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.

 

Could the F-22 fill another role?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
While I have been seeing and reading reports of PE Obama looking hard at the production runs of the F-22 and possibly cutting the amount from 380 to around 150ish, I was trying to think how the USAF would be able to adapt the numbers from an overall air-superiority role ( meaning flying multiple sorties to subdue an opposing air force) to a vanguard/first strike air to air capability. Generally speaking when a country is attacked by air one would assume ( by no means am I Sun-Tzu or a military commander..lol) that they would send thier best and brightest flying their newest and most capable aircraft. My question to all of you is could the F-22 be tweaked to perform a vanguard role, eliminating the most dangerous threats to air superiority while letting our current fleet of fighters to mop up the remainders. One of the proponents for a larger fleet of aircraft was on fox and he is quoted " 1 squadron of f-22's could wipe-out an entire carrier battlegroup." It was a Lt. Col. and I didn't catch his name but the bold statement got me thinking. I will put this out there and let yall kick it around...



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
The F22 like the F15 I'm sure will be multi roled, but it's airframe will hinder it. If I recall it's weapons are in bays, and this will be the limit to it's armorment. If I am wrong, then I am. It has been quite sometime since I have seen information on it and you really cannot trust the info that comes out either.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 

I'm not sure about a vanguard role, but it shouldn't take a large number of F-22's to perform a significant fighter sweep of an area.

To other pilots, these things seemingly come out of nowhere, and you're dead before you ever know they're there.

I'd love to see about 600 of them, but when you vote Democrats in, you're playing catch up for an entire decade after they leave office.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
No your right the weapons are interior-held. The F-22 was designed around precision A2G wepaonery rather than dumb bombs. I am just trying to envision a smaller force of these craft, somewhere around 10 squadrons, being applied like the F-15/F-14/F-18 platforms for air superiority. Maybe the multiple engage/kill capability could offset the numbers of planes but I doubt it. Although I cannot forsee any MAJOR airwar in the near future aside from China or Russia.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I would love to see that many...lol Beautiful aircraft. But until they are combat tested especially against gen4 fightercraft under the hands of skilled pilots I can't say one way or another. People boasted about the elusiveness of the F-117 until it got popped in the ass by an AA missle.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 

I've talked a few times to an F-15 demonstrator pilot, and he would give everything he owns or will own to fly the F-22. The words he uses and the descriptions for the capabilities of the aircraft glow brighter than the Sun.

Just based on that, I'd sure like to see a large number produced. The P-51 wasn't combat proven, nor the F-15 until they actually lined up against the enemy aircraft.

They were able to take full advantage of their strengths. There's nothing wrong with Russian stuff, but we often seem to be able to stay one incremental step at a time ahead.

Let us pray . . .



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


As long as they have a better reliability rating than the F14... They shold be fine


With the F22, the Stealth Bomber and Fighter... Plus the A10, F16... What more do you need?



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Jkd Up
 

PLease let's not leave out the AC-130 Spectre, gotta have good lawn maintenance...

But with regards to the tomcat it could carry the phoenix...and it was in TopGun...lmao ( that's americana!)


[edit on 2-1-2009 by djvexd]



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by Jkd Up
 

PLease let's not leave out the AC-130 Spectre, gotta have good lawn maintenance...

But with regards to the tomcat it could carry the phoenix...and it was in TopGun...lmao ( that's americana!)


[edit on 2-1-2009 by djvexd]


Yeah, I like the AC-130... Liked it way back when it was "Puff The Magic Dragon".

MY GOD! You're right... the Tomcat had it's own movie! What was I thinking to try and take from it's operability!



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by djvexd
People boasted about the elusiveness of the F-117 until it got popped in the ass by an AA missle.


And they still boast about it. In literally THOUSANDS of missions, exactly ONE F-117 was shot down. While flying the same route as the previous two nights, at a similar time, after dropping weapons, which is when they're most vulnerable.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

But apparently this one missle found its mark or the firing radar could track it...thats all I'm saying. It was able to track and mark and follow its target to completion. That system was effective at detecting the stealth capability. Why should we assume that the F-22 would fare any better?



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Does it matter? The report I red stated that the production of F-22 would be halted... that's why Japan will drop it's order...



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Japan doesnt have an order, nor will it have for the forseeable future. The F-22 is not up for grabs, it's sale is barred by congress.

Jensy



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jkd Up
The F22 like the F15 I'm sure will be multi roled, but it's airframe will hinder it. If I recall it's weapons are in bays, and this will be the limit to it's armorment. If I am wrong, then I am. It has been quite sometime since I have seen information on it and you really cannot trust the info that comes out either.



Originally posted by djvexd
No your right the weapons are interior-held. The F-22 was designed around precision A2G wepaonery rather than dumb bombs.


The F-22 has external hard points under its wings and body, just as the F-15 does, so it can carry the same loads for the same missions.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Thank you. I was unsure. I thought it had interior hard points.

So if it has the same diversity as the F-15, no problem. With all the air craft in our arsonal, why is the F22 that needed?



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Thats what the f-22 is built for isnt it? i mean the numbers alone would tell you that, 380 fighters can not replace the thousands that are flown by the us airforce, and as for your comment about sun tzu, although quite a genius for his time, would get trounced by anyone who has played rome total war for more than a week.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I do believe it was two F-117 that were shot down, one in serbia and another in iraq.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jkd Up

So if it has the same diversity as the F-15, no problem. With all the air craft in our arsonal, why is the F22 that needed?


The truth? It had more to do with pork barrel spending than actual need.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


Stealth is NOT totally invisible. Stealth just makes you very hard to track and target. The B-2 and F-117 were occasionally tracked, but not continuously.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Europe
 


The ONLY Nighthawk that I ever heard of being shot down was in Serbia. I never heard of one in Iraq.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join