Could the F-22 fill another role?

reply to post by RichardPrice

I thought the hole point of of internal weapon bays was to reduce RCS...why would they mount externnal hardpoints?



[edit on 3-1-2009 by djvexd]

Originally posted by djvexd
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

I thought the hole point of of internal weapon bays way to reduce RCS...why would they mount externnal hardpoints?

Why not? Having external hard points doesnt mean you *have* to use them all the time - once you have air supremacy, the need for low RCS is reduced considerably. If your aircraft is limited to internal storage because of the need to reduce RCS, then the capability of the aircraft is reduced also - see the F-117 for an extreme example of this.

So, you gain air supremacy, then you hit known SAM sites and then you change the missions for the aircraft - air dominance has already been achieved, so you move into ground support missions where reduced RCS isnt as important as reduced IR is due to the threat from MANPADS.

If your aircraft cant make this switch, then you have an expensive aircraft that practically sits out the second half of any conflict.

and that is the entire `issue` with the F35


to be a meaningful bomb truck then the tabs on those hard points will be ripped off from day 1 and out of the window goes all that LOS

Originally posted by Harlequin
and that is the entire `issue` with the F35


to be a meaningful bomb truck then the tabs on those hard points will be ripped off from day 1 and out of the window goes all that LOS

Maybe, but in cases where the only operational base you have is offshore, the F-35 will have the advantage of the reduced RCS - I can certainly think of a few scenarios where the USAF wont have a forward base to operate from right from the very start of the conflict, in which case the reliance is on the US Navy fleet of F-35s.

I just read that they are attempting to develop "stealth hardpoints" for the F-22 and 35. Apparently they will be enclosed weapons pods that will open and close to release the ordinance and reatin the RCS. Anyone got any news on this?

Originally posted by Harlequin
to be a meaningful bomb truck then the tabs on those hard points will be ripped off from day 1 and out of the window goes all that LOS

If you plan on using an aircraft from day one than what's the point of it carrying 35 missiles or 800 bombs if it wont survive first contact with a competent OPFOR? Or operate in a high threat anti access situation? You'll lose not only the airframe and the pilot, but those 35 missiles and 800 bombs too. I'd rather have a squadron of F-35s that can complete the sortie successfully (in virtually any environment), reload and head out again, and again, and again, as long as it takes. After all the high end threats have been taken care of, then you can use external hard points without problem.

To add to what Richard was saying about the F-22 external capability. If the Raptor is loaded with external stores (weapons or fuel) it can jettison its entire rack, pylon included. This takes the airframe back (immediately) to its baseline RCS figure.

Also, using the F-117 shoot down to evaluate the F-22's, B-2's, F-35's survivability is very flawed, for obvious reasons. All the F-117 case proves is that stealth is not invisible or invulnerable (no one worth their word would claim otherwise), that LO does not negate the need for competent planning and that Murphy's law is never invalidated. What doomed the F-117 is a variety of things, not to mention that the USAF also contributed to the loss of Vega 31.


From what I've heard a combination of Super Bug AESA, AEGIS and AWACS have had limited success at detecting and tracking F-22s in exercises such as Northern Edge. But that's not confirmed, nor do we know the specific parameters and details of such engagements. One thing that limits the F-22's ability to go after big targets, like ships, is its weapons inventory. It lacks a weapon which is long ranged, LO and which has a large warhead. JDAM's are too short ranged, the SDB has adequate range but lack's the punch. The survivability (LO, attack profile, ECCM) of both these systems against sophisticated ship defenses is not clear. Now, wire and configure the B-2s to carry a dozen or so SLAM-ER's and escort them with Raptors and any ship, or battle group, might as well stay in port.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
To add to what Richard was saying about the F-22 external capability. If the Raptor is loaded with external stores (weapons or fuel) it can jettison its entire rack, pylon included. This takes the airframe back (immediately) to its baseline RCS figure.

Not from what I have seen - theres a lot involved in mounting the hardpoints to the F-22, including removing of fairings and coverings that ensure a low RCS. Jettisoning everything including the pylon wont do anything to improve its RCS by a significant degree.

reply to post by WestPoint23


and you know whats funny? how many US aircraft were lost on day 1 against Iraq in 2003?

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by WestPoint23

 

and you know whats funny? how many US aircraft were lost on day 1 against Iraq in 2003?

Thats why I consider the F-22 to be pork barrel spending - its not needed, the current generation of aircraft is more than adequet to deal with the type of confrontations the USAF is expected to deal with in hte next two decades.

reply to post by RichardPrice


Practically speaking the Raptor can jettison the pylon and whatever is mounted on it.
However the actual connection point between the external stores and the wing would still be exposed, even if nothing is attached to it. Raptors without any external stores have their hard points covered flush with the skin. What effect these open hard points will have on the RCS, or from what aspect, I don't know. It's still a nice feature to have though, even with minimal RCS disruption the kinematic aspect would improve. Most likely the Raptor would not fly into combat on day one with nay external stores (fuel or otherwise), but the option is there, with risk of course.

Originally posted by Harlequin
and you know whats funny? how many US aircraft were lost on day 1 against Iraq in 2003?

The F-15's would be dangerous to fly in any major conflict, there are severe restriction on it. Its capabilities are on longer the state of the art, several current and projected threat systems (air and ground) would limit its use and effectiveness. The F-35 will not enter the inventory in significant numbers and will not reach FOC with all branches until the better part of the next decade. Still, putting all the eggs in the F-35 basket would not be an intelligent choice. The Raptor is needed not only for airframe replacement, but naturally for the capability it brings. Equipping your armed forces for low intensity conflict only and ignoring conventional state threats or high end threat systems is criminally negligent, IMO. The Raptor ensures that no matter what, air superiority will not be denied to US or allied forces. No US military ground personnel has died from enemy air forces since Korea for a reason. Even if never used, it's an invaluable national insurance policy.

Should we scrap ICBM's because they were never used in Iraq, or because they have never been used and are unlikely to be launched in the future? Should we scrap SSBN's because they were not used in Iraq or Afghanistan? Perhaps we should also scrap SAM systems because they are not needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're aware of the Falklands, as such, you should know what being nearsighted does to the armed forces. The armed forces should be prepared for any eventuality, from low intensity conflict to conventional state to state confrontations or proxy conflicts involving high end threat systems. 20-30 years is a significant time, hard to predict with accuracy what will and wont be needed. Iraq is in the end game, Afghanistan will be too pretty soon. Yet I don't see Russia, China etc… slowing down their conventional arms development and procurement.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

Practically speaking the Raptor can jettison the pylon and whatever is mounted on it.
However the actual connection point between the external stores and the wing would still be exposed, even if nothing is attached to it. Raptors without any external stores have their hard points covered flush with the skin. What effect these open hard points will have on the RCS, or from what aspect, I don't know. It's still a nice feature to have though, even with minimal RCS disruption the kinematic aspect would improve. Most likely the Raptor would not fly into combat on day one with nay external stores (fuel or otherwise), but the option is there, with risk of course.

The jettisoning is done to improve dogfighting capabilities of the aircraft, not reduce the RCS - the unfaired wing mounts essentially mounts an elephant on the aircraft with regard to RCS (ever read that the F-117s RCS could be destroyed by a fleck of paint or bad handling on the ground - same deal).

RCS is horribly dependent on decent proper handling - very small things can have huge repurcussions.

reply to post by RichardPrice


Or the Lockheed admission after the F-117 shoot down that even a turn could increase the RCS by a factor of X.

The Raptor has one thing going for it, its LO features and design is not as sensitive and uncompromising as the F-117, or even B-2. It can pick up emitter location and information, asses the relevant orientations and its own signature integrity. This allows it to calculate when and where it is vulnerable and to display this information to the pilot with simple and integrated visuals. However I agree that the RCS business is one in which every single detail has to be meticulously taken care of.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by WestPoint23]

reply to post by WestPoint23


Nice profile pic by the way....Eagles Fan here. Since I was told in previous post about external HP's for the Raptor I have seen multiple sites, wiki and other military sites (just google f-22 hardpoints) that have talked about the complete loss of stealth capability when these HP's are attached as well as a severe loss of manueverability. That is why they are looking at developing permanent "stealth" HP's that in effect act as auxillary bomb bays on the wings. Do you think that these will work or do you think these are just pipe dreams to siphon money? Also the F-117 shot down over Bosnia was taken down by a rather advanced Russian AA radar that was being field tested. From what I remember it was a multi-sensor system that could combine all the info to increase the kill chance. If I am off base let me know, I just remember reading that in Pop Mech magazine.


[edit on 4-1-2009 by djvexd]

Originally posted by djvexd
Do you think that these will work or do you think these are just pipe dreams to siphon money?

It is technically feasible to develop external LO "pods" for the F-22 and Lockheed has studied the idea in the past. However currently such a feature is not a necessity, as such, it is not a priority. Such an addition to the Raptor would have the adverse affect of reduced range, reduced kinematic envelope, degraded LO signature, maintenance/logistical issues and pilot over-tasking. I've never been a fan of turning the Raptor even more into something it was not designed to be, in this case a high performance and limited LO bomb truck. Also, the more a pilot has to do the less likely it is that he (or she) will maintain mastery of any specific task. We want the best air superiority machine to be coupled with pilots specifically, and only, trained for such a task. Perhaps if an OPFOR is really a pain in the ass you can throw in DEAD mission as a secondary capability for the Raptor.

The majority of high risk ground and missile/bomb truck roles should be left to the F-35, B-2 and the upcoming 2018 bomber. These aircraft are all LO and can operate in any environment to complement one another. No need to have each one of them capable of doing everything.

Originally posted by djvexd
Also the F-117 shot down over Bosnia was taken down by a rather advanced Russian AA radar that was being field tested.

I've read accounts of what happened that night from both the Serb commander of that particular SAM unit and from the pilot who was actually flying that particular F-117. It boils down to the Serbs being ingenious with not only their modification of the SA-3 but also with their tactics on one side. And the USAF (by extrapolation NATO) being completely complacent and to a lesser extent ignorant on the other. Put the two together, add some luck and skill and you get a spectacular result. One which was not only overdue but likely inevitable.

Serb Account

I've lost my copy of the interview Lt. Col. Zelko gave regarding that night. I'll try to find it online.

Originally posted by djvexd
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?

Because the F-22's RCS is several orders of magnitude better than the F-117, it flies much higher and faster, and has much better situational awareness due to it's elaborate ESM system, and LPI AESA radar.

Originally posted by RichardPrice

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by WestPoint23

 

and you know whats funny? how many US aircraft were lost on day 1 against Iraq in 2003?

Thats why I consider the F-22 to be pork barrel spending - its not needed, the current generation of aircraft is more than adequet to deal with the type of confrontations the USAF is expected to deal with in hte next two decades.

Current generation aircraft are very vulnerable to modern SAMs, and highly reliant on support aircraft. F-22s are force multipliers, as they can operate independantly, and in areas that are inaccessible to other aircraft.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Current generation aircraft are very vulnerable to modern SAMs

Ahem, bollocks - take a look at our losses in the past two or three major conflicts - Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and the first Gulf War. THe last generation aircraft did perfectly fine then, sure we lost a few but no way enough to validate your statement.

Also note that again the F-15A and C models have yet to lose a single aircraft to enemy fire, ground or air. And its the F-15A and C models that the F-22 will be replacing within the USAF.

So I stand by my statement - its pork barrel spending, and money would have been much better spent on replacing the current F-15 fleet with new-builds.

F-15s cost $28m in 1998 fiscal dollars, adjusted for inflation thats $36m in todays dollars.

A single F-22 costs $142m in todays dollars.

For one F-22 purchased, the USAF could have had 3.94 F-15s.

For the planned procurement of 187, the USAF could have had nearly 738 F-15s straight from an open, working production line.

, and highly reliant on support aircraft. F-22s are force multipliers, as they can operate independantly, and in areas that are inaccessible to other aircraft.

The F-22 is just as reliant on support aircraft as the F-15 is - the F-22s woinder technology, such as the data link, is not yet in production and most of the already in service fleet will require upgrades to be able to take part in it.

The F-22 will be more dependent on tankers than the F-15, since it does not have conformal fuel tanks and has the same internal fuel load as the F-15. Also the F-22 cannot carry a belly tank, meaning less fuel on a load out mission than the F-15.

The F-22 will not routinely operate outside of E-3 control, so it will be as dependent on those aircraft as the F-15.

In short, I don't think the USAF has gained anything worthwhile for a $65billion expenditure.

The F-35 is a much better program to put money into.

TOO many USAF/military/civilian contractors talking w/ regular civilians on this board. Be a lil more discrete? Also, F-15s are outdated and useless. F16s are the BEST 4th generation fighter (ALL weather/A-A/A-G). We continue, as a military, to ensure nothing is going to happen w/ our interests. No need to worry, the 16/22/35 WILL be the next line up for sustaining our air superiority, bank on it.

Originally posted by djvexd
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.

How many thousands of missions were flown without getting hit though? One shoot down doesn't mean the concept of stealth has been invalidated. What it does mean is that you can never be complacent, even in a high tech aircraft(i.e. flying the same route night after night, without varying times, etc...) The SAM site wouldn't have been able to shoot the F-117 down were it not due to poor mission/route planning.
The same thing happened in Mogadishu when the Rangers/160th SOAR took for granted that the Somalis wouldn't see patterns, and be able to set up an ambush.

Originally posted by RichardPrice


Current generation aircraft are very vulnerable to modern SAMs

Ahem, bollocks - take a look at our losses in the past two or three major conflicts - Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and the first Gulf War. THe last generation aircraft did perfectly fine then, sure we lost a few but no way enough to validate your statement.

Also note that again the F-15A and C models have yet to lose a single aircraft to enemy fire, ground or air. And its the F-15A and C models that the F-22 will be replacing within the USAF.

How many legacy aircraft have gone up against S-300/S-400/Tor M1/Su-30MK/Mig-29M/etc.... though? Parity isn't good enough. The idea of the F-22 is overwhelming superiority for decades to come, and the ability to operate in airspace that is denied to legacy aircraft.

So I stand by my statement - its pork barrel spending, and money would have been much better spent on replacing the current F-15 fleet with new-builds.

F-15s cost $28m in 1998 fiscal dollars, adjusted for inflation thats $36m in todays dollars.

A single F-22 costs $142m in todays dollars.

For one F-22 purchased, the USAF could have had 3.94 F-15s.

The F-22 is worth more than 3.94 F-15s in A2A combat though. In air combat maneuver excercises, F-22s have achieved kill ratios like 240:1(with this being due to a previously killed aircraft being regenerated)

The F-22 is just as reliant on support aircraft as the F-15 is - the F-22s woinder technology, such as the data link, is not yet in production and most of the already in service fleet will require upgrades to be able to take part in it.

The F-22 will be more dependent on tankers than the F-15, since it does not have conformal fuel tanks and has the same internal fuel load as the F-15. Also the F-22 cannot carry a belly tank, meaning less fuel on a load out mission than the F-15.

The F-15C doesn't have conformal tanks either. The F-22 has over 18,000lbs of internal fuel vs. 13-14,000lbs for an F-15C, resulting in much larger volume of airspace the F-22 can control(along with its more elaborate sensor suite).

The F-22 will not routinely operate outside of E-3 control, so it will be as dependent on those aircraft as the F-15.

The F-22 is far less dependant on AWACS support than the F-15, and can coordinate the fight for legacy fighters by ensuring that they aren't double targetting bogeys. Additionally, they can provide guidance info to the legacy fighter's weapons, as well as increased SA.