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.

 

a serious question about the US air force

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
But the F-22 is no super weapon to start with and if it's supposed stealth capabilities does not measure up...


Pardon me but low observability in all spectrums is proven and the Raptors capabilities in this area are well established, even if not, naturally, fully known. There is no reason to immediately disregard it until countermeasures are further developed and actually proven in combat, they have not thus far. Also, so far the F-22 Raptor has demonstrated that under constant conditions it can dominate all current and simulated aerial, ground and sea assets the US military can throw at it. Put whatever value on this you want, it cannot be denied however that is an indication.


Originally posted by StellarX
...it's little other than a F-15 with less ordinance and fuel...


Allow me...

F-22A Internal Fuel Only - 3,082 Gallons (20,650 Lb)
F-15C Internal Fuel Only - 1,760 Gallons (11,792 Lb)

F-22A Maximum Fuel 4 x 600 Gallon Tanks - 5,450 Gallons (36,515 Lb)
F-15C Maximum Fuel 3 x 600 Gallon Tanks - 3,560 Gallons (23,852 Lb)

The F-15C's typical load-out is 6 x AIM-120, 2 x AIM-9. It is not cleared to carry any current air to ground weapons. Total maximum load is 16,000 Lb.

The F-22's typical load-out is 6 x AIM-120, 2 x AIM-9. It is cleared to carry 2 x 1,000 Lb (GBU-32(V)1/B) JDAM's, 2 x Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers, 8 x Small Diameter Bombs. In all cases it can carry a full load of air to ground munitions and 2 x AIM-120 and 2 x AIM-9 or a different mixture, of course. Maximum internal capacity 2,500-3,000 Lb. Maximum external hard-point load is 20,000 Lb for a total of 22,500-23,000 Lb.

Keep in mind that the F-22 does not sacrifice it's current typical weapons load-out for having a full fuel load, while the F-15 does.


Originally posted by StellarX
...and evolutionary developments of tracking and engagement systems.


Indeed, overall the sensors suite in the raptor is evolutionary and the best in US service, with specific systems not found on any other US aircraft. Its situational awareness and pilot interface is currently unmatched in US service. The same goes for it's kinematic capability (speed, altitude and maneuverability). What makes the Raptor revolutionary however is the combining of all these different attributes into one platform.


Originally posted by StellarX
If the stealth holds up to closer scrutiny, or actual combat testing


That's a big "If" and of course such questions are legitimate within context. Anyway, its low observability features have stood up to closer scrutiny, but yes the Raptor has not seen actual combat. However prior generation low observability features than those found on the F-22 have seen extensive combat with other platforms. They have proven quite effective and successful, again an indication.


Originally posted by StellarX
...it's still quite expensive but then by no means the worse investment the pentagon has ever made.


It is expensive, naturally, compounded by order mismanagement from civilian bureaucrats.


Originally posted by StellarX
As to the numbers i would be surprised if it exceeds 140 even if the current contract is still for 170?


As of March 20th 114 production F-22 Raptors have been delivered to the USAF. Numbers up to 122 are in final production, and the total approved and paid for buy is 187. It's really not a matter of whether that many will be built, that question is done as those airframes are already paid for, it's only a matter of time. Bring this topic up again at this time next year and I'll happily post pictures of Raptor number 141 flying. This current administration and it's Defense Department leadership will not increase the production buy, the real question is whether the next one will.


Originally posted by StellarX
That being said that is a whole lot of trouble if they can truly remain 'unseen'.


Please clarify this point as I do not seem to understand it.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by WestPoint23]




posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
I KNEW you didn't like what he (StellarX) posted, because it was facts disprooving the "MYTH" that U.S.A. ALWAYS was better than Russia,


Only hopelessly biased people defend such a view to start with and it's quite revealing that i must invest so much time in dispelling such obvious nonsense.


instead of pointing out one by one ALL of the "dicredited" things Stellar had said on ATS you just posted this


I have said far too many things on far too many topics and i don't mind repeating myself for those that refuse to go look.



I know why you HAVEN'T: it's because what he posted is "PROOVEN FACTS" you just confirmed it with your LACK of pointing them out!!


No majority of what i post is 'proven facts' and that will always be the case when dealing with weapon systems and their employment. There are just too many variables in warfare for 'proven facts' to come into play as often as i would like. That being said i do try and i do my best to appeal to sources and 'convention' ( such as it is) as often as i feel it's in fact reasonably accurate. I know your desperate to support whoever is generally agreeing with you but enthusiasm will never be a substitute for diligent research and more hours of research than most care to spare.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   


Hey Stell I was laughing at him not you man?!



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Pardon me but low observability in all spectrums is proven and the Raptors capabilities in this area are well established, even if not, naturally, fully known.


Really?


18 Of the three aircraft shot down during our incursion into Serbia, one was an F–16 flown by a pilot doing other than he was
directed to do, and two were the most stealthy F–117 Night Hawks, one of which staggered back to its home base never to fly
again, so it is seldom counted. With our extensive use of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) ordinary aircraft
survive just as well as the stealthy ones. Some claim that the Raptor has the signature of a bird. True, but only in the forward
quarter, co altitude, and only to enemy fighter radars. It is quite visible to ground based radars.

www.pogo.org...


Low observability is 'proven' in the forward quarter, co altitude, and only to enemy fighter radars according to at least this expert. If you can provide me with specific evidence that argues for a more general stealth capability ( small infrared signature/ any aspect RCS/ visibility to the naked eye and or optimized ground sensors) that is fine but please don't bother me with these blanket statements of ' low observability' in general when these claims are perfectly logical as compared to the performance of all past stealth aircraft. .


There is no reason to immediately disregard it until countermeasures are further developed and actually proven in combat, they have not thus far.


Which can and should be done for ALL aircraft instead of focusing on this specific airframe? Why not focus on developing a support force of electronic warfare aircraft that can so completely disrupt the enemy radar and fighter radar networks that RCS of individual platforms becomes irrelevant? Wouldn't that be far more efficient and keep thousands of US aircraft in service long beyond their current roles?


Also, so far the F-22 Raptor has demonstrated that under constant conditions it can dominate all current and simulated aerial, ground and sea assets the US military can throw at it. Put whatever value on this you want, it cannot be denied however that is an indication.


Under very specific test conditions were the opposing US airial assets are told to perform with certain systems off and others severely reduced. Basically opposing forces capabilities are reduced as much as LM and the pentagon claims it would thus allowing for a nice circular reasoning where the F-22 dominates other US aircraft because their full capabilities are simply ignored.


Allow me...

F-22A Internal Fuel Only - 3,082 Gallons (20,650 Lb)
F-15C Internal Fuel Only - 1,760 Gallons (11,792 Lb)



Fuel Capacity (F-15A)
internal: 11,600 lb (5,260 kg)
external: 11,895 lb (5,395 kg)
(F-15C)
internal: 13,455 lb (6,105 kg)
external: 9,750 lb (4,425 kg)
(F-15E)
internal: 13,125 lb (5,952 kg)
external: 21,645 lb (9,820 kg)

www.aerospaceweb.org...
www.aerospaceweb.org...



Fuel 13,123 lb (5952 kg) internal
21,645 lb (9818 kg) in two CFTs
up to three 610-US gal (2309-liter~ drop tanks;

www.globalsecurity.org...


And for the F-22:


Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,000 pounds (8,200 kilograms)

www.af.mil...


So i was in fact wrong in stating that the F-15 has more fuel and what i should have said ( and like to believe i wanted to) is that it's fuel fraction is perfectly similar giving the F-15C at least equal range on internal fuel. I know where you are you getting your numbers for the higher internal fuel for but i am going with what the air force says and ignoring, due to prior experience, Lockheed Martin/Boeing.


At today’s state of the art for jet fighter aircraft, fuel fractions of 29 percent and below typically yield subcruisers; 33 percent provides a quasi–supercruiser; and 35 percent and above are needed for useful supercruising missions. The U.S. F-22 Raptor’s fuel fraction is estimated at between 29 and 31 percent, similar to those of the subcruising F-4 Phantom II, F-15 Eagle and the Russian Mikoyan MiG-29 "Fulcrum". The Russian supersonic interceptor, the Mikoyan MiG-31 "Foxhound", has a fuel fraction of over 45 percent.[4] The Panavia Tornado had a relatively low internal fuel fraction of 26 percent, and frequently carried drop tanks.[5]

en.wikipedia.org...


So in terms of size and empty weights the F-22 does not in fact have more fuel which is made redundantly obvious by it's quoted range as compared to that of the F-15C. When one takes into account the F-15's ability to carry plenty of drop tanks without sacrificing it's 'stealth' capability it becomes obvious which aircraft is in fact the 'supercruiser'.


Key Performance
Parameter Requirement Current Estimate Margin
Combat Radius (NM)
Mission 1 (Sub+Super) 260+100nm 310+100nm 14%


www.f22-raptor.com...


So 200 km's of supercruising is all we get for all of that 'extra' fuel?


Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission

en.wikipedia.org...


And that isn't with it's maximum drop tank capacity either which the F-15 can carry without significantly decreasing it's frontal RCS.


F-22A Maximum Fuel 4 x 600 Gallon Tanks - 5,450 Gallons (36,515 Lb)
F-15C Maximum Fuel 3 x 600 Gallon Tanks - 3,560 Gallons (23,852 Lb)


For the F-22:


Range: More than 1,850 miles ferry range with 2 external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles)

www.af.mil...


For the F-15C:


Range: 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks

www.af.mil...


or


Fuel Capacity: 36,200 pounds (three external plus conformal fuel tanks)

www.af.mil...


As may or not yet be abundantly obvious the F-15 can simply gor further ( even at high supersonic speeds) than the F-22 without suffering anything like the operational drawbacks of the F-22.


The F-15C's typical load-out is 6 x AIM-120, 2 x AIM-9. It is not cleared to carry any current air to ground weapons. Total maximum load is 16,000 Lb.


The F-15C can, as i recall, carry eight AIM-120's with a center line and two conformal tanks so it seems it will have the range advantage no matter how much stealth the F-22 is willing to exchange for fuel.


The F-22's typical load-out is 6 x AIM-120, 2 x AIM-9. It is cleared to carry 2 x 1,000 Lb (GBU-32(V)1/B) JDAM's, 2 x Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers, 8 x Small Diameter Bombs. In all cases it can carry a full load of air to ground munitions and 2 x AIM-120 and 2 x AIM-9 or a different mixture, of course. Maximum internal capacity 2,500-3,000 Lb. Maximum external hard-point load is 20,000 Lb for a total of 22,500-23,000 Lb.


I think the following link will accurately illustrate what the F-22 are able, or will soon be able, to carry in the near future. ( your summary is as far as i'm concerned accurate)

www.aerospaceweb.org...


Keep in mind that the F-22 does not sacrifice it's current typical weapons load-out for having a full fuel load, while the F-15 does.


But when compared for size to say the Su-27 it's perfectly similar in carriage capabilities. As compared to the F-15E it's also revealing that it does not offer a excess capacity in either fuel or weaponry as it's empty weight is just about as much smaller as the the F-22 max take off weight is heavier. Why the American people should pay AT LEAST ( unit cost not program cost) four or five times more for a F-22 than than for a F-15E , in constant 1998 USD, i have no idea. Obviously when the total program cost is taken into account you could have probably purchased a combination of 8-10 F-15C/E's or spent whatever fraction you wish on evolutionary development.

www.af.mil...
www.af.mil...
www.af.mil...

And specifically as to your claim about the F-22 being able to wield so many weapons:


Armament: One 20mm multibarrel gun mounted internally with 500 rounds of ammunition. Four AIM-7F/M Sparrow missiles and four AIM-9L/M Sidewinder missiles, or eight AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles . Any air-to-surface weapon in the Air Force inventory (nuclear and conventional)
Crew: Pilot and weapon systems officer


www.af.mil...


Why not rather build on a platform that can already carry everything in relative abundance as per unit price analysis?


Originally posted by StellarX
Indeed, overall the sensors suite in the raptor is evolutionary and the best in US service, with specific systems not found on any other US aircraft.


It's major systems could all have been integrated into a evolutionary design of the basic F-15 frame and given the potential effect of LPI radars on BVR combat how much stealth do you need?


Its situational awareness and pilot interface is currently unmatched in US service.


All of which could have been integrated in the F-15 or even into a evolutionary design of the F-14.

Continued



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   

The same goes for it's kinematic capability (speed, altitude and maneuverability). What makes the Raptor revolutionary however is the combining of all these different attributes into one platform.


The Raptor has perfectly similar kinematic performance to the F-15C, and later version Flankers, and to argue otherwise is to argue with what we otherwise refer to as the 'laws' of nature. If the Raptor can in fact miraculously perform in ways that does not conform to those laws i wonder why the same enhancements could not have been made to the F-15 design for a bit less than ten times ( i am presuming full program cost of 70 billion) the cost of a F-15. In fact maybe that's what it cost to 'bend' the laws of physics ever so slightly but if so is it really worth it?


This was corroborated by a Lockheed test pilot who allowed that the F–22 essentially had the air battle performance of the
F–15C and the F–16 with the largest GE engine. Since this is physics, his corroboration is unnecessary, but at least he told
The Truth! Remarkable to say the least.

www.pogo.org...



Originally posted by StellarX
That's a big "If" and of course such questions are legitimate within context.


And which context is that? Here is some contest as to what stealth should real be taken to mean :


Real Stealth is measured against its five signatures — infrared, sound, visual, electronic emissions, and radar signature reduction to
enemy fighter radars and enemy ground-based radars.17 The F–22 is the biggest fighter in the sky and is
the first to be seen visually. This is anti-stealth. If cruising supersonically, two signatures give it away
and identify it—the inescapable infrared signature and its loud supersonic booms. Infrared sensors
have come a long way. The US Navy routinely equips its fighters with them and the Russians have
good ones for sale. Netted computers can track its sound. Its big powerful radar designed to see the
enemy at long distances and despite minimizing detection of its own emissions can be detected by
existing high-tech Russian radar detectors. Also, it is physically impossible to design shapes and radar
absorptive material to simultaneously defeat low power, high-frequency enemy fighter radars, and high
power, low-frequency ground based radars. Unnoticed by all the air superiority advocates is that air
superiority is primarily a daytime operation, and stealthy airplanes are stealthy only at night—hence
the dark grey stealthy F–117’s name — Nighthawk. The F–22 Raptor is not very stealthy. But, then,
stealth is meaningless operating against the small undeveloped nations that we fight — as are air
superiority aircraft.

www.pogo.org...



Anyway, its low observability features have stood up to closer scrutiny, but yes the Raptor has not seen actual combat. However prior generation low observability features than those found on the F-22 have seen extensive combat with other platforms. They have proven quite effective and successful, again an indication.


Extensive combat against third world military forces that would have lost those wars against third generation aircraft with barn door RCS's. The moment the USAF went up against a relative modern armed force it promptly had to write off two 'stealth' aircraft ( one shot down and one from battle damage) and soon after decided to retire them altogether. This against a country that could not even deploy a squadron of modern Mig-29's against hundreds of NATO aircraft. Basically we must then surmise , since the USAF refuses to admit that it lost any other planes ( what a joke), that stealth aircraft are less useful and more prone to getting destroyed than regular flying barn door RCS type aircraft.

As Zaphod's signature says " Logic is dead; long live BS".


Originally posted by StellarX
It is expensive, naturally, compounded by order mismanagement from civilian bureaucrats.


Sure it is but i would rather blame the civilians in LM, for lying, and those in the Pentagon , for not pointing out the obvious lies, than those in the US senate who have long ago apparently sold out to foreign parties. At least you know you can't trust the senators to do what's best for the people but why did the Pentagon choose to saddle the US armed forces with this white, if clearly dangerous( but facing extinction due to low population numbers), elephant?


Originally posted by StellarX
As of March 20th 114 production F-22 Raptors have been delivered to the USAF. Numbers up to 122 are in final production, and the total approved and paid for buy is 187.


In fact that's what a fully funded program will buy if there are no cost escalations or serious mishaps. 180 is pretty insignificant to start with so i suppose i have little reason to risk any 'credibility' by claiming that the original 750 will be reduced in further. Then again the B-2 program was supposed to buy about a hundred aircraft so a reduction by a factor of four seems to be the norm which means that 180 might in fact have been the target all along.


It's really not a matter of whether that many will be built, that question is done as those airframes are already paid for, it's only a matter of time. Bring this topic up again at this time next year and I'll happily post pictures of Raptor number 141 flying. This current administration and it's Defense Department leadership will not increase the production buy, the real question is whether the next one will.


You speak as if there is actual money for these types of programs and you really are wrong in claiming that a certain number of airframes are 'bought' outright. For a very long that's largely been up to the manufacturer with the final production number largely determined by how much money remains towards the end of the program.


Originally posted by StellarX
Please clarify this point as I do not seem to understand it.


Even 140-150 F-22's might be very dangerous if they are in fact as hard to engage as claimed.

I hope i covered everything as i am at this quite fed up with this post and don't want to spend any more time on it.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Good Post Stellar with lots of good points. I wonder why you put so much stock in this pogo report though. I'll admit out right that as of yet I haven't researched much about its author but I think that its need to determine how he comes to his conclusions.

There a couple times also in your post where somethings jumped out at me let me see if I can find them again.


The Raptor has perfectly similar kinematic performance to the F-15C, and later version Flankers, and to argue otherwise is to argue with what we otherwise refer to as the 'laws' of nature.

I have a problem in this thinking just from the simple stance of why build it and secondly I have yet to see a F-15 in a air show do what I have seen a F-22 do. I'm not saying that the laws don't apply but you seriously think that the F-15 took all those laws to the max, I don't even think that the F-22 does now. If the 15 was at the Max why build another plane that may deal with the physics issue better.


The F–22 is the biggest fighter in the sky and is the first to be seen visually.

Su-30MKI
Length: 72 ft 51 in
F-22 Raptor
Length: 62 ft 1 in
Umm with a quick search you can pull up this info that counters the Pogo report hence another reason to question some of the statements made which can be very broad.


The moment the USAF went up against a relative modern armed force it promptly had to write off two 'stealth' aircraft ( one shot down and one from battle damage) and soon after decided to retire them altogether.

The 27 March 1999 shoot-down during the Kosovo War and the choice to retire the plane on 28 December 2005 by the end of 08 is based around much more then the shot down of the plane. Its based off of 1970's tech and has a faceted design which has been surpassed due to advancing in computing. The design is much more maintenance heavy as well then either the B-2 or F-22 designs due to the focus on function not maintenance.

You can call the F-22 a white elephant but I personally have seen it up close and in the air and its a true flying machine and looks like its suppose to be in the air. Your argued about cost which a sore spot for any US defense agency project it seems so why is this one worse then say the F-35 lol (opened up a can of worms).
I'll admit the F-22 has hurdles to still jump and to actually get some combat experience but even then I doubt we would hear the full story anyways. The B-2s flew some of their first missions in 99 and we only now have started to see some details from the 8 years later.



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Good Post Stellar with lots of good points. I wonder why you put so much stock in this pogo report though.


Because the author has credentials that may or may not help to lend credibility to his views?


I'll admit out right that as of yet I haven't researched much about its author but I think that its need to determine how he comes to his conclusions.


Feel free.



I have a problem in this thinking just from the simple stance of why build it and secondly I have yet to see a F-15 in a air show do what I have seen a F-22 do.


Which largely comes down to airshow tricks which the later version Su-27's can easily copy. I am not sure if you aware of F-15 S/MTD but as i understand it can do pretty impressive 'stunts' as well.

en.wikipedia.org...


I'm not saying that the laws don't apply but you seriously think that the F-15 took all those laws to the max, I don't even think that the F-22 does now. If the 15 was at the Max why build another plane that may deal with the physics issue better.


I am not arguing that either planes operate to known limits ( either can do more but are restricted from doing so to prevent excessive airframe wear) but that physics only allow planes to do certain things for certain weight classes and powers to weight ratios. As the S/MTD indicates you can do a whole lot more with a F-15 given suitable modifications.


Umm with a quick search you can pull up this info that counters the Pogo report hence another reason to question some of the statements made which can be very broad.


I think what he meant, and it's certainly what i mean, is that it's the largest USAF fighter in the sky. Since Sukhoi rarely pretends that the late version Su-27's are very stealthy aircraft ( notwithstanding those plasma stealth claims) i don't think we compare these aircraft or use the misunderstanding as reason to dismiss the authors other claims and arguments.


The 27 March 1999 shoot-down during the Kosovo War and the choice to retire the plane on 28 December 2005 by the end of 08 is based around much more then the shot down of the plane. Its based off of 1970's tech and has a faceted design which has been surpassed due to advancing in computing. The design is much more maintenance heavy as well then either the B-2 or F-22 designs due to the focus on function not maintenance.


Agreed. I could have served my argument better by spending more time on why it was retired and that it didn't happen all that quickly.


You can call the F-22 a white elephant but I personally have seen it up close and in the air and its a true flying machine and looks like its suppose to be in the air. Your argued about cost which a sore spot for any US defense agency project it seems so why is this one worse then say the F-35 lol (opened up a can of worms).


Elephants are positively dangerous but your far more likely to be killed by a hippo, crocodile, snake or any number of other far less imposing animals. That is my point and if you want me to get into what i think of the F-35 just ask! (
)


I'll admit the F-22 has hurdles to still jump and to actually get some combat experience but even then I doubt we would hear the full story anyways. The B-2s flew some of their first missions in 99 and we only now have started to see some details from the 8 years later.


And i am sure the F-22's will do great given the enemies the US security state people seem to be picking and the fact that it will be so well supported against such hopelessly out gunned countries.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 11 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Stellar I feel your post is worth of a reply, all that I ask is for a day or two. I have work on the weekends and not as much time as I would like to indulge in my true interests.



posted on Apr, 12 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Stellar I feel your post is worth of a reply, all that I ask is for a day or two. I have work on the weekends and not as much time as I would like to indulge in my true interests.


Even when no responses are forthcoming in the long run i do my best not to presume anything by it so take your time and if there just isn't enough respond to whichever parts you feel most worthy. If we can resolve just one or two issues with plenty of sources and time that will eventually get us to something approximating a general agreement.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Part 1

I'd like to apologize in advance to the staff for the rather lengthy reply and large and numerous quotations. I tried to be as concise as possible while stating clearly my main points, I hope that my posts do not have to be altered, thanks again.


Originally posted by StellarX
Low observability is 'proven' in the forward quarter, co altitude, and only to enemy fighter radars according to at least this expert.


This "expert" is a former employer and lobbyist of Northrop Grumman and was presented during its competition with Lockheed's F-22 for the ATF contract. So pardon if I take his claims with some skepticisms as knowledge does not exclude on from being wrong and or biased. In any case I'll limit my response and summarize my main points into one thesis. I'll try to focus my main points on the overall revolutionary capability of the Raptor and how that translates to real world scenarios. I don't want to focus solely and get lost in meaningless details without putting them into context. Theoretical "facts" and specific figures are great but overall effectiveness and demonstrated capability are more important in my view.

So, regarding past performance of Low Observable aircraft; How many sorties has the B-2 and F-117 generated throughout their service against SAM systems in actual combat? The F-117 uses first generation LO features and is by no means the state of the art in this regard, nevertheless, two airframe write-offs in over 20 years of operational use is impressive, considering that in each case it has been successful at targeting the enemy. Being Low Observable does not meant being invisible and or invulnerable. It does not mean an LO aircraft will not need and or not benefit from support systems like SEAD/DEAD/AEW/EA if they are used in conjunction with it, you yourself champion "combined arms warfare". This is an example of that when applied to integrated air combat operations. Being Low Observable, in this case, simply means having an aircraft with an inherent ability and advantage which will reduce the effectiveness and or capability of the OPFOR's combat systems. Is the F-22 Raptor invincible? No. Is the F-22 Raptor invisible? No. Can the F-22 Raptor therefore be shot down by say an SA-20 SAM, operated by specific countries, under specific conditions and with a specific scenario? Of course. Likewise the F-22 operated by specific operators, under specific conditions with a specific scenario can also evade and in some cases destroy such systems wile fulfilling its objectives. If your main goal is to prove this self evidence point, congratulations, I concur as there is not much to debate. However one cannot doubt and still be intellectually honest that the F-22 Raptor offers no enhanced and increased capability then legacy fighters when it comes to survivability and effectiveness. Will a SAM system like the SA-20 for example perform in the same exact way against an F-22 then say an F-16 or an F-15? Absolutely not, and pardon me but I trust I don't have to quote questionable "experts" for this point. The issue is which system will have the advantage in terms of negating most of the OPFOR's capability, as no system in such a case can be rendered totally "useless". I'll let such rash and childish remarks be the domain of apparently more knowledgeable "experts".

As I said before the B-2 and F-117 have proven that "Stealth" does work and that it can be very effective is used properly. The fact that only one or two first generation stealth aircraft (which are no longer in service) have ever been successfully targeted, and in both cases, under very arguable circumstances speaks volumes. More so then irrelevant self anointed “factoids” from “experts”. Real world combat effectiveness and record is far more prominent in such discussions.

In any case, advanced next generation Eastern SAM systems have not been used in combat against the latest generation US LO systems, they have only been tested and since such SAM operators do no have real world LO aircraft to fully realistically measure their capabilities against, one wonders about specific claims. Stealth not only has actual combat record on its side, in terms of overall success, and not specific points, as those only further demonstrate my above point, but it also has a rigorous non combat evaluation on its side too. Stealth measures which claim to reduce the effectiveness of LO systems have not been fully developed and certainly not fully deployed, much less combat tested. I see no reason why the same standard is not applied to them as it is to the F-22? All real world tests, simulated and exercise results for the F-22 are meaningless yet some SAM systems are granted mythical status when their predecessors have failed almost totally against the predecessors or current generation LO systems and even conventional systems in actual war from fulfilling their purpose. Which was not to shoot down random aircraft here and there, but do deny an enemy from freely operating in local airspace.
In any case, even when F-22 Raptors have faced superbly trained command pilots who know US systems strengths and weakness, who fly with the benefit of numerical superiority and who sometimes fly with the latest US technology which offers combinations not possible anywhere else in the world (and I'm referring to the USN AEGIS/SM-2/Superbug AESA combination). The OPFOR also flies and operates with confidence an actual war would take away from a mere mortal not to mention flying with the support of AEW, EA and SAM systems in all battle environments (BVR, WVR, A2G, A2A, Land, Sea etc…). Yet they still fail time and time again to eliminate the F-22s capability. Now we know how our current generation aircraft have performed in actual combat with operators all over the world, and we know how they perform in these exercises against the above mentioned OPFOR with the same inherited conditions as the F-22 when it partakes in such events. And we know how they perform when these exercises conclude, and we also know how the F-22 performs as well. It does not take a man of extraordinary cunningness to extrapolate and use this, as I said before not solid fact, but as an indication of things to come.


During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise. But the capabilities of the F-22 go beyond what it can do. It is also able to help other aircraft do better.

"When you are outnumbered on the battlefield -- the F-22 helps the F-18 and the F-15s increase their performance," General Lewis said. "It gives them more situational awareness, and allows them to get their expenditures because you can't kill all these airplanes with just the weapons aboard the F-22. It takes the F-15's and F-18's weapons. It was very successful, (in its) ability to get everybody to integrate."

Link



One role the F-22 is particularly good at, General Lewis said, is establishing air dominance. This means making airspace above an area safe for other aircraft to come in do their mission. The F-22 is superb at performing air-to-air combat and eliminating surface-to-air missiles. In fact, the F-22 is capable of dealing with both of those threats at the same time.

"Because of its stealth and its speed, it is unique in that category, in that it allows us to establish air dominance," General Lewis said. "It goes after the aircraft, the SAMs, and the cruise missiles. And it can do it all at the same time. The legacy (aircraft) can do any one of those, kind of okay, but they can't survive in contested airspace. They can first try to take care of the aircraft, then they can work on the SAMs. But the F-22 has demonstrated, last year in (final operational testing and evaluation), that we can do that simultaneously."

Link



Of particular interest to the Air Force is the F-22's ability to deal with "double digit SAMs." A double digit SAM, Air Force parlance for Russian-designed mobile surface-to-air missiles, is so named for the two digit designator in their NATO reporting name. The Russian-designed S-300P Angara, for instance, is designated "SA-10" by NATO countries. The "S-300PMU Favorit" is designated the "SA-20." Both Russia and China manufacture these weapons systems, and they are readily available on the market. These weapons are highly mobile and pose a threat to Air Force legacy aircraft such as the F-15 and F-16.

"It's a huge problem in the future if you think about a double digit SAM. A double digit SAM is equivalent to our (phased array tracking intercept of target missiles)," General Lewis said. "As you know, PATRIOTs shot down some of our own friendlies. And the friendlies knew they were being targeted by the PATRIOT. They tried the best they could and they still got shot down. That is the future if there are double digit SAMs in that environment. You have got to go in there and kill them. If you can't kill them, you will be denied air space. That is what we envision."

Link


[edit on 15-4-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Part 2


Originally posted by StellarX
Why not focus on developing a support force of electronic warfare aircraft that can so completely disrupt the enemy radar and fighter radar networks that RCS of individual platforms becomes irrelevant?


I agree completely, as I said above focusing on one specific mission while ignoring others is not the best approach for combat. I fully believe in integrating support elements, particularly such as; stand off jamming, active electronic attack, suppression of enemy air defenses and destruction of enemy air defenses. The USAF and USN are lacking in this area as they either have far too few systems or no clear plan for what platform to chose for this mission and or how to implement such a plan quickly and effectively. A very good article on this topic can be found here.


One result is a joint concept technology demonstration called the Collaborative Online Reconnaissance Provider/Operationally Responsive Attack Link (Corporal). Northrop Grumman provides the network and BAE Systems handles the electronic attack piece. The system deals with a new domain called network-enabled electronic attack (AW&ST Sept. 3, 2007, p. 60; Apr. 9, 2007, p. 46).

"It connects nontraditional ISR systems with tactical-level EA capability and brings it to the point on the battlefield where it's needed," says Walleston. "Instead of having an electronic standoff weapon that only a few people understand and only sometimes gets used, they are giving the capability directly to the guy that kicks down the door. The platoon leader has a tactical PDA that gives him two-way comms and situation awareness from UAVs flying overhead."

Link



When the Marine with the PDA requests "digital fires," he wants a cone of silence to be created over the immediate area that disables enemy communications, say U.S. Marine Corps officials. The network then would do asset synchronization to determine what ISR and EA assets are in the area. If there are none, it would redirect one, perhaps a UAV, to fly in and turn on the requested support. The capability to take on a wide range of telecommunication threats would be pre-loaded in the UAV. A number are already being used for experimentation, including the Shadow 200 and Predator.

The goal is to develop payloads for all the platforms that can perform all the required network ISR and electronic attack missions. As they come into the area of operations, they are logged on automatically to the network through a common antenna set that’s patched on the exterior of the airframe.

A network server keeps track of everybody, where they are and what capabilities they have. It might tell an F-15 to turn on its EA system as it flies by. It’s then replaced by an EA-6B, a helicopter or a UAV, each carrying the same small, multifunction payloads.

There will be a demonstration of network-enabled electronic attack for the Corporal JCTD within two years. An interim version, demonstrating PDA-controlled attack from a UAV, will be tested with the Marine Corps’ Wolfpack platoon in August.

Link



Simulation of Network-Enabled Electronic Warfare Metrics to Assess the Value of Networking in a General Information and Radar Topology.

This thesis explores information network metrics, the concept of netted radar, and network theory in a network-centric warfare environment. It begins with a discussion of the relationship between the network space and the battlespace. MATLAB simulations are developed to demonstrate the concepts and quantify the network metrics discussed for important information and netted radar configurations. The effect of electronic attack is also addressed. Simulation results to demonstrate the signal-to-noise ratio performance with and without network synchronization are shown, including the degradation due to electronic attack.

Link



After years out of the spotlight, electronic warfare is reemerging as a critical part of Air Force plans to maintain dominance of air and space.

"Seamless integration of kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities" is the vision of future electronic warfare operations, said Lt. Col. James Albrecht, of the Air Combat Command Threat Awareness Branch.

Electronic warfare in the future will encompass more than just jamming enemy radar, officials said. The long-term goal is to be able to use electrons to defeat targets that traditionally would be struck with kinetic bombs.

Link



Although improved radar jamming is a centerpiece of the Air Force's electronic warfare vision, other capabilities may be on the horizon. "We are on the edge of this precipice where, we're evolving as a war fighting force to work non-kinetic capabilities," said Albrecht.

Gen. Hal Hornburg, who heads the Air Combat Command, said he views "electronic attack" as a powerful addition to the traditional arsenal of weapons.

Electrons literally could replace bombs one day, Hornburg speculated. "I look forward to the day where we can convince a surface-to-air missile that it's a Maytag in a rinse cycle ... I look forward to the day that from some capability from the air or from space we can do something like take an advancing phalanx of enemy armor and shut down its ignition systems."

Link


Link

In any case, the F-22 Raptors features integrated ISR capabilities including SIGINT and some active electronic attack capability against enemy systems. In any case the USAF, for better or worse, is going for an integrated information/electronic attack measure encompassing a Net-centric oriented approach. It will utilize everything from network to network attack, system to network attack and system to system attack. It calls for one plan to manage all these capabilities from every manned and unmanned system to every friendly network capable in this area of warfare.


That silence also previews some of the fighter's possible future capabilities.

"Because of the way the aircraft was designed, we have the capability to do more," Keys says. "We can put unmanned combat aircraft systems in there with Raptor. You've got three fairly low-observable UCAS in the battlespace. An air defense system pops up, and I click on a UCAS icon and drag it over [the emitter's location] and click. The UCAS throttles over and jams it, blows it up or whatever."

In Alaska, because the F-22 remained far forward at high altitude, with an advanced radar it could monitor rescue missions that the AWACS 150 mi. away could not. "We could see the helicopters down in the valleys and protect them," Tolliver says.

In addition to AWACS, the F-22 also can feed data to the RC-135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft to improve situational awareness of the battlespace.

"If a Rivet Joint is trying to get triangulation [on a precise emitter location], he can get more [voice] information" from an F-22, Keys says. "If an AWACS sees a heavy group 40 mi. to the north, Raptor can come up and say it's two F-18s, two F-15s and four F-16s."

Link



Moreover, Keys says, modifications are underway to transmit additional target parameters--such as sensitive, high-resolution infrared data--from the F-22 with a low-probability-of-intercept data link.

The F-22's advanced electronic surveillance sensors also provided additional awareness of ground activity.

"I could talk to an EA-6B Prowler electronic attack crew and tell them where a surface-to-air missile site was active so they would immediately know where to point their electronic warfare sensors," Tolliver says. "That decreased their targeting time line considerably."
In addition, the F-22 can use its electronic surveillance capabilities to conduct precision bombing strikes on emitters--a capability called destruction of enemy air defenses.

"And future editions of the F-22 are predicted to have to have their own electronic attack capability so that we'll be able to suppress or nonkinetically kill a site like that," he says.

Link


Link
Link



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Part 3


Originally posted by StellarX
Under very specific test conditions were the opposing US airial assets are told to perform with certain systems off and others severely reduced. Basically opposing forces capabilities are reduced as much as LM and the pentagon claims it would thus allowing for a nice circular reasoning where the F-22 dominates other US aircraft because their full capabilities are simply ignored.


This is not the case at all. US exercise such as Red Flag and Northern Edge try indeed to replicate combat as realistically as simulation and real world exercises allow. In some cases they are even unrealistic in that the conditions and parameters set are almost impossible to occur in a real war, meaning even more difficult than actual combat. Show the flag and relationship building exercises can be categorized as what you stated above but these are in house exercises with only very close allies participating at times. There is no intentional and premeditated fabrication of the exercise regardless of whether or not Raptors or any other type of aircraft participate. Not only would that be counterproductive to the mission and goal of these exercises; to introduce new systems and pilots to a large scale war environment far beyond anything they are likely to see so that they may gain some initial experience and increase their chances of being successful in the early stages of a campaign. Also, within these exercises there are engagements which happen outside of the official schedule, full up friendly versus friendly. Fighter pilots are naturally a very confident and in some cases cocky bunch, to think they would intentionally lose and not carry out their duty to instruct and or push the aircraft to the limits is amusing at best. In each of these cases, Raptors have consistently come out on top time after time, no matter what the simulated OPFOR has fielded and how they have proceeded with their plan of action.


As part of the research for this series of articles on the F-22, Michael Fabey flew in the back seat of an F-15D while the Eagle and Raptor pilots demonstrated their aircraft's capabilities in the air-to-air ranges at Tyndall AFB, Fla. (For additional details of the Raptor's unique air-to-air capabilities, see AW&ST Sept. 6, 1999, p. 84.)

Raptor pilots agree that their preferred location for the fighter while in the battlespace is at high altitude, well above the other fighters, where they can adopt a fuel-efficient cruise, sweeping both the air and ground with radar and electronic surveillance for targets. From a superior altitude, the F-22 used sustained supercruise to range across hundreds of miles of airspace before an enemy fighter could threaten friendly high-value surveillance, command-and-control and tanker aircraft.

Perhaps the most important revelation by the 27th Fighter Sqdn. was demonstrating the F-22's ability to use its sensors to identify and target enemy aircraft for conventional fighters by providing information so they could engage the enemy sooner than they could on their own. Because of the advanced situational awareness they afford, F-22s would stick around after using up their weapons to continue providing targets and IDs to the conventional fighters.

Link



The adversaries were wily and didn't want to lose.

"We had guys running in at 500 ft. off the deck," Tolliver says. "We had guys flying in at 45,000-50,000 ft. doing Mach 1.6, trying to shoot me before I know they are there. They would mass their forces and try to win with sheer numbers. None of it worked."

A tactic used by the F-22s was actually developed and practiced in smaller scale at Langley before the exercise. Raptors worked in pairs, integrated with F-15Cs or F/A-18E/Fs.

Link



The F-22's operating altitude and additional speed during the Alaska exercise also garnered praise.

"We stayed high because it gives us an extra kinetic advantage with shooting, speed and fuel consumption," Tolliver says. "The Raptor typically flies way higher than everybody else and it handles like a dream at those altitudes." Tolliver wouldn't confirm the operating altitude, but Pentagon officials have put it at 65,000 ft., which is at least 15,000 ft. higher than the other fighters.

"There were times we went lower, maybe to visually identify a threat or if we were out of Amraams and there was a bandit sneaking in at low altitude," he says. "The Raptor would roll in and kill him with a heat-seeking missile."

The lopsided combat ratio resulted because, "they never saw us," Tolliver says. "We got there without being detected, and we killed them rapidly. We didn't do any major turning. It's not that the J-Turn maneuver isn't fun, but we didn't get a chance to use it."

The F-22's Mach 1.5 supercruise capability also got a workout in Alaska. Because only eight F-22s were ever airborne at once during the exercise, four of them were constantly involved in refueling from tankers flying orbits 150 mi. away. Supercruise got the fighters there and back quickly. On station, the fighter would conserve fuel by cruising at high altitude.

Link



"We also used supercruise quite a bit because the fight was on such a large scale," Tolliver says. "The airspace was roughly 120 mi. by 140 mi. We could sit up at high altitude and save our gas and watch. We don't hang out at Mach 1.5. With our acceleration, when we saw the threats building, because we could see them so far out, we'd dump the nose over, light the burners and we were right up to fighting speed."

During a typical day in the Alaska "war," 24 air-to-air fighters, including up to eight F-22s, defended their aerial assets and homeland for 2.5 hr. Air Force F-15s and F-16s and Marine F/A-18s simulated up to 40 MiG-29s, Su-22s, Su-24s, Su-27s and Su-30s (which regenerated into 103 enemy sorties in a single period). They carried AA-10s A to F, Archers, AA-12 Adders and the Chinese-built PL-12. These were supported by SA-6, SA-10 and SA-20 surface to air missiles and an EA-6B for jamming. Each day, the red air became stronger and carried more capability.

Link



Among the Blue Force participants were foreign pilots from the Royal Air Force of England and Royal Australian Air Force, flying the GR-4 and F-111C respectively. In addition, the F-22s flew with the B-2 Spirit and F-117 Nighthawk, the aircraft that pioneered stealth.

The exercise is an advanced, realistic combat training exercise designed for fighter pilots, and conducted over the vast Nellis Range Complex, which measures 60 by 100 nautical miles. The training involves air-to-air engagements as well as engagement with ground targets, such as mock airfields, convoys, and other ground defensive positions.

Thrust vectoring, internal weapons mounting and increased power all contribute to the Raptor's maneuvering advantage. From the cockpit of the F-22, Capt. Brian Budde, 94th FS pilot, explained the F-22 is able to sustain more than nine Gs for much longer than the F-15, without running out of airspeed. From the pilot's perspective, the F-22 "is more power than you know what to do with," said Captain Budde. So much power, in fact, the F-22 enjoys capabilities alien to legacy fighters.

This boost of thrust enables the Raptor to take off with a full load of weapons and fuel. Furthermore, mach speeds are attainable without afterburners (supercruise) and coincidently, the F-22 features better fuel efficiency than legacy fighters. This increased fuel efficiency raises eyebrows considering the F-22 boasts 20,000 more pounds of thrust than the F-15 Eagle it's replacing.

Link



Despite the F-22's "unfair advantage," flying against the Red Force aggressors of the 414th Combat Training Squadron is no walk in the park, according to Colonel Smith. Aggressor pilots are made up of F-16 and F-15 pilots, specially trained to replicate tactics and techniques of potential adversaries said Maj. Bill Woolf, 57th Adversary Tactics Group assistant director of operations. In addition, he said the Red Flag is involved in a major reformation, designed to duplicate the world's most lethal threats.

"These scenarios are not made to be easy," said Colonel Smith. "The [Red Force] pilots are well trained and good at their job."

Also, Red Forces aren't limited to aggressor pilots. There is no shortage of ground threats at Red Flag. These include electronically simulated surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery, communications jamming, Global Positioning System jamming and more said Major Woolf.

Link



We're training now against emerging threats," said Major Woolf. "We need to understand what tactics are real-world threats, and duplicate them [for the Blue Forces]."
In fact, the Red Flag exercise is now so intense one 414th CTS critique quotes a squadron commander saying "This ain't your daddy's Red Flag anymore."

Link


Continued below...



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Tolliver describes the aerial scene: "During that mission, our Blue forces faced the heaviest air threat we've seen in recent history. The total mission or vulnerability time was two and one-half hours. Those flying as Red Air developed their own tactics. In a single vulnerability period, they would use mass forces to try to overrun our Blue forces. At other times, they sent successive waves of smaller individual packages in a variety of tactics. To generate the numbers, Red Air returned to a simulated base to regenerate. Actually, they went to a tanker to get fuel and then came back to create additional threats."

Large-scale missions are the raison d'tre for Northern Edge. The annual exercise is designed to prepare joint forces to respond to crises in the Asia-Pacific region. Participants sharpen skills; practice operations, techniques, and procedures; improve command, control, and communication relationships; and develop interoperable plans and programs. This year's event brought together more than 5,000 active duty, Guard, and reservists from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. More than 120 aircraft and helicopters participated, including F-15C/Es, F/A-18C/Es, EA-6Bs, F-16s, B-2 bombers, KC-135 tankers, and E-2 and E-3 AWACS aircraft. Two Aegis cruisers and several surface vessels were involved as well when the missions occurred over the Gulf of Alaska.

Link



Tolliver's opinions are backed by additional statistics. On one particular mission, though comprising just thirty-three percent of the total Blue air-to-air forces, F-22s managed to eliminate sixty-six percent of the threats. The aerial victory ratio for the Raptor in the first week of the exercise alone was 144-to-zero losses. (For those paying close attention, the one loss in the eighty-three-to-one mission was an F-15.) For the entire two-week exercise, the Raptor comprised just thirty percent of the Blue Air, yet managed to defeat almost half of the overall threats.

The Raptor did more than defeat aerial threats. The Langley-based F-22s dropped twenty-six Joint Direct Attack Munitions while working with ground-based forward air controllers. All twenty-six bombs were direct hits. Many of the pilots, who mostly flew air-to-air combat missions in F-15Cs, were dropping bombs for the first time in this exercise. Northern Edge was the first time operational F-22 pilots dropped munitions while working with forward air controllers in a close air support role.

Link


Part 4


Originally posted by StellarX
I know where you are you getting your numbers for the higher internal fuel for but I am going with what the air force says and ignoring, due to prior experience, Lockheed Martin/Boeing.


I am not getting my figures from Lockheed or Boeing; I am getting my figures direct from an Air Force Technical Sheet meant for maintenance circulation only. Also, you're the one willing to believe Boeing F-15C/E figures that the USAF would place such sensitive facts (fuel and range) about the F-22 on its official public site. And at the same time not believe the USAF and exercise results about the Raptor. Come on Stellar, lets not cherry pick here.

As far as I'm concerned these are the official figures found here, on Technical Order 00-105E-9, the most concise and informative source for this type of information on the internet that I have been able to find, check the link and you'll see why. If you disagree then please feel free to contact their office at the given number on the Power Point. There is a discrepancy with USAF figures but that is to be expected given that no one releases absolute facts such as these unless they have to. Any statistics such as this not found on an internal document but on a public website intended for mass consumption should be treated as a ballpark figure.

Yes it is true that the F-15C carries 2,000Lb more internal fuel (13,123 Lb) then the A model but that hardly makes a difference I'm afraid. Also, no current F-15s other than the E model fly or carry external CFTs in USAF service. Only the F-15E carries two 750 Gallon fuel tanks at all times, peace or war, any source stating otherwise is flat out wrong. And yes the Raptor still carries 20,650 Lb of internal fuel as I already have stated on numerous occasions.






Originally posted by StellarX
So in terms of size and empty weights the F-22 does not in fact have more fuel which is made redundantly obvious by it's quoted range as compared to that of the F-15C.


The Raptors empty weight is not public information, again ball park figures. Even for those quoted figures we have no indication which definition they are using as you can have several standards for basic empty weight then there is the standard empty weight and even factory weight. And lets see, the F-22 carries 63 percent more internal fuel then the F-15C, has a significantly less drag due to its "clean" configuration, operates at significantly higher altitudes where there is less drag and has a more powerful engine in both mil and afterburner. It also spends most of its time during missions not in super-cruise mode but subsonic and only using supersonic and super-cruising in a dash. Pardon the sarcasm but yes it does indeed seem as if the F-15C definitely has about twice the combat range.


Originally posted by StellarX
When one takes into account the F-15's ability to carry plenty of drop tanks without sacrificing it’s 'stealth' capability it becomes obvious which aircraft is in fact the 'supercruiser'.


The F-15C and E are both limited to a maximum of three 600 Gallon (really 592.8) external drop tanks; the Raptor can carry a maximum of four 600 Gallon external fuel tanks. Again, please refer to my above posted figures, they are correct. The F-22 Raptor can also jettison the entire fuel tank and pylon (as can the F-15) to immediately restore its full LO and aerodynamic capabilities.


Jettisoning wing pylons is neither new nor unusual for a fighter aircraft. To my knowledge, all current fighters have provisions for jettisoning some or all of their pylons. Certainly, the F-22 will enter the initial phases of combat as a stealthy platform and will continue in this mode until air superiority is assured for the less-stealthy strike aircraft. The F-22 can carry out air-to-air or air-to-ground missions in a stealthy mode. When air dominance is not in question, the F-22 can operate in a non-stealthy mode carrying up to 5000 pounds of stores at each of four external hard points. The pilot can jettison the stores and pylons at any time to 're-cloak' into the stealthy mode and use his internal weapons.

Link







Originally posted by StellarX
And that isn't with it's maximum drop tank capacity either which the F-15 can carry without significantly decreasing it's frontal RCS.


How do you know, because Wikipedia says so? Come one, at what altitude, what mission profile, what load, what fuel load, what definition of "combat range"? Yes there are several. Again ballpark figure, and once again see above for these fantastic range quotes. As for the F-22, it is never meant to fly into actual combat with fuel tanks on; the fuel tanks are just for the trip there if tanker fuel is not available. Once the F-22 gets near enemy territory the tanks and pylons are dropped and it's business as usual.


Originally posted by StellarX
As may or not yet be abundantly obvious the F-15 can simply gor further ( even at high supersonic speeds) than the F-22 without suffering anything like the operational drawbacks of the F-22.


What's abundantly clear is that the figures, physics and logic do not support this notion. According to you the F-15C can operate in afterburner (high supersonic speeds), with 37 percent less fuel then the F-22, with more drag and operate at a lower altitude yet still have more range? Even though the F-22 can reach those same supersonic speeds while not in afterburner, while not having no where near the F-15s drag, while operating at a less dense higher altitude and while having significantly more internal fuel then F-15. Talk about non existent operational drawbacks and fuzzy logic indeed.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Part 5


Originally posted by StellarX
The F-15C can, as i recall, carry eight AIM-120's with a center line and two conformal tanks so it seems it will have the range advantage no matter how much stealth the F-22 is willing to exchange for fuel.


The F-15Cs in US service no longer carry any conformal fuel tanks and as I have stated above it has no fuel advantage nor any likely range advantage over the F-22. The F-15C and E do sacrifice pylon space and ordinance weight for carrying three external fuel tanks and they would have to jettison them as soon as they are near hostile territory as flying into combat with such a configuration is not standard procedure. The F-22 can carry significantly more fuel then the F-15C internally and also carry an additional external tank for a total of four. The Raptor would do the same if long distance was involved and there was no tanker support. It would fly with it's external stores, punch them out along with the pylon near the target battle space and proceed to conduct its mission. However the only difference is the Raptor would still be able to maintain full LO characteristics after jettisoning the fuel tanks and still have significantly more internal fuel left over then the F-15C and the same amount of missiles.


Originally posted by StellarX
But when compared for size to say the Su-27 it's perfectly similar in carriage capabilities.As compared to the F-15E it's also revealing that it does not offer a excess capacity in either fuel or weaponry as it's empty weight is just about as much smaller as the the F-22 max take off weight is heavier.


The F-22 Raptor and F-15C are significantly smaller then the Su-27 and any of its derivatives, yet the Raptor can still carry more internal fuel then both. As for your F-15E, I already posted above that it does not really matter no apply in this discussion since it does not fulfill the role of the F-22 and the F-15C, maybe the B-1 can carry more fuel and carry more payload then either but it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. What does matter is that the F-22 consistently beats the F-15C, the aircraft it was designed to replace in both fuel, payload and virtually all other areas of interest.


Originally posted by StellarX
Why the American people should pay AT LEAST ( unit cost not program cost) four or five times more for a F-22 than than for a F-15E , in constant 1998 USD, i have no idea. Obviously when the total program cost is taken into account you could have probably purchased a combination of 8-10 F-15C/E's or spent whatever fraction you wish on evolutionary development.


Why purchase new F-15Cs, even if they are cheaper by comparison, although I doubt this as the newest and most capable F-15ss produced by Boeing (the F-15K) for South Korea cost 100-105 Million per unit in 2006 USD, when they would still be less capable then the F-22 in terms of that overall revolutionary capability? And again, see above, the F-15E if it were to be produced new would not be significantly cheaper then the F-22 and not fulfill its role. To alter the saying slightly, you don't by an apple if you want an orange because one costs slightly less.


According to the Korean Overseas Information Service’s November 1, 2006 report, “a winning model has not been decided yet” in the F-X Phase 2 program to secure an additional 20 “F-15 fighter-level” jets at a cost of 2.3 trillion won ($2.3 billion) “to strengthen [South Korea’s] air defense capabilities.”

The report added that Lt. Gen. Kim Eun-ki, deputy chief of the ROK Air Force, recently appeared before a parliamentary hearing and discussed the proposed buy. A ruling party lawmaker pressed for the purchase of the F-35 instead, citing its greater stealth capabilities and claiming that its price is only 60% of the $105 million each F-15K costs.

Link



Originally posted by StellarX
Why not rather build on a platform that can already carry everything in relative abundance as per unit price analysis?


It's called the B-52 bomber, again I don't see why you keep insisting that if something can carry more payload or fuel then the F-22 then we should scrap the Raptor and build that system, you completely disregard missions and roles.


Originally posted by StellarX
All of which could have been integrated in the F-15 or even into a evolutionary design of the F-14.


This is too simplistic, the F-22 was designed from conception with these key evolutionary enhancements integrated into the airframe and subsystems. There is no way to fully integrate all of them, and achieve the same performances, into any other aircraft without essentially building a new F-22 and calling it an F-15 2.0 or F-14 2.0. So you would rather consume more time, likely several years given todays industry, researching, developing then restarting production lines building essentially a new aircraft modeled after the F-15/F-14 costing probably as much as the F-22 and having maybe, similar capability as the F-22? The F-14s and F-15s are one, structurally degraded and not capable of such a retrofit without redesign. And we already have a perfectly functioning F-22 in production. I'm not understanding this nonsensical logic (at least to me) here one bit. If what you want is more capability then argue for a larger procurement of Raptors and or Lightnings which the USAF and I would wholeheartedly agree with, but this is just not logical nor practical.


Originally posted by StellarX
The Raptor has perfectly similar kinematic performance to the F-15C, and later version Flankers, and to argue otherwise is to argue with what we otherwise refer to as the 'laws' of nature.


I have no interest to mention the laws of nature but I will mention first and foremost former F-15C drivers who are now current Raptor pilots and other officials with actual stick time in the F-22 and let the people judge for themselves. For anyone interested there is also plenty of public display footage which shows just how much the F-22 outclasses the F-15 in maneuverability and other kinematic performances. As for the Flanker, I will say that the latest production Flankers can likely match the F-22's maneuverability and vise versa in certain circumstances, of course fuel fraction and combat load taken under consideration. However in terms of acceleration, sustained speed and altitude I'm afraid the F-22 has the advantage. Feel free to check all the relevant facts point this for yourself.


Thrust-vectoring is often thought of in terms of the classic 'dogfight' where one aircraft is trying to out-turn his opponent at ever decreasing airspeeds. Whether a pilot should ever engage in these slow speed fights is a matter that is hotly debated within the fighter pilot community. Certainly, there is general agreement that it is best to not get slow - ever. With the advent of the helmet mounted sight, 4th generation heat seeking, off-boresight missiles the slow dogfight becomes even more dangerous. 'To slow or not to slow' are questions of tactics and best left to the expert fighter pilots of the future. The F-22's thrust-vectoring can provide remarkable nose pointing agility should the fighter pilot choose to use it. What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15. The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

Link


The man being quoted is Paul Metz, former Lockheed F-22A Chief Test Pilot and also Northrop Test Pilot for the YF-23.

Continued Below...



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   

In terms of aircraft handling and manoeuvre performance, how does the F-22A compare with established types such as the F-15 and F-16 in areas such as transonic acceleration, supersonic acceleration, climb rates, and supersonic sustained turn rates? How does the supersonic energy bleed in manoeuvres compare to teen series fighters, optimised for transonic energy bleed?

Metz:

My previous answer touched on the subject of maneuver performance. It is interesting to fly an airplane like the F-22 which is optimized to fly supersonically as a matter of course compared to current generation fighters designed for momentary or transitory excursions supersonically. An example may illustrate this. The best subsonic afterburner climb speed in the Raptor occurs at 600 knots calibrated airspeed.

The fastest way to get to altitude in a Raptor is to accelerate to supersonic on the deck and climb all the way supersonically. Sorry, I can't quote the numbers but suffice is to say that we are talking high supersonic climb speeds. The F-15, on the other hand, has its best climb rate when the climb is made subsonically to 30,000-35,000 feet and the aircraft is then dived to a supersonic speed before once again pulling up into a supersonic climb. The difference in time to climb using the Raptor versus the Eagle climb technique is dramatic but, again, classified.

You also asked about handling qualities, which is a different subject than raw performance. Handling qualities refers to how hard the pilot has to work to accomplish a task. An airplane can be a great performer but, if the pilot is sweating bullets just to keep it upright and under control, it isn't a particularly usable machine. We formalized the desired handling qualities of the F-22 with the engineers early in the design process by defining 'carefree abandon' flying qualities. This meant that the pilot could do anything with the stick and rudder as well as the throttles with the assurance that he would never overstress the structure and break it; that he would never lose control of the airplane, or that he would never have his engines 'backfire'. Many hundreds of simulator and engine wind tunnel tests resulted in an airplane that today meets those expectations. The importance of 'carefree abandon' flying qualities is that it makes flying second nature and frees the pilot to concentrate on being the wiley tactician that the human being is so adept at.

Link



Performance
The Raptor’s supercruise range is not only good but also sets it apart from previous fighters. The large internal fuel fraction (fuel weight divided by empty weight) allows the aircraft to sustain these high speeds for extended periods. The ingenuity and craftiness of future generations of fighter pilots will determine exactly how this capability will be used. But I can say that this airplane will perform outside the realm of current and projected fighters. Since speedrelates to distance, such things as mutual support and strike escort take on new meanings in terms of positioning and reacting to a threat.

Flying Fast
The Raptor is always in a combat configuration, fully loaded and ready for war. The aircraft has no external stores, so drag remains low and Ps stays high. The specific excess power, or Ps, is a measure of the airplane’s ability to accelerate or climb at its current flight condition. Wing aerodynamics and overall drag are at a minimum near the design speed of 1.5 Mach at 40,000 feet. This airframe is actually at its best at supersonic speeds, with the best time to climb right off the deck. Conventional fighters have their best time to climb using a Rutowski climb profile. That is, they start with a subsonic climb to the tropopause (about 36,000 feet) and then perform a pushover to supersonic speed and climb supersonically from there. The Raptor can dispense with this complex profile and blast off supersonic from the deck. This machine just likes to go fast.

Link



The best seat in the house for supercruise is from a chase F-16 or F-15. Remember, we fly both these chase jets with just a centerline fuel tank to give them a fighting chance to play with the Raptor. Still, the F-22 usually leaves these aerodynamically “slick” chase airplanes in the dust. The F100-110, -129, and -229-powered F-16s don’t fall very far behind the Raptor in the initial acceleration through Mach. But the race is really no contest at the higher Mach numbers and once on cruise conditions. Nothing can sustain supersonic conditions with the persistence of a Raptor. Load those chase F-16s and F-15s with combat-representative stores and they would not stay with the Raptor during acceleration or sustained cruise.

Invariably, our test mission runs are dictated by the fuel state of the chase aircraft. A curt “Bingo” forces us to decelerate and take the chase to the tanker for more gas. The Raptor always has lots more supercruising fuel left. I would be a pretty upset taxpayer if this next-generation fighter didn’t show clearly superior capabilities over anything flying today. While the Raptor is superior in many areas, the airplane is truly unsurpassed when supercruising.

Link



The raw aerodynamic performance of the F-22A was without precedent. In military (dry) thrust setting the F-22A could cover the whole afterburning performance envelope of the F-15 - or advanced Sukhois, both still the highest performing energy fighters widely deployed. The F-22A was rated for 9G at combat weights.



With 20,650 lb of internal fuel, the F-22A internally carried 88 per cent of the fuel in a CFT-equipped F-15E, with no drag penalty, yet with four 592 USG drop tanks, a total fuel load of 36,515 lb could be carried, 6 per cent more than the internal fuel of the larger F-111.

Link



This uncalibrated chart compares the speed/altitude envelope of the F-22A in military power (dry) thrust rating against the F-15C in afterburning (maximum) thrust rating. The combination of F119-PW-100 supercruising engine and optimised supersonic aerodynamics results in a revolutionary advance in performance, evidenced by repeated one vs many engagements against F-15Cs during Opeval going to the F-22A (US Air Force / Author).

Refined supersonic aerodynamics allowed the F-22A to exceed Mach 1.5 in military thrust at altitude - the exact top speed in dry thrust has never been disclosed. In early trials, F-15 chase aircraft could not keep up, and test pilots soon reported instances where even modest heading changes by F-22A prototypes in head-to-head engagement geometries caused opposing teen series fighters to abort engagements entirely - an experience historically seen only in engagements against Foxbats and Foxhounds.

In the simplest of terms, the supercruising F-22A kinematically defeated all opposing fighters, and even without stealth would kinematically defeat most existing surface-to-air missile types. The only design with the potential to kinematically challenge today's F-22A are advanced derivatives of the Su-30 fitted with supercruising AL-41F fans, the Russian equivalent to the F119-PW-100 engine in the F-22A, and an LRIP production item since 2004.

Link



Thrust vectoring, internal weapons mounting and increased power all contribute to the Raptor's maneuvering advantage. From the cockpit of the F-22, Capt. Brian Budde, 94th FS pilot, explained the F-22 is able to sustain more than nine Gs for much longer than the F-15, without running out of airspeed. From the pilot's perspective, the F-22 "is more power than you know what to do with," said Captain Budde. So much power, in fact, the F-22 enjoys capabilities alien to legacy fighters.

This boost of thrust enables the Raptor to take off with a full load of weapons and fuel. Furthermore, mach speeds are attainable without afterburners (supercruise) and coincidently, the F-22 features better fuel efficiency than legacy fighters. This increased fuel efficiency raises eyebrows considering the F-22 boasts 20,000 more pounds of thrust than the F-15 Eagle it's replacing.

Link


Now when this capability has been demonstrated into actual combat, or in this case full on within visual range DACT, these have been the echoed results from all involved from the F-22 led Blue Force and simulated foe alike.


Combat Aircraft, 2007, May

Raptor Flag, report by Maj Lawrence Spinetta, USAF

1. Thrust of F119-PW100 today: 39,000 Ib class.

2. Supercruise speed of Raptor: 1.72 Mach.

3. Kill record of 27th FS F-22A in Northern Edge Exercise, 2006: 241-to-2

4. Exchange ratio of 94th FS F-22A in Red Flag Exercise, 2007: 36 : 1 (The Red force used "Unlimited Fighter Works", some Raptors were killed after they had run out of their missiles).

5. During the exercise, a F-22A was once encountered with three F-16 in WVR. After the former had killed two of the laters, the Raptor and the 3rd F-16 killed each other in a mutual kill.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Part 6

Another feature which deals with maneuverability, kinematics and visual stealth, which you brought up, is the unprecedented, and well documented, ability the Raptors superior situational awareness offers its pilot. Raptors have demonstrated an ability to dictate the terms of engagement due to their superior sustained speed, endurance, altitude, situational awareness and LO characteristic. What this allows a Raptor driver to successfully accomplish is to maximize his chances of success in the upcoming engagement by virtue or picking when and where to merge, if need be, within visual range or within IR missile range and attack the OPFOR. Raptors have demonstrated several times an ability to transition quickly to within visual range gain missile and even gun kills without being detected until after the fact. This allows them to dispense somewhat with the need for impressive maneuverability, which they have, and to transition back to within the BVR realm and once again either return to base, remain in the area to provide information to other aircraft as a mini AWACS or ISR platform or even continue the engagement themselves.


The F-22 is proving it's a dogfighter after all.

While it wasn't part of a hard-turning furball, an F-22--with its Amraams and Sidewinders expended--slipped into visual range behind an F-16 and undetected made a simulated kill with its cannon during the stealth fighter's first large-scale exercise and deployment outside the continental U.S.

The gun kill is a capability Air Force planners hope their F-22s won't use. The fighter is designed to destroy a foe well beyond his visual and radar range. Within visual-range combat and, in particular, gun kills are anachronisms. In amassing 144 kills to no losses during the first week of the joint-service Northern Edge exercise in Alaska last summer, only three air-to-air "kills" were in the visual arena--two involving AIM-9 Sidewinders and one the F-22's cannon.

The 27th Fighter Sqdn. aircraft--on deployment from Langley AFB, Va.--didn't get to show off their J-Turn and Cobra maneuvers or their high-angle-of-attack, high-off-boresight (which actually will arrive with the AIM-9X) and unique nose-pointing capabilities. The reason, those involved say, was because the victims of the three encounters, flying conventional fighters, never had a clue they were being stalked by F-22s until they were "killed."

Link



Invisibility - Even With Eyes On

When the Raptor finds itself in a dogfight, it is no longer beyond visual range, but the advantage of stealth isn't diminished. It maintains "high ground" even at close range.

"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, admits flying against the Raptor is a very frustrating experience. Reluctantly, he admitted "it's humbling to fly against the F-22," - humbling, not only because of its stealth, but also its unmatched maneuverability and power.

Link



Achieving nine aerial victories on a single mission qualifies for bragging rights in any fighter pilot circle even if those victories occur in simulated Red/Blue engagements. An F-22 pilot from the 27th Fighter Squadron from Langley AFB, Virginia, accomplished that very feat in June at Northern Edge exercises in Alaska. Six AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders, and one burst of rounds from a Gatling gun account for the total. Nine may not be the ultimate maximum: he had ammunition left in the gun. For aviation history buffs, nine victories equal the real-world US record of Cmdr. David McCampbell, an F6F Hellcat pilot and the Navy's leading ace in World War II.

"The nine-kill mission may get a lot of exposure," says Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron. "Was it cool? Yes. But working with F-15s and F-18s to produce a kill ratio of eighty-three to one that day was way cooler. Not the fact that one F-22 happened to produce nine of those eighty-three hits."

"The pilot with nine simulated kills flew as my wingman that day," explains Capt. Harry Schantz, the safety officer for the 27th FS. "His nine kills were a function of the situation. We were making sure everyone could get gas, and we were keeping our area safe. We tried to shoot every missile we had. Red Air threats were almost overwhelming, but we handled every one of them. We averaged five to six kills per F-22 pilot on busy missions like that during the exercise."

Link



Originally posted by StellarX
Extensive combat against third world military forces that would have lost those wars against third generation aircraft with barn door RCS's.


That's your opinion and prerogative, in any case that is still more combat "testing" and "experience" then all the modern Eastern SAM systems combined have ever had. Even Western SAM systems have had more combat experience, albeit regrettably against Western friendly forces, which in my opinion, further validates their capability, but that's another topic altogether. Anyway, unprecedented war scenarios and conditions are for more valuable then any simulation for the simple fact that there is ambiguity, unpredictability and an independent OPFOR, the fact that the US and NATO lost aircraft, regardless of type is nothing shocking, at least for me. It simply proves what I stated above that all weapon systems if used properly and in certain specific scenarios can be successful and effective, even against LO aircraft. We both know the circumstances surrounding these two cases involving the F-117 are still rather unclear to this day. In any case the fact that it was only two incidents from the entire sortie count performed by LO aircraft not only in this conflict but throughout their history does not diminishes anything. Again, I'm being repetitive but I don't think I can stress this point enough, LO aircraft can be show down and are vulnerable, like all other systems, however they do minimize (not eliminate) these two weakness. And their respective combat history proves this point quite beautifully. Minimal losses over decades of combat service while demonstrating an ability to continue and perform their mission successfully overall. The F-117 was retired for several reason, chief among these being it's outdated LO characteristics, its limited performance specifications, its limited payload, its maintenance drain and the introduction of the Raptor. I do not think it rash to conclude that most of these reason may have contributed somewhat, in combination with other factors, to its casualties during the Serbian War. In any case, here is the NATO official loss count for that conflict and an excellent article on the issues discovered during that war...


Table 1 suggests the impact of EW and SEAD on NATO aircraft survivability during the Kosovo campaign. By using this metric, one can assert that DOD's EW and SEAD efforts effectively protected US aircraft from Serbia's integrated air defenses. Yet, despite the low number of NATO aircraft destroyed during Allied Force, concerns have been raised over a number of EW and SEAD issues.



Link



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Part 7


Originally posted by StellarX
At least you know you can't trust the senators to do what's best for the people but why did the Pentagon choose to saddle the US armed forces with this white, if clearly dangerous( but facing extinction due to low population numbers), elephant?


Well you certainly know how to pick metaphors, in any case I trust that by now you will not be surprised to find that I disagree with that view. The Raptor presents a revolutionary capability greatly needed in today’s ever aging and degrading Air Force (think flight restrictions). Whatever the objections to the Raptor all indications lead me, and others I can humbly call more knowledgeable and certainly more experienced, to conclude that is a very effective weapon systems. No it cannot do everything which is why there are other systems under development and in current use that will complement its capabilities. The one objection, as I have previously mentioned is its low (currently) planned production run and high production cost. For that I blame the government totally, the Raptor is very good indeed but it cannot meet our deployment and defensive needs fully if such a small fleet, as the one planned, is not expanded.


Originally posted by StellarX
In fact that's what a fully funded program will buy if there are no cost escalations or serious mishaps.


The USAF is already engaged in a multi year contract with Lockheed for 183 Raptors lasting until 2011, recently the Pentagon has decided to order a further four aircraft to offset any future airframe losses and or write-offs. As I said these (183) are already "paid for", meaning that the contract for them has been approved by both the Congress and Pentagon. You can be petty and continue to doubt these figures as you have done on more than one occasion, if my memory serves me correctly, in any case it is only a matter of time, and I'm afraid that time is coming rather soon to when the production line might be shut down after the 187th production airframe. I suppose it does not mean much and only serves to bolster my confidence but I'd gladly prove that 187 operational F-22A Raptors have been produced, granted you are willing to wait a few more years.


On 31 July 2007, Lockheed Martin received a multiyear contract for 60 F-22s worth a total of US$7.3 billion. The contract brings the number of F-22s on order to 183 and extends production through 2011.

During the two-month grounding of nearly 700 older F-15s in November and December 2007, some US Senators demanded that Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England release three government reports that support additional F-22 Raptors beyond the planned 183 jets. Forbes has reported that the USAF plans to extend the production of the F-22 past 2011. This is believed to be a response to the recent grounding of F-15A-D.

In January 2008, the Pentagon announced that it would ask Congress for funds to buy additional F-22s to replace other aircraft lost in combat, and proposed that $497 million that would have been used to shut down the F-22 line instead be used to buy four more F-22s, keeping open the production line beyond 2011 and providing the successor to President George W. Bush the option to buy even more F-22s. The funds earmarked for the line shutdown, however, were directed by Pentagon Comptroller Tina W. Jonas on December 17, 2007, to be used to fund repairs to the F-15 fleet caused by the world-wide grounding of that aircraft in November 2007. This diversion had the same effect of postponing the decision to shut down the F-22 production line until at least 2009.

Link



On 17 January 2008 the Associated Press reported that the Defense Department's planned FY2009 budget request would include four additional F-22A Raptors beyond the current contract. In a letter to lawmakers, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England stated that "the department is planning to keep the F-22 production line open" by requesting four more F-22s to replace un-specified "war-related losses" of other aircraft, increasing the total buy to 187 aircraft.

Link


It is well documented that the current civilian leadership within the Department of Defense and the White House will not increase the F-22 production buy past 187. They have extended the production line as much as they are willing to and left that possibility for more airframe to the next administration. The military and civilian leadership within the USAF has always maintained, much to the embarrassment and anger of the higher ups in the DoD, that is needs a minimum of 381 Raptors. The Congress is by in large pro Raptor and willing to hear this argument but as I stated the White House and DoD civilians have not allowed the procurement to increase. The real question is whether the congress along with the next incoming administration will indeed do just that.


NASHUA – The F-22 Raptor has proven to be the most capable air-to-air combat fighter plane in operation, although as defense budgets increase, it now confronts what may be its most formidable opponent, a showdown with legislators.

Legislators in October will decide whether to extend initial orders for the F-22 from 183 fighters, now under production until 2011, to 381 fighters.

Link


This is the last chance this current congress has to decide on the matter before the 08 elections, we'll see what happens.


Link


Originally posted by StellarX
Even 140-150 F-22's might be very dangerous if they are in fact as hard to engage as claimed.


Yes I do agree, still 187 is far too limited a production run.


Originally posted by StellarX
I hope i covered everything as i am at this quite fed up with this post and don't want to spend any more time on it.


So do I, this has taken me more time then I anticipated but I hope it has not all been in vain, pleasure is mine, as always.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Miss-post.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Miss-post.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by WestPoint23]


Well i will do my best to work up the interest to do the additional research this will take so don't expect to see anything soon.

I obviously appreciate the effort you have gone to and you will be surprised how useful all these small bits of information, which i presume you are compiling in doc format as i like to do, can be for future discussion!

I didn't know there were people other than myself that did 7 part ( next you can aim for 11 ) responses so your joining Armap on a very slowly growing list.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   
WOW! pretty hot right here!

About the total air dominance, i think the US does need no Raptor or F-35, both to win the war and to defend the homeland!

1st. Raptor is too expansive!

2nd. To perform the future strategy of ´first day stealth´, the USAF has to only deploy UCAVs and missiles! missile is very effective and UCAV is far more cheaper!

3rd. to bring more weapon, they have to install them in external stores, makes the Raptor ´stealthier´ than before, the $300 million more of money spent in an ´effective way´!


4th. Why the US needs Raptor to win the war since the F-15 and F-16 is effective enough, anyway, US considered enemies like Iraq, Afgan, and Iran are outdated compared to the US armed force. THE US DOES NOT NEED TOO SOPHISTICATED WEAPON SYSTEM

5th. about the aging weapon system, the US just have to develop better vehicles (´stealthy when clean´ fighter with conformal weapon bay maybe???), and not costly Raptor!

6th. The US will not waging war in nearly this time! To defend the homeland and practicing role only, even F-35 is too expansive!

7th. For me, the JSF program doesn´t make sense! USAF has their own money, the Navy has their own money, and the Marine has their own money to develop a new fighter.... an ´affordable´ is a must but not with the ´joint´!

I see a good example from Boeing to develop a new Super Hornet block 3 to fulfill the Navy need. For me still now, the MRF, N-ATF, A/F-X, and ASTOVL program was better than CALF or JAST or whatever!!!! and if the US military still want a JSF, then i think the X-32 is the answer! why?

- X-32 STOVL variant engine adds only 600 pounds more of weight, it´s good to preserve flight performance.
- the X-32 design was so simple, reliable enough to be low cost.
- the X-35 engine was more powerful the the X-32, but since the Lockheed lift-fan design adds more weight than the X-32, the performance of both airplane in take-off and landing is quiet the same.
- about the hot air gases circulating back and overheat the engine, i think it´s only an engineering problem that could be solved, direct lift is a proven technology for more than 20 years.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join