.

waynos, would you care to enlighten me? You seem to be the top don at aircraft around here.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Seeing an enemy before he sees you doesnt meen a lot . With the nowdays updates and new fighters and techonology give them ability two avoid missle . My point is that after the raptor has fired all its missle it wont has the option than to be involve in a dog fight and then its up to the pilots ability


[edit on 19-4-2006 by Russian Boy]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I've posted that story on my website yesterday, even though I knew it was a bit over simplified.

But the fact remains the F-22 was designed over two decades ago for a threat that no longer exists. Many leading defense analysts have lots of doubts about this program, John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org for instance.
The number of airframes the Air Force plans to buy more than halved to 183 at a cost of around $260M each.
And many test and capability reports should be taken with a grain of salt: "Independent" Test of F/A-22 is misleading.


[edit on 4-19-2006 by Zion Mainframe]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Yes, of course, Zion Mainframe, detractors, such as yourself and others here, are simply, errr, ummm, jealous or envious?


Though the productions should be higher, 183 is a sufficient deterrent and lethal force, and personally, I can careless about the price per unit--just keep them rolling and flying. There is nothing flying today that can match it, no matter how hard you or some here will boast and groan that there is. The F-22 Raptor will be the US prime fighting air machine till the advent of drone airforces. Bet.





seekerof

[edit on 19-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Thats just blidness Seekerof . The raptor has been overestimated by people who dont want to see the whole aspects of reality . There is nothing to special to get jealous except the powerfull computer on the raptor .



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
All I need to know is this and I am content with the F-22:

F-15 and F-16 pilots who have also flown the F-22 report loving it and being awestruck. If the very pilots themselves love the plane, that’s worth more than a million opinions from analysts and authors alike.

In the end, it only matters what the pilots like and feel is effective, and the plane has already exceeded in that regard. Everything else is moot.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Half of the capabilities of the F-22 are not even known to the general public.

The per-unit cost of these aircraft is being inflated by the enormous cost of the integrated weapon and sensors programs associated with this aircraft, which will revolutionize air warfare. This aircraft will set a large number of "firsts" when it debuts operationally. Some of these capabilities may never come to light unless the F-22 is thrown into combat.

This aircraft is a thoroughbred that comes from a long line of successful, combat-proven airframes that have served the US and our allies for decade after decade. Combat proven. There is no other litmus test. When Honda or Mercedes-Benz comes out with a new model which claims to be the next generation in automobiles, does everyone pooh-pooh the claim? No - because there exists a proven track record of engineering excellence and ability to be upgraded and improved. It is the same with US combat aircraft. The US has not spent the last 50 years designing and manufacturing combat jet aircraft that were miserable failures in wartime that few people bought. That honor belongs to other aircraft manufacturers. The successful technologies developed, combined with countless hours of combat sortie experience, has and will provide the US with the basis to continue to produce "best in class" combat aircraft. That is not to impugn other countries ability to produce fine combat aircraft. But show me the combat records. Show me the money.

These arguement are being driven by cost and cost alone. It fricken bean-counting by people who think they can get a Mercedes for the price of a Hundai. Or, who think it would be better to have 5 Hundai's rather than 1 Mercedes. Like Seekerof, I could care less about the unit cost. Personnaly, I have always believed in the concept of "you get what you pay for". The F-22 will be worth every penny.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yes, of course, Zion Mainframe, detractors, such as yourself and others here, are simply, errr, ummm, jealous or envious?


Well I'm certainly not jealous. With my website I try to provide a full range of news and opinion articles on aviation & defense projects. Only posting Lockheed & DoD press releases wouldn't be good, don't you think? You can't deny that the F-22 is a tremendous waste of money, even John Pike went pretty far by called it "utterly unrelated to any plausible threat". *


There is nothing flying today that can match it, no matter how hard you or some here will boast and groan that there is.

Weapons sytems and (ground)radar equipment become ever more important. If the F-117 wasn't shot down over Bosnia you woud have said the same thing about that aircraft, even though it was brought down with '60's technology.


The F-22 Raptor will be the US prime fighting air machine till the advent of drone airforces. Bet.

With only 183 units


All I'm trying to make clear is, the F-22 is quite irrelevant and too costly. I don't doubt it's capabilities (and secret capabilities we won't hear about for years).

[edit on 4-19-2006 by Zion Mainframe]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
With only 183 units



[edit on 4-19-2006 by Zion Mainframe]


That’s irrelevant. 183 is twice as many as needed when you think of any realistic use of that plane. That plane will be used to clear the skies in the initial stages of engagements, and 183 is more than enough considering the type and nature of enemy the USA will likely find itself fighting in the next 30 years.

This isn’t going to be an expensive bomber to ferry bombs to targets after the skies have been cleared where you may need a few hundred.

I do agree that SAM's will be the USA's #1 threat in any fight though. But as far as air to air is concerned, the F-22 is tops and will be there until the USA itself replaces it. Why? Im surprised you bean counters haven’t figured this out: The USA has, and always will spend more money developing and fielding new tech. And it’s all about the cash.

You only need to have a handful of F-22’s patrolling in any arena for them to be effective. Why? The real advantage is simple: It has the ability to get the first AND second shot off in any engagement. One BVR, and if that fails it will already be in a better firing position than the very surprised enemy pilot. That plane basically guarantee’s one free long range shot and then a opportunity to get into prime position before the enemy can really react.

And don’t get me started on that 117 thing, that’s was an operational failure, not a hardware inefficiency. Those planes reduce the effective ranges of the enemy radars creating larger paths between radar sites for the planes to navigate through, that’s how they work, they don’t even pretend to not be detectable by radar. And it’s been well documented that this particular instance that plane followed the same route for a period of a time allowing the enemy to look in the right place. If it hadn’t made that OPERATIONAL ERROR, they never would have been able to get it. That plane was shot down due to human error, not 60’s tech beating 80’s tech. PERIOD, any other interpretation of that event is erroneous.

Bottom line?

Best plane in the air, pilots of the most successful modern day, battle proven aircraft, in the entire world (F-15), think it’s the best plane in the sky. Us armchair quarterbacks can squawk all we want, but the people who count love it. Nuff said.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I'm no radar expert, but can't the raptor burt or pulse it's radar, acquire a target, lock on, fire and then disappear?



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I'm no radar expert, but can't the raptor burt or pulse it's radar, acquire a target, lock on, fire and then disappear?



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
well i think this is one of the reasons why i think the UK doesn't need the f-35 jsf, i feel the UK should go with more of a european aircraft like a navalised eurofighter or the rafale....in my opinion, american planes are for 'show' - they certainly look the part, but over the years theres always been question marks on the performence!!

compare that to european aircraft, THEY GET THE JOB DONE (less money than america spends) - typhoon 'arguably' the best military aircraft around at the moment, (yet its 4/5 times cheaper than the f-22)


tornado GR4, some say this is the best ALLROUND primary attack aircraft on the market, yet these are a lot cheaper than the f-117 night hawk....i just have doubts over the jsf capablity, could it be a complete waste of money? are the british government (other nations) paying for a rolls-royce without an engine?

is the f-22 a rolls-royce without an engine?

if thats the case i think the american government need to go back to the drawing board on designs for aircraft, because american tax payers certainly won't be happy if the f-22 is just a worthless shiny ornament which flys in the sky.





















[edit on 19-4-2006 by Sepiroth]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
warpboost you double posted.


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.


Quite wrong ever hear of LPI radar,awacs radar,data linking with other raptors or other AC.


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.
Well none were shot down these were long wave radars no doubt.


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.


Most 1950's radar is very long wave bigger than the AC. this can easily spot stealth AC but inaccurate for targeting if this was such a threat how come no F 117's were shot down. Besides if i want to beat ARMS ill shut the radar off and data link with JSF's using EOTS for targeting and datalink with awacs.


“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.”
Well the F/A 22 is a 365 24/7 all weather stealth fighter since it uses ram conservatively.
www.f22-raptor.com...
www.f22-raptor.com...


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.
Well this article seems to be filled with bull and the critics seem to know nothing. The F/A 22 is more maeuverable than any of america's other AC. Why? thrust vectoring,a sophisticated aero design and high thrust to weight ratios.


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.
It depends if you count R&D costs per plane and common sense the less you buy the unit cost goes up did they ever think of that.


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.”
Wow these Raptor critics are really getting desperate what sad crititcism shame it has no facts.

Most of the Raptor critics dont know much about the plane itself or the latest military technology this article is nothing but a wate of time.


[edit on 19-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
What I really don't understand about all this stealth stuff, is the noise that these aircraft make!

The F-117 can be heard from miles away! Even if it was at a high altitude, there's a chance an enemy fighter will hear it.

Still, they work, so I must be missing something.

waynos, would you care to enlighten me? You seem to be the top don at aircraft around here.


Well can you get ana ccurate position to run away or fire missiles. Besides the F/A 22 moves at mach 1.7 sound waves only go at mach 1 ever think of that. Hearing is not targeting.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join