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.

 

F22 rendered useless by it's own side

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
A very interesting article:



The US's pricey fighting flops
By Daniel Smith
"You go to war with the army you have," former US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld famously noted. "They might not be the army you want or have at a later time." Echoing Rumsfeld, President George W Bush said in his 2007 State of the Union address: "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in."
Related link: www.atimes.com...


Mod edit: Trimmed quote of huge length


[edit on 3/1/07 by FredT]




posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Hmmmm. The article seems to be delving into the as yet fully explored electrocnic attack and recce abilites of the Raptor. The AESA radar on the F-22, F-35, F-18 E/F and F-15 C/D/E's when so equiped will have this ability as well.

But the Raptor is first and foremost a air superiority fighter. Any other mission it can do is a plus but secondary to its primary goal. More to the point, why would the USAF use its premier fighter in a role that could be performed by a cheaper drone. I have read about the difficult electronic environment over Iraq and if a EC-130 Compas Call a/c has trouble with its far larger jammers and ECM equipment how is a much smaller fighter going to fare?



[edit on 3/1/07 by FredT]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
It is also out of date. It was published in Flight magazine about a year ago and I distinctly remember posting a discussion about it on here.

The point, at the time, was purely about the fact that the F-22 would bring nothing to the fight in Iraq, due to its design role, whereas the F-16 was perfectly suited. Nothing at all about the F-22 being useless. It seems that some details have been added/changed over the year that has passed since the Keys was interviewed. Unless his quotes have just been lifted and used out of context? Surely not?


I guess people will spin anything (and I was called a 'Raptor hater' on here once too
)



[edit on 1-3-2007 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
The reason is because you don't develop weapons to be used immediately, you use them for the future, in most cases. We're going to be using the F-22 for a long time now, we can't just halt aircraft and weapons development because it's not immediately applicable to a small, localized conflict.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The point, at the time, was purely about the fact that the F-22 would bring nothing to the fight in Iraq, due to its design role, whereas the F-16 was perfectly suited.


I haven't really ready the quote in question very thoroughly so apologies if I bring up anything redundant or irrelevant.

Just thinking here, it occurs to me that the design of the F-22 might not allow it to be quite as useful as the F-16 (I'm not saying that it's useless, I'm just noting that it might not be quite as useful in the situation). The F-22 Raptor, being designed primarily for air superiority, is an excellent Air-to-Air combatant, I will not deny that. I'm also not denying its ability to hit land targets as well. However the F-16 is famed as a multirole jet that, while significantly less advanced, is more suited to the sorties in Iraq.

What sort of sorties, this is the question none of you are asking, but since my post looks lame with just the first two parts I shall elaborate. Iraq is not known as a real air power in the world. It strikes me as odd that there would be any large amount of air resistance to quell, if any. The amount of ground targets that require taking out is likely to be a tad greater, what with hostile Iraq forces still present. Now, I can't say that I think an F-16 can drop a bomb in any way superior to an F-22. Locks release, bomb goes down (according to the laws of gravity which are, in my experience, difficult to completely defy), and some bombs even try to steer themselves. Fancy. But the idea here is that the F-16 is likely to be able to carry simply more of the ordnance than an F-22 (unless the F-22 has external loads as well, which I've yet to see) just because the F-16 isn't limited by space in the internal bay.

However, this isn't meant to say that the F-22 is useless. In fact, being that the F-22 was designed specifically with modern weapons in mind it may be able to use the ordnance more effectively. One other thing does come to mind, though. The F-22, while a revolutionary platform, is still rather new. There have been little glitches, the recent trip to Japan containing one, that need fixing. The F-16, however, is a proven jet that has been in service for years. I have to feel a bit more confidence that we'll have a stable sortie record using the F-16s in a combat situation that they're well-experienced in rather than a new fighter that is still quite hot off the presses. This, and if something does happen where a jet is lost the military will weep a whole lot less if it were an aging jet rather than a brand-spankin' new one.

Just my 1 and something cents (I don't know the Canadian-American currency rate).



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
F-16 is not especially effective plane in Iraq anyway, the most effective plane is A-10 and AC-130. Does it mean USAF should buy A-10 instead of F-22? Hardly.

Also F-22 can carry much more than f-16, after all it has 4 external hardpoints 5000 lbs capacity each. I highly doubt F-16 can carry 4 5000lbs bunker busters plus 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders. Just because it's not specialised for ground attacks now doesn't mean it cannot be good tactical bomber in future (with external stealthy underwing bomb bays for example).



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
...(unless the F-22 has external loads as well, which I've yet to see)...


You mean like this? There is nothing limiting an F-22 from carrying a JDAM on the wing, just upload the software and plug in the pylon.



Also, that article is very biased and in some cases completely wrong. Everything is built for a purpose, you don't throw out the most advanced fighter on the planet because you want it to do a job it was not primarily designed for.

But anyway regarding the Raptor Iraq, Col. Wade Tolliver commander of the 27th FS stated recently that he would like to see his unit deployed to Iraq in order to help out and that they're ready to do so but it's up to the brass to make that decision.

And what could the Raptor do in Iraq you say? Well perhaps this... (read page 7).

Link (PDF)

[edit on 1-3-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Like I said, its out of date. Keys was talking around the time the F-22 was first declared operational, it was cleared only for A2A, and then not fully cleared - as is normal for any new type - having no operational A2G clearance at all. It was in this context that he was talking about the F-22 having no use in Iraq, not that it never would have any use.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You mean like this? There is nothing limiting an F-22 from carrying a JDAM on the wing, just upload the software and plug in the pylon.


Tyvm for that picture, I've heard of F-22s using external pylons but hadn't seen a picture of it. Thank you for confirming that.


Just because it's not specialised for ground attacks now doesn't mean it cannot be good tactical bomber in future (with external stealthy underwing bomb bays for example).


Like I said, I know it's not overspecialized and I'm not saying that it's incapable of doing A2G strikes, and I really tried to make it look like I wasn't saying the Raptor was bad in any way, but if I failed to do so in my post that's entirely my fault.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what you mean by stealthy underwing bomb bays. I've heard of the Raptor having the option for external pylons which what very recently proven, but I don't know about underwing bomb bays. I might just be stupid, that wouldn't really be surprising. Is this some sort of new development that the USAF is going after, or is it just a concept you've considered interesting? I will admit that the thought of an elongated Raptor with bomb bays bulging out just a little bit under the wings for more space does appeal to me.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I hate to say it, but the article is right in may ways. The F-22 is a truely amazing fighter, and a masterpiece of US Science and Technology. However, for all of it's "Bells and Whistles", the F-22 has one basic problem that Lockheed and the Air Force can't really overcome: It's OBSOLETE!

Folks remeber, the Raptor is the product of the US Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter Program. ATF was origionally concieve in 1982 to take on a new generation of Migs in air to air combat. It was born of the Cold War, which has been over for almost 18 years now. The world has changed dramatically in the last 18 years. Back when the ATF started, SAC still had bombers and missiles on 24 hour Nuclear Alerts, and EC-135 Command Posts obited over the country ready to command the military if we were attacked.

The Raptor was custome design to fill a mission that no longer exists! Taking on terrorists and insurgents, is a completely different mission from staring down another Superpower!

As a plane, the F-22 is cool, it does things no other plane can. It's problem it the world has moved on. People don't fight wars that way anymore!

Tim



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Err.. I have a picture on my PC of a wind tunnel model of an F-22 with stealthy external stores pods. However being new I haven't figured out how to insert it into a post. If you let me know how I can show you.

LEE.

[edit on 2-3-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Anyway, I'm just wondering what you mean by stealthy underwing bomb bays. I've heard of the Raptor having the option for external pylons which what very recently proven, but I don't know about underwing bomb bays. I might just be stupid, that wouldn't really be surprising. Is this some sort of new development that the USAF is going after, or is it just a concept you've considered interesting? I will admit that the thought of an elongated Raptor with bomb bays bulging out just a little bit under the wings for more space does appeal to me.



check this pic. It's wind tunel testing on small scale model by USAF (those white things underwing).
F-22 would not be able supercruise with them but it will still remain stealthy. And each bomb bay will be capable to carry 5000 lbs of bombs.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   
True enough Ghost01 but then the F-4 was designed originally for Navy carrier ops as a fleet interceptor. It then went on to be both a fighter, respectable attack and Wild Weasel SEAD aircraft in the USAF as well as the Marines and many countries.

Whilst the original niche it was designed for may have morphed so has the aircraft. Where as once the nuts and bolts of a design pretty much fixed how it could perform, the modern computing and software revolution mean an aircraft can effectively be reinvented every few years. This has infact already happened to the Raptor several times due to its long gestation. And will of course continue through block upgrades throughout its life. Whilst I agree that the Raptor may be overkill for Iraq & Afghanistan, remember that few would have predicted the end of the cold war in 1988. Only a couple of years passed before it was "all over red rover" for the hammer and sickle, the same can happen in reverse.

Your right the world has and does move on, but more often than not it just moves in a big circle.

LEE.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Curse you longbow
if that is not the very picture I was trying to post!! And you thoughtfully reminded me I got it from the Ausairpower site as well. (Still dont know how to directly place a photo in a post rather than just provide a link. Can somebody U2U me how to do it?)



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Wasn't a version of the F4 also used as a reconnaissance platform to take low level photos of Cuba during the missle crisis? I thought I saw a show on The Discovery Channel talking about this.

I'm in agreement with the posters that state some version of the aircraft will be used in the future. I'd also agree that the F22 may be a solution looking for a problem at present because we are not engaging an enemy that has an advanced air force as Ghost eluded to. . . But if someone eventually were to put fighter aircraft up against it I think you would see it's intended purpose & superiority shine.

2PacSade-



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I dont think there is a roll yet thought of that the F-4 hasn't or couldn't fill. Except maybe troop transport? Well thats not totaly true, they can fit 1 soldier in if they leave the back seater behind



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
I hate to say it, but the article is right in may ways. The F-22 is a truely amazing fighter, and a masterpiece of US Science and Technology. However, for all of it's "Bells and Whistles", the F-22 has one basic problem that Lockheed and the Air Force can't really overcome: It's OBSOLETE!

Folks remeber, the Raptor is the product of the US Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter Program. ATF was origionally concieve in 1982 to take on a new generation of Migs in air to air combat. It was born of the Cold War, which has been over for almost 18 years now. The world has changed dramatically in the last 18 years. Back when the ATF started, SAC still had bombers and missiles on 24 hour Nuclear Alerts, and EC-135 Command Posts obited over the country ready to command the military if we were attacked.

The Raptor was custome design to fill a mission that no longer exists! Taking on terrorists and insurgents, is a completely different mission from staring down another Superpower!

As a plane, the F-22 is cool, it does things no other plane can. It's problem it the world has moved on. People don't fight wars that way anymore!

Tim


One area where the F-22 would come in handy is its ability to analyze/pinpoint wireless comms networks, and triggering devices used by insurgents, and send this to other aircraft and intel networks(or engage and/or jam the source, themselves).

As the airspace over Iraq is permissive, external ordinance carriage wouldn't be an issue for the F-22 either. Stealth is only necessary until Air Dominance is achieved, then the F-22 and F-35 can take max use of their external stores abilities.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Ghost I have to disagree regarding the F-22 being obsolete.

The aircraft has shown a ability to function as a mini AWACS of sorts from its usual 60000 feet godlike perch over the battlefield. In adittion to directing other none stealthy fighters and deconflicitng them add in its potential electronic attack capacities, long range etc and its the perfect force multiplier for future conflicts.

If you used a two way data link to control a fwe UCAV's for say SEAD then its even more awesum



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Ghost I have to disagree regarding the F-22 being obsolete.

The aircraft has shown a ability to function as a mini AWACS of sorts from its usual 60000 feet godlike perch over the battlefield. In adittion to directing other none stealthy fighters and deconflicitng them add in its potential electronic attack capacities, long range etc and its the perfect force multiplier for future conflicts.

If you used a two way data link to control a fwe UCAV's for say SEAD then its even more awesum


Fair Points Fred!

As for your issue on the mini AWACS, I only wish to make one point: this isn't new. The US Navy did the same thing with the F-14D's. the Difference being the new F-22 has a more advanced radar.

Tim



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
If the F-22 is obsolete, what does that make every other aircraft ranked below it that came AFTER IT?

Shattered OUT...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join