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.

 

F-22 Fighter Loses $79 Billion Advantage in Dogfights: Report

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
So much misinformation going on here. The pencil in space vs the space pen blah blah blah, the Raptor is a waste of money 80 milliion blah blah blah know what you are talking about.

Link




posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I've read the thread and I'm going to try to put in terms of something I'm more familiar with - infantry combat.

To put the Raptor in those terms - would it be fair to say the Raptor is primarily an excellent sniper and can perform adequately at normal distance or CQ combat if needed?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
You know that all this hypothesising is just wind.

The only test of the effectiveness of a warplane is in a real combat situation with all the stress, pressure and complexity. Exercises are useful, but ultimately they are artificial and contrived.

I have always been cautious of the claims made for stealth, not least because in the first Gulf War the British Royal navy were merrily tracking F117’s, much to the consternation of their fellow Americans who thought the planes were invisible.

The US will never decide to go to war with a technologically advanced enemy, so stealth aircraft are useful, because against the likes of Iraq et al stealth does mean invisibility. Getting into a fight with a nation who could deploy sophisticated systems and doctrines to foil steal is something the US would not do.

The F22 is the end of the line. The next step is unmanned platforms where size matters. Even the US needs to reign in these massively expensive projects because (frankly) the F22 is just too expensive.

Regards



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


The fact is that the fighter pilots a passing thing . The Raptor would be a lot more agile with out all the pilot accessories such as ejection seat , extra support for that seat , pilot instruments , heads up display , pilot environment ,bubble canopy and all that extra fuel to carry that extra weight . The glamorous old days are over . The acquisition of targets with eye sight , the verifying friend or foe or decision when to engage the target is also gone . Also gone will be the pilot on the ground to fly that fighter remotely .
Split second decisions made autonomously by the vehicle or a coordinated effort by a linked group of vehicles would end conflicts very quickly Like the drones that fly over the USA , the way of the pilot is passing into history .



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 

Sorry to come in late but I had some underedumacated input and a couple questions.

If you can see it you can kill it. Mark 1 eyeballs on a swivel are the best imaging radar there is. Close in the matchup is way more equal. "Close in" is presumptuous in that "ideally" the raptor pilot should not be engaging at visual ranges. If he is he has been surprised by the enemy too? Or he is out of missiles and must rely on the "main gun". Does the raptor have one of those? Sounds like Vietnam scenario that played out to the enemies advantage when the fancy fire and forget hardware ran out and there was no gun to fall back on.

Those were very disturbing moments in the cockpit. All they could do in the F4 phantom was run at hi speed to save their ass. Once they brought back the gun, the situation improved.

I thought the F22 raptor was born of the success of the F117 over Baghdad that first night? The F117 was "stealthy" but used as a bomber that lacked maneuverability, range, and other stuff like vectored thrust and VTOL capability. So there was born the raptor that included all these "upgrades" but compromised again on overall fighter capabilities. They became so expensive they are now considered a "Hi value standoff asset" which limits its usefulness in any but "First Night Over Baghdad" type scenarios.

Jack of all trades, master of none... and expensive. Dunno, just my input from my limited knowledge.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
A B2 stealth bomber is also toast if it flies 500m over a battery of AAA weapons built 60years ago.

And a sword still cuts bodies in half.

Technology may advance, but old tech still works really good.
It always depends, there are limitations and drawbacks to any tech no matter how advanced.
edit on 31-7-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
The one thing modern warfare is moving away from is close proximity combat.

America could not fight another war where hand to hand or close proximity fighting was needed once there firepower ran out.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Personally we know yanky jets have a very low flying range so if I was to be in a war with the more superior jets from russia and other countries that develope the smaller jets I would take out your refuelling jets and just let you fall out of the sky seeing as the mig's and others have about twice the flying distance of the yanky jets.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
The one thing modern warfare is moving away from is close proximity combat.

America could not fight another war where hand to hand or close proximity fighting was needed once there firepower ran out.


I think the US military would be just as good as anyone with hand to hand combat. Soldiers go through lots of hand to hand training to prepare them for just that... The US military is prepared for anything an enemy tosses their way, and that includes close proximity/hand to hand combat...



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by edog11
The Raptor's advantage has never been WVR dogfights, that's not what it was primarily designed to do and that's not how it is being used (Although it is still an extremely maneuverable jet that will give most, if not all 4th generation jets a run for their money in the WVR arena).

It's advantage is that it flies high and fast without being detected and if you combine that with the most advanced and powerful radar in it's class and a state-of-the-art avionics suite then you've got yourself a group of fighters that can see where you are, what you are doing and take a shot at you if they choose to do so before you even know they are out there. It's like being hunted down by invisible ghosts that are hundreds of kilometers away.

The only indication you will have that there are Raptors out there (If you are lucky) would be your RWR, warning you that you are being "painted" by a radar for a missile lock. If you are unlucky and the Raptor's radar "paints" your jet without you even knowing then you will only know when that AMRAAM activates its own radar when it is already at it's last stage of its flight which means it's already only seconds away.

This basically means that you won't know there are Raptors stalking you and your flight until you and your buddies all have an AMRAAM up your tailpipe, and even then, you won't know where they are and how many there are.

Surviving those missiles will require some very hard maneuvering... Maneuvering that will demand a lot from your aircraft and will test even the best pilot's skills.
Even if you and a few of your flight survives the first wave of AMRAAM's, you will have lost so much kinetic energy that the second wave of missiles will be nearly impossible to survive.
And you still don't know how many Raptors there are and from exactly where you are being engaged.
It is because of this that a flight of 2 to 3 Raptors can successfully engage and eliminate 2 to 6 times as many opponents than there are F-22's (4 Raptors vs 8-24 Tiffy's/Eagles/Vipers for example).


Furthermore, A Raptor "supercruiseing" at Mach 1.5+ at an altitude of around 60.000ft will dramatically increase it's missiles' flight envelope and thus deadliness. Combine that with the new AMRAAM-D that has a higher velocity and range and you will have a very, very bad day as the OpFor.

It is beyond me why they state that the Raptor has lost it's "advantage". No Raptor will ever get into the WVR arena if the pilot doesn't mess up badly and I really mean BADLY.

All of this and we haven't even touched upon the F-22's state of the art EW capabilities.

In my opinion, It is worth every single penny that you Americans spend on it. Why? Because I would rather put 3-4 pilots in much more survivable jets like the F-22 up against an overwhelming force of foes than to put 5 times as many of those pilots in much less survivable jets like the F-15 or 16.

WVR: Within Visual Range (Farther than 20nm/36km).
BVR: Beyond Visual Range (Within 20nm/36km).
RWR: Radar Warning Receiver (Constantly checks to see if anyone is focusing their radar emissions on your jet which is needed for radar guided missiles for example).
Supercruise: Flying faster than Mach 1 without the usage of afterburners (Faster than roughly 1200km/h).
EW: Electronic Warfare (Like ECM/ECCM/Jamming for example)
OpFor: Opposing Force (Enemy).
AMRAAM: Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile. (Mach 4+ Normal launch: 110+Km range, F-22 launched: 140+km range for the C variant. The D variant will increase this with around 40%).
Tiffy: Slang for Eurofighter "Typhoon".
Viper: F-16 Fighting Falcon.
Eagle: F-15 Eagle.

I'll end my post with a quote


I talked to an F-14D pilot a month or two ago about this (instructor in a Goshawk at the time). He was in the last squadron of F-14D's. He said "They (Langley)would call us on the phone (Oceana) since we were so close and ask if we wanted to fight, SURE we said. Well at first they only wanted to do BVR stuff, well, forget about it, two minutes after we start we're dead, but after a while they finally agreed to mix it up with us WVR" "How did you do I" asked? His only response, somewhat dejected, somewhat admiring in tone "the F-22 is an impressive plane"



IT--
edit on 31-7-2012 by edog11 because: (no reason given)


Great post. I think WWII can teach us a few things about fighter dynamics, however. You can have all the technical prowess you like. It's only good for so much once the fur starts flying, and pilots learn and adapt to enemy aircraft and tactics. The raptor is not invincible (not even close). She is a deadly weapon, for sure. But tactics and technology are constantly changing. A real conflict (God forbid) is the only thing that could truly determine how much air superiority the U.S still possesses.

edit: imo, the F-15 was once the undisputed king of the skies. This is no longer the case

edit on 1-8-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by edog11
 


I don,t know where this story came from, but I had the privilege of watching the f22 in action. This was not an airshow either. I watched a real simulated dog fight against one of our allies. All I can say is wow ! I did like the victory roll followed by two F22,s breaking the sound barrier at 8000 ft. Right over us. This is the best fighter in the world. Don,t believe the yahoo bs story. Whom ever faces the f22 in a real dog figh, you better turn tail or punch out. Sorry can't give details.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I'm afraid the F-22 highlights America's greatest weakness in thinking and I hope we never face an enemy who successfully exploits it, because we're screwed beyond measure if we do. Instead of numbers, we go with ultra high tech and arguably the best in the world. I won't debate that, and it's a point of pride actually. Only an American flag sits on the moon, even now and all these decades later.

However, we spend so much on each aircraft, it's almost too expensive to risk them in the very thing they are designed to do. Additionally, we don't have the numbers to sustain any real rate of loss if an enemy finds a serious hole in our technology advantages. I don't know how it would come, but that's the point. War is nasty that way and I'd just about feel better sometimes with far more B-52's and F-16's than the numbers of F-22 and other ultra-advanced platforms.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
if my memory serves me correct, didn't the British (for #s and giggles) work around the stealth of the b117 by tracking the heat signature from the exhaust ?

so much for stealth.

and this was a few days after the b117 was demonstrated at farnborough.

I guess it doesn't matter how much money is spent on developing the ultimate fighter jet.
they all have the same type of engine (grab air, compress, heat and then dump it out of the back, thus driving the fighter forward).



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by diddy1234
if my memory serves me correct, didn't the British (for #s and giggles) work around the stealth of the b117 by tracking the heat signature from the exhaust ?

so much for stealth.

and this was a few days after the b117 was demonstrated at farnborough.

I guess it doesn't matter how much money is spent on developing the ultimate fighter jet.
they all have the same type of engine (grab air, compress, heat and then dump it out of the back, thus driving the fighter forward).


F-117

B-2.

Two very different aircraft.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I agree that putting all your expensive eggs in one basket is far too risky.

Weapons tech is a progress, sometimes slowly and at other times it is in leaps and bounds. New developments in directed radar and particle beam weapons will make this form of aircraft obsolete. The problem as mentioned is that if you only have a few because of the expense and someone else has a tech that you don't know about you are history. Who knows what China as an example have.

Their subs have surfaced undetected in the midst of a battle group. That is a warning, nothing more, nothing less.

P



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacifier2012
The one thing modern warfare is moving away from is close proximity combat.

America could not fight another war where hand to hand or close proximity fighting was needed once there firepower ran out.


That's absolute BS....tell that to the Marines and Army Infantry that fought in Fallujah.

The number one reason the Taliban/Al Quedia/Iraqi insurgency went to IEDs...they found out very quickly fighting US Infantry is a losing proposition.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I enjoyed reading your post. I think sacrifices had to be made to keep the Raptor as stealthy as it is. In modern air combat, the biggest threats don't come from enemies that are flying close to you, the biggest threats are Mach 5+ double digit SAMs that are extremely difficult to evade, even more than AMRAAMs and Meteors.
I think that is the most important factor that weighed in when they decided to go for full VLO stealth instead of maneuverability.

To put it bluntly, if a flight of F-18 Super bugs penetrated Russian or Iranian airspace, they would find themselves in a very, very difficult position because those jets be lit up like a Christmas-trees on radar screens, hundred of miles out. This will decrease their chances of success and increase their chances of being shot down.
Now make that a flight of Raptors instead of Hornets and the chances of them being detected will decrease dramatically while their chances of success increase.

Why not make it as hard as possible for the enemy to successfully engage you? It is true that a lot of money goes into making these machines and it is true that they are not perfect/invincible but don't forget, the more that's built, the less each fighter will cost.
In the end, I would feel much better to know that we (If I was American) are giving that these pilots the most survivable jet that's available. I would hate to see dozens of pilots losing their lives because we put them in aging 4th/4.5 generation flying bulls-eyes.

reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Thanks! Of course I agree with you, I won't deny that warfare is an extremely unpredictable and dynamic phenomenon but I also won't deny that if something will give these pilots an advantage over their adversaries, that we should take it.

Stealth isn't perfect, obviously... But at least a Radar Cross Section smaller than 0.0001m^2 (F-22) is better than an RCS of 15m^2 (F-15) and will make it that much harder for the enemy to start filling the air with SAMs or Sukhoi's.

I hope these birds never really have to get into a hot airspace, but if they do, I'm sure they will amaze a lot of people.


Originally posted by diddy1234
if my memory serves me correct, didn't the British (for #s and giggles) work around the stealth of the b117 by tracking the heat signature from the exhaust ?

so much for stealth.

and this was a few days after the b117 was demonstrated at farnborough.

I guess it doesn't matter how much money is spent on developing the ultimate fighter jet.
they all have the same type of engine (grab air, compress, heat and then dump it out of the back, thus driving the fighter forward).


Infra Red Search and Track (IRST) only works if you know EXACTLY where to look and even the most state of the art IRST systems don't even come close to scanning such a big portion of the airspace for heat signatures while filtering out the rest of the crap like weather phenomenon. At least not at long range.

Also, the F-22 has a reduced infrared signature, especially when it's supercruising and not using afterburners.
When you look at the F-22, they didn't only stealth out its radar signature. They went all the way.
They decreased is EM/Radar emissions and switched to a low probability of intercept (stealth) AESA radar that hops through 1000 frequencies every second.
They decreased the airframe's its radar signature to less than that of a metal marble (0.0001m^2) by using certain shapes and paints.
They made it so that even with the naked eye, it's somewhat hard to spot in WVR.
They decreased it's IR signature by using certain shapes and materials near and in the nozzles etc. etc.

Can it be brought down? Absolutely! Will it be easy? Absolutely not!


IT--
edit on 1-8-2012 by edog11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
F-22 Raptor is cool and all, but how long before we start seeing it drop out of the skies due to chips failing? You know, since we trust foreign entities so much we allow them to manufacture crucial parts of our planes.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


Pretty close. It's an outstanding sniper, and it's good at CQ, but it loses it's biggest advantages at CQ range.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Thank Congress. It started with the B-2 really, because the F-117 numbers were still classified. The original price of the B-2, if they had gone with the numbers wanted would have been in the mid-millions range (I forget the exact number). Since they capped it at 21, the only way for them to get their money back was to charge several hundred million per aircraft. If they would buy at the numbers requested, the price would drop exponentially.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
There are no more dogfights.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join