It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US Pulls F-22 Raptor from the Paris Airshow

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by WestPoint23

the F22 HAS been to a red flag - you posted about it yourself!

and yes , it was the flankers there were sitting there listening to

Thanks for that, I thought I remember WestPoint23 posting how well the F22 did at Red Flag and I'm sure he mentioned it on other threads as well.

To expand The F22s attended the Red Flag at the beginning of the year (2008) where the Rafales attended the one in August, I believe the 2 Red Flags inbetween are US only.

It depends on the exercise if the Rafales were performing a strike role I would presume they would try to avoid contact and just hit there target.

There's not much US aircraft flying at the RIAT this year either just 1 flying, more static, does anybody know if there much US presence at non US airshows this year.

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Harlequin
the F22 HAS been to a red flag - you posted about it yourself!

This is correct. I meant the F-22 has not been to a Red Flag where French aircraft were present. On a side note, have no problem, apparently, sending Raptors into a Flag with British and Australian participation.

First Langley sent both F-22 squadrons to Red Flag, then both squadrons were deployed to the Pacific (Kadena & Guam), for routine deployment. Elemendorf did the same with its F-22's. If you look up all the exercises and deployments that these few F-22 squadrons have been on. It shows that the Raptor fleet is being given priority to make them as proficient as possible, and as effective as possible for deployment.

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by stumason

Rock and roll, Stumason. Tell it as it is.

The fact remains that the advanced nations of the west and from a military standpoint we should include Russia, have the scientific and industrial capability to pull all sorts of rabbits out of the bag. If pushed, I see no barrier to stealth being compromised. Who knows the actual/true capability of some of the systems like Sampson?

The US has not fought an advanced adversary with technological similarly and a worthwhile military doctrine - I doubt they would ever risk it. It would never happen anyway as advanced nations are more-often-than-not democracies. Democracies don’t go to war with each other – they have “conferences”!!


posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:53 PM

Originally posted by stumason

The more things change.... the more they stay the same.

Silly people allow themselves to be deluded by their own ingenuity into thinking otherwise.

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by FredT
The only joke is how touchy he gets when the EU comes under scrutiny

Double standards and hypocrisy get me on my soapbox.

There is an awful lot of it floating around here.

[edit on 18/6/09 by kilcoo316]

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 05:59 PM
A couple of months ago there was a report in Flight, which went unremarked on here, about the first firing of an AMRAAM by a Typhoon in passive radar mode. The target being illuminated by another Typhoon, which is, I believe, also one of the great claims about the F-22 also.

The thought occurs to me, and I am surely not the first, that this ability coupled with CELLDAR would give an extremely difficult defensive system to combat against. Does anyone have any more info on this?

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:44 PM
Uhm... bistatic radars such as SARH missiles, Lockheed Silent Sentry, and CELLDAR, are nothing new.

reply to post by Harlequin

Never heard that one before. Source? I hope you're not misquoting that video I uploaded...

This place is rapidly becoming an absolute joke.

I know.

Remind me to respond in full to all these joke posts when I get back. Honestly ATS forum seems to be stuck back in 2003 regarding (almost wrote retarding) these topics.

[edit on 18/6/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 07:56 PM

Originally posted by stumason
Ahh, Westy, always the one to argue the toss!

As if you would have it any other way.

Originally posted by stumason
The concept is an understood and proven one, the problem lies within actually collecting and interpreting the data produced.

The concept may be understood, however I do not see how it can be "proven" when the "problem lies within actually collecting and interpreting the data produced". As far as I'm aware, the processing power and technology needed to finely discern with fidelity VLO objects through a systems such as CELLDAR is currently insufficient to turn it into a true guidance tool. That is, to move it from a passive observational capability, to an active, tracking system. One able to guide lead onto the target. Otherwise you're sending up brave pilots who know the F-22, in this case, is somewhere in that promising section of the sky. Good luck on that mission.

Originally posted by stumason
As for "survivability", well that is a major selling point! Unless the "advanced adversary" is willing to risk significant assets in locating and neutralising EVERY cell tower and TV transmitter in a locality, I'd say it was very survivable.

In all likelihood just poke enough holes in the net to still get the job done. Nothing that is fixed and which has to be on a constant defensive posture is really survivable in today's age. Eventually chipping away at such a system with constant saturation attacks will yield results. The can or worms which is electronic warfare and conventional EMP weaponry is not one which can be ignored. In combination with kinetic means of destruction such a system would do nothing but delay the inevitable. You cannot control the sky from the ground. Even barring total destruction it would still not prevent a sufficiently advanced enemy from attacking any point on the British isles they chose too. Granted it can make it difficult, and perhaps costly, but anyone in their right mind expects to lose some of their forces in a challenging conflict. So the point remains one of objective and posture. If the objective is to simply bomb the mainland, it can be done, CELLDAR or not. And I firmly believe that if one is on the defensive, than half the fight is already over.

Originally posted by stumason
Certainly more so than much fewer and more prominent traditional RADAR systems.

At least currently these radar systems can be used to guide weapons onto the target. And they give a more precise an encompassing picture of the battle space.

Originally posted by stumason
Would you be willing to risk your shiny, new (and unproven) Raptors in attacks over the UK?

Hypothetical, of course. And the Raptor is far more proven than CELLDAR.

Originally posted by stumason
Stand off attacks would be ineffective, given that cruise missiles are quite easily dispatched, so you'd have to get in close. Couple the threat from CELLDAR/SAM systems and the Typhoons that would flood the sky in such a situation, I wouldn't put much money on many Raptors getting home.

I beg to differ on this whole scenario. I'm imagining more of a 'Global Strike' blitz. You would have hundreds of sea and air launch cruise missiles, hundreds of LO strike aircraft, UCAVs, SEAD/DEAD LO aircraft, LO bombers, and electronic warfare packages etc... That's just day one of many more to come. I find it highly ironic that at the end of it all the last surviving systems will probably still be those mobile SAM & radar systems. The Typhoon still has to face the F-22 in air combat. Your CELLDAR systems will have to absorb some serious bombing campaigns. And your airbases, ports, critical infrastructure etc... will be some of the first things targeted. I do not doubt that early on it would be very difficult. But when you're defending more than just your offensive systems, and actually defending the infrastructure and supplies those systems are depending on, it's even more difficult. Especially in a modern environment where industrial capacity is so centered around too few central hubs. The output cannot match WWII era production. Nor can the complexity and dependency of today's systems help in the ad hoc situation of war.

Originally posted by stumason
Also, seeing as Raptors would be hard to deploy against the UK in this hypothetical scenario and you'd probably rely on carrier born aircraft anyway, I'd say the US may take a hiding trying to "Blitz" the Brits again.

This is all hypothetical. So far we have kept it conventional, and imagined that at any given moment there are not millions of critical intertwined & intimate exchanges (not meant to sound dirty) between the UK & the US.

Originally posted by stumason
Don't forget history! The Germans thought their aircraft were superior (in many ways they were) and they underestimated RADAR. The result? They got creamed, lost alot of airframes and more importantly, thousands of experienced pilots which set them up to lose the war as a whole.

The Germans were their own enemy in that affair as far as I'm concerned. They poorly handed the offensive and lacked cohesive and competent planning from conceptual, to command, to implementation. Of course that's not to take away from the British. Just saying that the Germans also had a big hand in their ill prepared venture.

Originally posted by stumason
I wouldn't be so cock-sure about your systems when the US has yet to prove ANY of it's warfighting capability against an advanced enemy.

Let me just put it to you this way. Whenever the US goes into a conflict, the biggest worry I have is not the capability of our systems or capacity of our service members, but the foolishness of our policy makers and civilians in charge. I'm perfectly content with the quality of our defense related systems and their capabilities.

Originally posted by waynos
...which is, I believe, also one of the great claims about the F-22 also.

I think in the case of the F-22 it is thought that it can also use the ALR-94 in combination with other receivers embedded in the aircraft to passively designate its own targets, and launch missiles that way. However this scenario requires that the threat aircraft be radiating relatively significant level of electromagnetic energy.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by WestPoint23]

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 08:51 PM
Well it's true the US hasnt sent F-22s to Afghanistan or Iraq, meaning either that they ARE insufficient, or they dont want to waste them there (too expensive?), or they're saving them for something bigger?
But having seen then I'd say it one of the latter two.

Stu I think you are overhyping the Typhoon, I mean its top notch as well but also undertested against 'advanced' nations. But I think F-22 - Typhoon is a pretty even match. Along with MiG-35 or whatever their latest is.

Oh also the US did offer F-22s up for sale, to Israel, despite a law banning their export, but they declined because they're so damn expensive!

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:53 AM
reply to post by C0bzz

was an error (which was corrected) about the flankers.

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 03:54 AM

posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 12:33 AM
I don't really understand the logicality in having the plane at a international airshow in the first place. Why would you want to display one of the most advanced weapons of warfare known to man, in the midst of a potential global conflict? Not only should these aircraft be ready for war, they should also not be paraded around like a restored muscle car. It is completely unreasonable to think these planes should be displayed (internationally) for the world to see!

There are plenty of things the F22 is capable of that that the general population doesn't know about. I am sure the planes full capabilities are kept a secret. There are hundreds of millions of dollars that go into these planes and that's the reason they shouldn't be in a international airshow flaunting their visible goods. These planes are expected to uphold national security, not international airshows.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in