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.
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...
Originally posted by StellarX
...it's little other than a F-15 with less ordinance and fuel...
Originally posted by StellarX
...and evolutionary developments of tracking and engagement systems.
Originally posted by StellarX
If the stealth holds up to closer scrutiny, or actual combat testing
Originally posted by StellarX
...it's still quite expensive but then by no means the worse investment the pentagon has ever made.
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?
Originally posted by StellarX
That being said that is a whole lot of trouble if they can truly remain 'unseen'.
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,
instead of pointing out one by one ALL of the "dicredited" things Stellar had said on ATS you just posted this
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!!
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.
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...
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.
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...
Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,000 pounds (8,200 kilograms)
www.af.mil...
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...
Key Performance
Parameter Requirement Current Estimate Margin
Combat Radius (NM)
Mission 1 (Sub+Super) 260+100nm 310+100nm 14%
www.f22-raptor.com...
Combat radius: 1,061 nmi (1,222 mi, 1,967 km) for interdiction mission
en.wikipedia.org...
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)
Range: More than 1,850 miles ferry range with 2 external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles)
www.af.mil...
Range: 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
www.af.mil...
Fuel Capacity: 36,200 pounds (three external plus conformal fuel tanks)
www.af.mil...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by StellarX
It is expensive, naturally, compounded by order mismanagement from civilian bureaucrats.
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.
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
Please clarify this point as I do not seem to understand it.
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.
The F–22 is the biggest fighter in the sky and is the first to be seen visually.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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?
Originally posted by StellarX
In fact that's what a fully funded program will buy if there are no cost escalations or serious mishaps.
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
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Miss-post.
[edit on 15-4-2008 by WestPoint23]