F-22 More Revolutionary than I thought! Apparently it has no Avionics at all!

[SUBMAN1]

The aircraft, being one giant sensor, needs nothing. This is like Star Trek or something! There are no boxes to remove from this aircraft. No nothing. Need a UHF or VHF radio? Write a software app and presto! You have one! Need a Direct TV connection so you can catch up on your latest episode of Battlestar Galactica while in route to your next target? Write a software app and Presto! You have one! I wonder if it can bypass the encryption mechanism? :D

Read the interview with Metz (Chief Lockheed test pilot):

http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

That is one very interesting article.

-S

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Commercial_Airliners-Military_Aircraft_Pictures/F-22_Raptor_In_Afterburner.jpg

[ETR3(SS)]

Is this an F-22 or an I-Phone?:06:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The pilot does not care nor does he need to know how the avionics conclude that there is a MiG-29 at 330� at 38.2 miles doing 0.85 Mach number at 30,000 feet. The MiG is real. It is there and he needs to do something about it.

Honestly, statements like this worry me. I sure would like to know, time allowing, how the computer came to this conclusion! After all, it'll be ME that will be explaining things if I hit an airliner or something, not the computer.

[Dowly]

Want to bring down a F22? Write a software app and Presto!

[SteamWake]

Want to bring down a F22? Write a software app and Presto!

LOL just what I was thinking.

Arent these going to fall under the budget axe anyhow?

[Max2147]

LOL just what I was thinking.

Arent these going to fall under the budget axe anyhow?
Gates said we're not going to get any more of them, although we're obviously keeping the ones we have.

Some folks in Congress are trying to get some more built as pork barrel spending for their districts.

[XabbaRus]

Subman you do realiese that Carlo Kopp and whatever he writes is much derided in the aviation analyst world. You should go to defense net and see what some aussies who work in defence think of him.

Kopp is an uber fanboy of the F-22 and that article was written in 1998.

I'm not saying the F-22 isn't the best fighter on the planet at this point in time, however drawing conclusions from a mobile phone salesman isn't what I'd do.

OK teh guys isn't a mobile phones salesman and has a PhD in telecommunicatiosn which from what I can gather he does very well at. Analysing aviation and military at that he is revieled and ridiculed.

[Wolfehunter]

I was going to say all it will take is front line hackers to crack the software and install a virus to make the plane do something stupid... like crash or something...

:hmmm:

[SteamWake]

I also wonder if these marvelous autonomis systems are hardened against an EMP :hmmm:

[Oberon]

It'll never beat the P-51, that can shoot down anything :salute:

[Task Force]

hey dont say that... Ill have to bring out my 109...:rotfl:

[XabbaRus]

No the P.11 is the best fighter...

[Task Force]

Yea, I heard they can knok a yak out of the ski if rammed.:rotfl:
(actualy happend in the Lolwaffles.)

No the storch is the bets plane of the war...

[XabbaRus]

No the Panzerknacker is the best...

[Raptor1]

No the Panzerknacker is the best...

Seconded!

[Zachstar]

Guess its time to sound the horn for more F-22s?

[Task Force]

wonder what that Horn sounds like.:hmmm:

[Dowly]

Shove a popsticle up your bumm and find out.

[SUBMAN1]

Honestly, statements like this worry me. I sure would like to know, time allowing, how the computer came to this conclusion! After all, it'll be ME that will be explaining things if I hit an airliner or something, not the computer.

One word - AESA. THe F-22's version is similar to the Aegis system and it has such a fine resolution, it can identify a target by its shape. It also has such a narrow beam capability that it is unlikely to be detected. It is actually a system of about 50 radars that individually send out weak signals that are thrown out as interference by an RWR on an enemy aircraft, but collect it as one picture.

Couple this with the myriad of other sensors for identification.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Want to bring down a F22? Write a software app and Presto!

You could build a virus for any platform these days. Problem is, you'd have to have intimate knowledge of F-22 programming. Not likely to happen ever.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

LOL just what I was thinking.

Arent these going to fall under the budget axe anyhow?

Stupid that they are. The F-35, though the second most capable aircraft in the world now, is not going to have the same length of life the F-22 will have. Its just a second rate frame comparatively.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Just talked with a friend who is an F-16 pilot. He just told me how he got his ass kicked by F-22's in training. :D

-S

[Dowly]

Just talked with a friend who is an F-16 pilot. He just told me how he got his ass kicked by F-22's in training. :D

-S

So? Wouldnt that be like having a WWI fighter vs. a WWII fighter? :O:

[SUBMAN1]

So? Wouldnt that be like having a WWI fighter vs. a WWII fighter? :O:

Can't argue there! :D

-S

[Captain Vlad]

Hopefully our pilots are smart enough to not open any emails from the Bank of Nigeria while on a mission.

[Rilder]

Hopefully they don't come with vista.

[SUBMAN1]

Hopefully they don't come with vista.

Only partially. They come with NVidia no less. :D Those displays are powered by GeForce 3 no less!

As many know, I'm not a particular fan of NVidia with all their antics in the last couple years. I do have an engineering sample GeForce 3 about 1 foot from my head as I type this though. Modified with a special cooler and copper RAM sinks. I should plug this in and see if it still works.

-S

[XabbaRus]

One word - AESA. THe F-22's version is similar to the Aegis system and it has such a fine resolution, it can identify a target by its shape. It also has such a narrow beam capability that it is unlikely to be detected. It is actually a system of about 50 radars that individually send out weak signals that are thrown out as interference by an RWR on an enemy aircraft, but collect it as one picture.

Couple this with the myriad of other sensors for identification.

-S

Do you have a reliable source for that?

[SUBMAN1]

Do you have a reliable source for that?

Any AESA page can give you a good run down on it, though the F-22's is a more advanced version of AESA with probably a 250+ (large target) nmi range. With AESA, you even have built in jamming and hacking tools. You can theoretically overload a missile sites computer systems with it. Kind of like a power surge.

Maybe it is not 50, but 1000:
The F-22's Northrop Grumman/Texas Instruments-built AN/APG-77 radar is an active-element, electronically scanned (that is, it does not move) array of over 1000 finger-sized transmitter / receiver modules. Each module weights ca 15g and has a power output of over 4W. The APG-77 is capable of changing the direction, power and shape of the radar beam very rapidly, so it can acquire target data, and in the meantime minimizing the chance that the radar signal is detected or tracked.
http://www.f22fighter.com/radar.htm

http://www.f22fighter.com/atfrad1.jpg


Manufactures site:
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f22aesaradar/

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Aviation Week on the F-22. I've come to the conclusion that secrecy seems to kill projects in Congress. So maybe ultimate secrecy on any platform is not a good thing.

-S


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw020909p2.xml
F-22 Design Shows More Than Expected

Feb 8, 2009

By David A.

FulghumHoping to win support for F-22 production beyond the current 183 aircraft, Lockheed Martin is revealing proprietary data that show performance in several areas is better than baseline requirements.

Moreover, the U.S. Air Force is taking the fighter to the Paris air show for the first time this summer, says Larry Lawson, executive vice president and general manager of the F-22 program. The promise of additional U.S. and, possibly, foreign sales has removed any obstacles.

The problem confronting the company is that Raptor backing is splintered. Senior Pentagon acquisition officials want to shut down production to cut defense spending. Congress wants more production to keep aerospace industry jobs going. Air Force leadership is setting on a new minimum requirement for 240-250 aircraft (about another 60 F-22s) but hasn't made the new number public, apparently waiting to introduce it as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Another emerging issue is that some of the early, 550 low-rate-production F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost more (roughly $200 million each) than the $142 million it takes to buy a Raptor. That puts the Air Force in the position of spending its near-term fighter recapitalization money on aircraft they can't deploy until about 2014.

In addition, the secrecy-obscured question of just how good the F-22 is as an air-to-air combat design remains unanswered. It's a complex issue that involves the world of electronic surveillance and attack, information operations, network-centric roles and advanced radar. Right now, the F-22 is one of only two stealth fighters being flown. That may change in a decade as Russia and China introduce new designs. Advanced F-15 radars have a slightly greater range, but the F-22 can use its stealth to move closer to targets. U.S. aggressor pilots work daily to find ways to outmaneuver F-22s, but so far they've only accomplished a few kills, always by some fluke, says Lawson.

The F-22's newly revealed areas of overperformance include a radar cross section that officials will only characterize as "better" than what was asked for. Pentagon officials have said privately that the desired signature from certain critical angles was -40 dBsm., the equivalent radar reflection of a steel "marble." By comparison, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has a signature of -30 dBsm., about the size of a golfball.

Supercruise is at Mach 1.78 rather than Mach 1.5. Acceleration - although company officials would not say from what speed or at what altitude - is 3.05 sec. faster than the requirement of 54 sec. In nonafterburning, full military power, the Raptor can operate at slightly above 50,000 ft. However, it is known that the F-22 opened its aerial battles at about 65,000 ft. during its first joint exercise in Alaska, apparently using afterburner. There is also a mysterious admission that the range of the Raptor's Northrop Grumman/Raytheon active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar has a range 5% greater than expected. That means a cushion of an additional 5-6 mi. of detection range against enemy aircraft and missiles.

Ranges of the new lines of AESA radars are classified. But they are estimated at about 90 mi. for the smallest (aimed at the F-16 radar-upgrade market). The F/A-18E/F and F-35 (with radar ranges of 100 mi.) are followed by the F-22 (110-115-mi.). The largest is carried by the upgraded F-15Cs and Es (125 mi.). By comparison, the range for a mechanically scanned, F-15C radar is 56 mi. according to Russian air force intelligence. U.S. aerospace officials agree that an AESA radar "at least doubles" the range over standard military radars.

When coupled with the electronic techniques generator in an aircraft, the radar can project jamming, false targets and other false information into enemy sensors. Ranges for electronic attack equal the AESA radar plus that of the enemy radar. That could allow electronic attack at ranges of 150 mi. or more. The ability to pick out small targets at a long distance also lets AESA-equipped aircraft find and attack cruise missiles, stealth aircraft and small UAVs.

Lockheed Martin also makes an economic argument for continuing Raptor production. The F-22 unit cost in a USAF multiyear purchase is $142.6 million (average unit flyaway cost). Initial unit cost of the F-35 will be around $200 million and then start dropping as production continues. In Japan, the decision to indigenously build small numbers of F-15Js and F-2s (a larger F-16 design) drove their cost to roughly $100 million each. The Eurofighter Typhoon would likely cost even more in a small production run.

[Max2147]

Aviation Week on the F-22. I've come to the conclusion that secrecy seems to kill projects in Congress. So maybe ultimate secrecy on any platform is not a good thing.
But Congress isn't trying to kill the F-22. Robert Gates is the one trying to stop production, and I'm sure he knows everything there is to know about it.

Some Congressmen are trying to keep production going, but they're not doing that because they think the F-22 is essential for national security, they're just trying to get the government to throw money at their districts. A lot of them have drunk the Lockheed Kool-Aid about jobs and such, but those numbers are incredibly inflated.

[SteamWake]

BOOM !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529667,00.html

[SUBMAN1]

But Congress isn't trying to kill the F-22. Robert Gates is the one trying to stop production, and I'm sure he knows everything there is to know about it.

Some Congressmen are trying to keep production going, but they're not doing that because they think the F-22 is essential for national security, they're just trying to get the government to throw money at their districts. A lot of them have drunk the Lockheed Kool-Aid about jobs and such, but those numbers are incredibly inflated.

I disagree. They are looking at it from a bean counters perspective. Pressure from above Gates due to the free distribution of trillions of taxpayer dollars. Its a program they can't afford and still have healthcare is how they see it. It has nothing to do with replacing antiquated aircraft since demo's know nothing about defense of ones nation, and could care less about the health of their pilots.

As I said, my friend who flies F-16's doesn't ever want to go against this plane. It took him out and there is nothing he could do in training. There is no survival. Only death to its adversary.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

BOOM !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529667,00.html

That deserves a pic:

http://www.foxnews.com/images/542703/0_61_shockwave_f22.jpg

-S

[Max2147]

BOOM !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529667,00.html
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/McDonnell-Douglas-F-A-18B/1259482/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/Boeing-F-A-18F-Super/0696104/L/

[AVGWarhawk]

I believe we have 186 of these. How many do we need and at the price tag? :hmmm:

[Aramike]

I believe we have 186 of these. How many do we need and at the price tag? :hmmm:Exactly. It's not like we're currently faced with a situation where are more traditional air forces are being outclassed by our potential enemies.

[SUBMAN1]

Exactly. It's not like we're currently faced with a situation where are more traditional air forces are being outclassed by our potential enemies.

Wrong answer. There is the SU-30 thrust vectoring version being sold all around the world. You have the SU-35 coming online. You have the Gripen being sold to anyone that wants to buy it. Same thing with Rafale. Same Story with EF2000. How many excuses do you need?

Also, the F-22 is cheaper in todays dollars than the original F-15 was in todays dollars (accounting for inflation) when it was bought back in 1974.

This brings us to maintenance - and the ease of not having to service a ton of different systems. The thing is cheaper to operate than an F-15, and they will pay for themselves with maintenence costs alone over an F-15 over the long haul.

-S

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Raptor_and_TU-95.jpg/800px-Raptor_and_TU-95.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

Wrong answer. There is the SU-30 thrust vectoring version being sold all around the world. You have the SU-35 coming online. You have the Gripen being sold to anyone that wants to buy it. Same thing with Rafale. Same Story with EF2000. How many excuses do you need?

Also, the F-22 is cheaper in todays dollars than the original F-15 was in todays dollars (accounting for inflation) when it was bought back in 1974.

This brings us to maintenance - and the ease of not having to service a ton of different systems. The thing is cheaper to operate than an F-15, and they will pay for themselves with maintenence costs alone over an F-15 over the long haul.

-S




Ummm...just how many do we need? Did the article say that further development of better systems for fighters is stopping? So, cheaper to operate..good. Maintenence is low..good...it will not be grounded as long as the F-15 for repairs. I see then no need to get more built then. As for continued improvements, sure, that is always a good thing and it continues.

And of the Super Hornet?

[Aramike]

Wrong answer. There is the SU-30 thrust vectoring version being sold all around the world. You have the SU-35 coming online. You have the Gripen being sold to anyone that wants to buy it. Same thing with Rafale. Same Story with EF2000. How many excuses do you need?

Also, the F-22 is cheaper in todays dollars than the original F-15 was in todays dollars (accounting for inflation) when it was bought back in 1974.

This brings us to maintenance - and the ease of not having to service a ton of different systems. The thing is cheaper to operate than an F-15, and they will pay for themselves with maintenence costs alone over an F-15 over the long haul.

-S

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Raptor_and_TU-95.jpg/800px-Raptor_and_TU-95.jpgYou must have missed the part about "outclassed" and the part about "enemies". Which means you missed the entire point.

The SU-30 is old tech. Not a single Rafale has been sold, and the only countries with a realistic shot at buying it are friendly countries.

And, as AVG asked, how many do you think we need?

Also, what conflict do you believe could happen that a massive influx of F-22's would be the decisive factor over our current forces?

[Max2147]

I disagree. They are looking at it from a bean counters perspective. Pressure from above Gates due to the free distribution of trillions of taxpayer dollars. Its a program they can't afford and still have healthcare is how they see it. It has nothing to do with replacing antiquated aircraft since demo's know nothing about defense of ones nation, and could care less about the health of their pilots.

As I said, my friend who flies F-16's doesn't ever want to go against this plane. It took him out and there is nothing he could do in training. There is no survival. Only death to its adversary.

-S
Erm, Gates didn't have to cut the military budget. Obama actually gave him $20 billion more than he had before. Gates just moved the F-22 money into different programs. Programs that got more money include the F-35, special forces, UAVs, and the LCS. Like it or not, you can't blame/credit Obama for this one.

My personal view is that we should have more F-22's, not just because of its air to air capability, but because of its ability to perform its air to air mission over hostile SAM-infested territory. It's also worth remembering that although the F-22 can rack up a 200-0 kill ratio, it can only carry 6 AMRAAMs, so you'll need more than just a handful of them on a misison against strong enemy fighter defenses.

My personal view is that the F-35 is highly overrated, mostly because of its limited internal payload. It's a plane that's good at a lot of things, but not great at anything. The only mission that the F-35 is ideally suited for is SEAD missions. In every other mission it's compromised in some way.

If I were in charge of Air Force acquisitions, I'd cut back on the F-35 and request an all-new dedicated ground attack aircraft, in the style of the A-6 and the A-10. It would have to be stealthy, have superb low-speed handling, a very large internal payload, and a very nice gun up front. On the flip side, it wouldn't need to be supersonic or have any real air to air capability. The F-35 is just too small and too limited to be a really effective battlefield strike aircraft.

[SUBMAN1]

Erm, Gates didn't have to cut the military budget. Obama actually gave him $20 billion more than he had before. Gates just moved the F-22 money into different programs. Programs that got more money include the F-35, special forces, UAVs, and the LCS. Like it or not, you can't blame/credit Obama for this one.

My personal view is that we should have more F-22's, not just because of its air to air capability, but because of its ability to perform its air to air mission over hostile SAM-infested territory. It's also worth remembering that although the F-22 can rack up a 200-0 kill ratio, it can only carry 6 AMRAAMs, so you'll need more than just a handful of them on a misison against strong enemy fighter defenses.

My personal view is that the F-35 is highly overrated, mostly because of its limited internal payload. It's a plane that's good at a lot of things, but not great at anything. The only mission that the F-35 is ideally suited for is SEAD missions. In every other mission it's compromised in some way.

If I were in charge of Air Force acquisitions, I'd cut back on the F-35 and request an all-new dedicated ground attack aircraft, in the style of the A-6 and the A-10. It would have to be stealthy, have superb low-speed handling, a very large internal payload, and a very nice gun up front. On the flip side, it wouldn't need to be supersonic or have any real air to air capability. The F-35 is just too small and too limited to be a really effective battlefield strike aircraft.

Agree with you on everything but the Obama. Obama has said he doesn't want F-22 because its too expensive, and that trickles down to Gates.

-S

[Max2147]

Agree with you on everything but the Obama.
Why am I not surprised. Some people have yet to learn that everything they don't like isn't Obama's fault. :nope:

Gates is his own man, not a puppet. If he thought the F-22 was vital to our national security, he'd give it money, Obama be damned. If Obama told him "cut the funding or I'll fire you" Gates would jump for joy, give it the money, and hop on the first plane back to Texas. He didn't want to leave Texas A&M to be SecDef in the first place.

[AVGWarhawk]

I see some want more F-22 which is fine. However, I think 186 is enough because there are many other aircraft that need to be produced that better fit the bill than the F-22 can do. Your super hornet that are carrier based, A-10 for ground attack. The airforce needs to be well rounded. I agree that monies go into other aircraft on the drawing boards. Here is a list of active and the number available;

F-15 Eagle
http://mofoyo.com/sites/mofoyo.com/files/images/932.preview.jpg (http://mofoyo.com/image/932)
Type Air superiority fighter
Manufacturer McDonnell Douglas/Boeing IDS
Maiden flight 27 July 1972
Introduction 9 January 1976
Status Active: 567
Primary users United States Air Force, Israeli Air Force, Japan Air Self-Defense Force, Royal Saudi Air Force
Unit cost US$27.9 million (F-15A/B) US$29.9 million (F-15C/D) in 1998
Variants F-15E Strike Eagle
F-15S/MTD
http://mofoyo.com/sites/mofoyo.com/files/images/1709.preview.jpg (http://mofoyo.com/image/1709)
The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15 Eagle is an all-weather tactical fighter designed to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat. It was developed for the U.S. Air Force, and first flew in July 1972. The F-15E Strike Eagle derivative is an all-weather strike fighter that entered service in 1989.
The Eagle's air superiority is achieved through a mixture of unprecedented maneuverability and acceleration, range, weapons and avionics. It can penetrate enemy defense and outperform and outfight any current enemy aircraft. The F-15 has electronic systems and weaponry to detect, acquire, track and attack enemy aircraft while operating in friendly or enemy-controlled airspace. The weapons and flight control systems are designed so one person can safely and effectively perform air-to-air combat.
The F-15's superior maneuverability and acceleration are achieved through high engine thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading. Low wing-loading (the ratio of aircraft weight to its wing area) is a vital factor in maneuverability and, combined with the high thrust-to-weight ratio, enables the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed.
Achievements

* The F-15 Eagle has a perfect combat record of 101 victories and zero defeats.
* During the Balkan conflict, the F-15E was the only fighter able to attack ground targets around the clock, in all weather conditions.
3. F-16 Falcon

http://mofoyo.com/sites/mofoyo.com/files/images/930.preview.jpg (http://mofoyo.com/image/930)
Manufacturer General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin
Maiden flight 1974-02-02
Introduction 1978-08-17
Status Active: 724
Reserve: 69
Primary users United States Air Force and 24 other users
Number built >4,000
Unit cost US$14.6 million (F-16A/B) US$18.8 million (F-16C/D) in 1998
Variants General Dynamics F-16XL
Mitsubishi F-2
http://mofoyo.com/sites/mofoyo.com/files/images/929.preview.jpg (http://mofoyo.com/image/929)
The F-16 Fighting Falcon is an American multirole jet fighter aircraft developed by General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin for the United States Air Force. Designed as a lightweight fighter, it evolved into a successful multirole aircraft. The Falcon's versatility is a paramount reason it was a success on the export market, serving 24 countries. The F-16 is the largest Western fighter program with over 4,000 aircraft built since production started in 1976. Though no longer produced for the US Air Force, it still sees limited duty and is also produced for export.
In an air combat role, the F-16's maneuverability and combat radius (distance it can fly to enter air combat, stay, fight and return) exceed that of all potential threat fighter aircraft. It can locate targets in all weather conditions and detect low flying aircraft in radar ground clutter. In an air-to-surface role, the F-16 can fly more than 500 miles (860 kilometers), deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during non-visual bombing conditions.
In designing the F-16, advanced aerospace science and proven reliable systems from other aircraft such as the F-15 and F-111 were selected. These were combined to simplify the airplane and reduce its size, purchase price, maintenance costs and weight. The light weight of the fuselage is achieved without reducing its strength. With a full load of internal fuel, the F-16 can withstand up to nine G's -- nine times the force of gravity -- which exceeds the capability of other current fighter aircraft.
Achievements

* The F-16 flew more sorties in Operation Desert Storm than any other aircraft.
* The F-16 is the most numerous fighter in the West.
4. F-18 Hornet

http://mofoyo.com/sites/mofoyo.com/files/images/927.preview.jpg (http://mofoyo.com/image/927)
Type Multirole fighter, strike fighter
Manufacturer Boeing Integrated Defense Systems
Designed by McDonnell Douglas
Maiden flight 1995-11-29
Introduction 1999
Primary user United States Navy
Produced 1995-present
Number built 300
Unit cost US$57 million (F/A-18E)
US$59 million (F/A-18F)
Developed from F/A-18 Hornet
Variants EA-18 Growler
http://mofoyo.com/sites/mofoyo.com/files/images/928.preview.jpg (http://mofoyo.com/image/928)
The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a carrier-based fighter/attack aircraft that entered service in 1999 with the United States Navy. The fighter has recently been ordered by the Royal Australian Air Force. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a larger and more advanced development of the F/A-18C/D Hornet.
Use

The F/A-18 Hornet is an all-weather aircraft and is used as an attack aircraft, as well as a fighter. While in fighter mode, the F/A-18 Hornets are used mainly as fighter escorts and fleet air defense. While in attack mode, it is used for force projection, interdiction and close and deep air support.
Achievements The F/A-18 Hornet broke all records for tactical aircraft in availability, reliability, and maintainability during Operation Desert Storm
<H2>5. F-22: Raptor</H2>http://mofoyo.com/sites/mofoyo.com/files/images/926.preview.jpg (http://mofoyo.com/image/926)
Type Stealth air superiority fighter
Manufacturers Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems
Maiden flight YF-22: 29 September 1990
F-22: 7 September 1997
Introduction 15 December 2005
Status Active: 91[1]
Planned: 183
Primary user United States Air Force
Unit cost US$137.7 million as of 2007[3]
Variants X-44 MANTA
FB-22
http://mofoyo.com/sites/mofoyo.com/files/images/925.preview.jpg (http://mofoyo.com/image/925)
The F-22 Raptor is a fifth generation fighter aircraft which utilizes fourth generation Stealth technology. It was originally envisioned as an air superiority fighter for use against the Soviet Air Force, but is equipped for ground attack, electronic warfare and signals intelligence roles as well. Faced with a protracted development period, the prototype aircraft was designated YF-22 and, as F/A-22 during the three years before formally entering United States Air Force service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and is responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems and final assembly of the F-22. Along with Lockheed Martin, partner Boeing Integrated Defense Systems provides the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and all of the pilot and maintenance training systems.
<H3>Achievements

* The F-22 has the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds.
* The Raptor will be the leading American air-to-air fighter of the new century.
The Future of Jet Fighting

- F-35 Lightning

http://mofoyo.com/sites/mofoyo.com/files/images/923.preview.jpg (http://mofoyo.com/image/923)
Manufacturers Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Northrop Grumman
BAE Systems
Maiden flight 15 December 2006
Introduction 2011 (scheduled)
Status Under development/pre-production
Primary users United States Air Force
United States Navy
United States Marine Corps
Royal Air Force / Royal Navy
Produced 2003-present
Unit cost F-35A: US$48 million
F-35B: US$62 million
F-35C: US$63 million
Developed from Lockheed Martin X-35
http://mofoyo.com/sites/mofoyo.com/files/images/924.preview.jpg (http://mofoyo.com/image/924)
The F-35 Lightning II is a single-seat, single-engine, stealth-capable military strike fighter, a multi-role aircraft that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air-to-air combat. The F-35 is descended from the X-35 of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Its development is being principally funded by the United States with the United Kingdom and other partner governments providing additional funding. It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems as major partners. Demonstrator aircraft flew in 2000; a production model first took flight on 15 December 2006. The F-35 is scheduled to be released for service in 2011 and will set a new standard in fighter jet aviation.




</H3>

[AVGWarhawk]

Why am I not surprised. Some people have yet to learn that everything they don't like isn't Obama's fault.



usually it is Bushs fault....that is a hoot :har::har::har:

[SUBMAN1]

A 186 is pathetic. There were supposed to be nearly 800. 186 will have to do quadruple duty and then some to protect our nation.

The F-35 is not even in the same class. I'm not even sure what the F-35 is capable of against the new Sukhoi aircraft coming out of Russia. Its a nice plane, but it is no F-22.

The rest of the aircraft in the list, F-15 and F-16 included, are outclassed, outgunned, and sitting ducks against any modern Air Force.

People seem to forget, most Air Force's of various nations aren't as pathetic as Iraq and Afghanistan. Matter of fact, even North Korea could through a wrench into our Air Force these days.

Is it just me? Or is everyone in this world blind robots that are incredibly short sighted?

-S

[Stealhead]

That is wrong. Our Air Force is by far the most powerful air force on the planet. We have the best people the best equipment and head and shoulders the best trained combat piolts on earth. If you really do have a friend who flys F-16s in the USAF he is not telling you very much. I can attest what I say based on 12 years of service in the USAF including time in fighter squadrons so i know how they train casue we they train we train. We WILL kick anyones ass with what we have let them bring some crap SU-30(which the Russians can barely afford they are still flying Mig-31s for crying out load) an F-16,F-15,F-22 will take it down any day.186 F-22s is a good number 800 there is no need for 800 fighters when you take into account that our current air frames are still cutting edge and I am only talking about the USAF not the Navy or Marines with the SuperHornet or NATO with the Typhoon.And the US and NATO have another massive advantage far far far far superior training than any threat AF.Total skill and experiance in flying a fighter aircarft is a huge factor in defense that must be considered.Some yokel can fly his Su-30 and he will at best have a few hundred hours experiance total we on the other hand will have thousands of hours experiance the Su-30 flyboy is dead as Zed in Pulp fiction.

Funny that you say that the F-16,F-15 are outclassed by any modern air force these are the planes that most modern air forces fly.The correct thing is that an F-16, F-15 will crush even the most modern thing the anyone else can come up with.

Well you are right about the NK the NK pilot would have to throw a wrench at us because that is the only thing he would have left to use after a USAF,Navy, or Marine fighter encountered him assuming that he survived to be able to eject in the first place.

That is all I have to say on that.Say what ever you must it makes no diffrence.AVGWarhawk has the correct idea you need more than one plane to do diffrent jobs and the current aircraft are good to go for at least another 10 or 15 years by which point the F-22 and the F-35 will be in full swing.

Sorry I waited so long to post but I can not keep my tounge tied at such a poor statement about the USAF I must stand up for my branch when I see someone saying something that is not true about it.

[Zachstar]

A 186 is pathetic. There were supposed to be nearly 800. 186 will have to do quadruple duty and then some to protect our nation.

The F-35 is not even in the same class. I'm not even sure what the F-35 is capable of against the new Sukhoi aircraft coming out of Russia. Its a nice plane, but it is no F-22.

The rest of the aircraft in the list, F-15 and F-16 included, are outclassed, outgunned, and sitting ducks against any modern Air Force.

People seem to forget, most Air Force's of various nations aren't as pathetic as Iraq and Afghanistan. Matter of fact, even North Korea could through a wrench into our Air Force these days.

Is it just me? Or is everyone in this world blind robots that are incredibly short sighted?

-S

What an insane and insulting view of the United States Air Force.

First of all you are little more than a conservative arm chair general in my view who is screaming about not getting a bunch of your new toys.

Second of all North Korea would be a tough fight but they cant put a wrench into the Air Force unless they go in thinking they can win in a day which is impossible even with a million F-22s.

Third the fighter pilots are HIGHLY trained in their F-15 and F-16 fighters and like it or not they ARE the frontline craft and they are not "sitting ducks" they are a lethal force that can defeat anything from Russia or elseware.

[Stealhead]

What an insane and insulting view of the United States Air Force.

First of all you are little more than a conservative arm chair general in my view who is screaming about not getting a bunch of your new toys.

Second of all North Korea would be a tough fight but they cant put a wrench into the Air Force unless they go in thinking they can win in a day which is impossible even with a million F-22s.

Third the fighter pilots are HIGHLY trained in their F-15 and F-16 fighters and like it or not they ARE the frontline craft and they are not "sitting ducks" they are a lethal force that can defeat anything from Russia or elseware.

Yeah buddy high five!!! you live near Barksdale you know what Im talking about show him some B-52s!

F-16s are so crappy that Poland could hardly wait to start getting them to replace thier Mig-29s they are currently getting that order completed and who is on part of thier border? Russia.

[Zachstar]

I used to live in Bossier and as I walked home from High School every day I got to see them coming and going from there.

[Sea Demon]

Third the fighter pilots are HIGHLY trained in their F-15 and F-16 fighters and like it or not they ARE the frontline craft and they are not "sitting ducks" they are a lethal force that can defeat anything from Russia or elseware.

I served in the Air Force for many years and continue to maintain a relationship with a number of people I served with. Mostly other pilots and former pilots. Almost every single one believes that the F-22 production should be expanded to greater numbers than the 187 planned. F-16's and F-15's have served this nation admirably, however the USAF is in the business of ensuring air dominance over any airspace, or contingency in the foreseeable future. As such F-15's and F-16's must remain in service until end of life, but also be replaced in sufficient quantities.

I myself don't believe that we need 800 F-22's, but we should have close to 1:1 replacement of all F-15's in current service as of the 2001 number. Air dominance is expensive, and in my own view worth it. In a perfect world, there's alot of other crap the government is wasting money on that should be stopped. Never national security or defense related projects which assures American military primacy. If this is done right, we need not go broke or go into deficit spending either. There is alot of pork and government waste to be eliminated for sure. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world. Nevertheless, I'm not certain that halting production at 187 is a wise move in the context of national security objectives.

[Max2147]

I'm not worried about the fighters in other countries' air forces. The F-15 and F-16 should be able to hold their own for a while now in air-to-air combat, especially when you consider the AMRAAM's superior accuracy. USAF pilot training is obviously top-notch as well, although I have a lot of respect for Russian pilots as well. Chinese pilots are an unproven entity.

What I'm worried about is ground fire, which could prevent the USAF from gaining air superiority over enemy territory. An effective SAM umbrella could keep F-15s and F-16s out of the area, leaving our strike aircraft vulnerable to enemy fighters. The F-22 would be able to escort our strike aircraft anywhere with near-impunity. It would also be able to chase enemy aircraft deep into their territory, while our 4th Gen fighters would have to stop when they got within enemy SAM range.

For an example of how an effective SAM umbrella can change the balance of power in the air, take a look at the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The Israelis had a much stronger air force than the Egyptians, but the Egyptian Army was very careful to stay under their SAM umbrella. The result was that the Israeli Air Force got mauled when they tried to carry out strike missions, and the Egyptian Army was able to operate without fear of air attack. The Egyptian Army proceeded to roll over the Israelis, and they were only stopped when some guy named Ariel Sharon managed to slip his division behind the Egyptian lines and destroyed the Egyptian SAM sites on the ground. With the SAM umbrella gone, the IAF came back into play, and the Israelis crushed the Egyptians.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

That is wrong. Our Air Force is by far the most powerful air force on the planet. We have the best people the best equipment and head and shoulders the best trained combat piolts on earth.
Thank you, Comrade Political Officer. Your bland assurances are sure restoring my faith!
If you really do have a friend who flys F-16s in the USAF he is not telling you very much. I can attest what I say based on 12 years of service in the USAF including time in fighter squadrons so i know how they train casue we they train we train.
The final part of this sentence doesn't even make any sense. For the USAF's sake, I should HOPE that your 12 years were as something like a janitor or cook. If you are actually representative of the USAF's fighting arm, I'm getting worried.
We WILL kick anyones ass with what we have let them bring some crap SU-30(which the Russians can barely afford they are still flying Mig-31s for crying out load) an F-16,F-15,F-22 will take it down any day.
Lots of bravado, not a lot of appreciation. The MiG-31 is not an all-round airframe, but in its specialized role, it is arguably more suited than the Su-30 or other Flanker derivative. It is fast, which is important for getting good critical angles or denying critical angle during intercepts (this is apparently one of the nicest things about the supercruising F-22 next to the stealth) - dogfight ability matters not if you can't achieve the intercept or are forced to take a bad position. And it has a big radar aperture. Upgrades to the avionics don't matter because in theory the same tech can be applied to a -31 based frame. At any given avionic tech level, the MiG-31's ability to house a physically bigger radar gives it more intercept capability.
186 F-22s is a good number 800 there is no need for 800 fighters when you take into account
I do vaguely remember it was the USAF itself pushing for this number at the start and being forced back step by step to the current <200 sum. Oh well...
that our current air frames are still cutting edge and I am only talking about the USAF not the Navy or Marines with the SuperHornet or NATO with the Typhoon.
"Cutting edge" is not what people generally call 30-year old designs. They are still effective, but a lot of that has to do with the fact they are asked to fight people at least one tech generation behind (the lowest tech advantage they ever had were against Syrian MiG-23s armed with MiG-21 radars...*) and they are beefed up with extensive support. If the "Teens series" has an impressive combat record, it is one that is made against opponents that were basically blindfolded by a bunch of th F-15's friends before entering the ring, while the F-15 gets a gallery of advisors...
*Yes, I know that they shot down MiG-29s in Iraq and Kosovo, but they number so few as a percentage of the total force (about one squadron each) that the above basically holds true.
And the US and NATO have another massive advantage far far far far superior training than any threat AF.Total skill and experiance in flying a fighter aircarft is a huge factor in defense that must be considered.Some yokel can fly his Su-30 and he will at best have a few hundred hours experiance total we on the other hand will have thousands of hours experiance the Su-30 flyboy is dead as Zed in Pulp fiction.
And of course, they have some nice ranges to train in. However, while this can hardly be counted as a disadvantage for the West, the advantage of total hours and hours / year is highly dependent on situation (which is why desperate air forces in wartime tend to cut it - they keep hoping they hadn't hit the Critical value below which their pilot effectiveness suddenly falls to almost nothing). When above certain critical values the advantage of each additional hour starts to fade.
Another problem (and this one applies to the USAF, perhaps not for some NATO forces) is that in some ways US hours are arguably not used as efficiently as in poorer countries. A poorer country might use the limited available flying hours solely in intercept and dogfighting, while the US would diversify into various forms of bombing, air refuelling ... etc. While there is SOME cross-talk between all these forms of training, it is not hard to see how in a particular field of specialization a US training hour might average less than 1.
And of course, there are all the staff tours that a US pilot tends to do as he goes up, while other air forces may not be inclined to play such games. Sure, he does fly a trainer every once in awhile to maintain his nominal proficiency but that isn't the same as being a regular line pilot. It is said that more experienced pilots have greater resistance against deteroriation due to lack of practice. Still, when your staff tour lasts over a YEAR, one can just see the hundreds of hours of flying hours worth of skill deteroriation (you lose less flying skill versus non-practice time as you get more total experience, but on the other hand, your hours aren't worth as much skill any more) ... all these joint and staff tours have an advantage somewhere, but it probably isn't in flying skill.
Sorry I waited so long to post but I can not keep my tounge tied at such a poor statement about the USAF I must stand up for my branch when I see someone saying something that is not true about it.
The quality of your argumentation does little to defend the USAF. "Dishonoring" it and "making us lose even more confidence" sounds more like it.

[Aramike]

A 186 is pathetic. There were supposed to be nearly 800. 186 will have to do quadruple duty and then some to protect our nation.Quadruple duty? Protect our nation?

Please qualify these statements. Why can't other combat aircraft fulfill the estimated mission of the cancelled F22s? And, what specifically does the F22 protect our nation from that other aircraft cannot?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Quadruple duty? Protect our nation?
Please qualify these statements. Why can't other combat aircraft fulfill the estimated mission of the cancelled F22s? And, what specifically does the F22 protect our nation from that other aircraft cannot?

The best single site to understand this side of the argument is probably Carlo Kopp's APA site. But to summarize that site into a post (along with a bit of my own):

1) Somewhere around 1980, missiles suddenly became effective. Before that they had limited launch conditions and even when launched in "correct" condition can be easily decoyed or outmaneuvered. During the 80s, a new generation of missiles came to age which can match or exceed a figher's manueverability (given a launch w/i NEZ so they have the energy), much improved valid launch zones (all aspect, near elimination of the low altitude gap...etc), and much harder to jam. That degrades a whole lot of old anti-missile options like NOE.

Another nasty effect is that it makes delivering effective antiair fire less demanding on manpower. A 120h/y WP pilot might have a hard time defeating a 200h/y NATO pilot in a cannon fight. But if all he has to do is to get NATOplane into the HMS and launch 2 R-73s ... the NATO guy might get him as well, but anything clese to 1:1 is bad for NATO.

2) With missile avoidance being degraded, suppression takes a greater importance. But that's also being degraded by the increasing mobility of the SAMs. Jamming them ... well, see the missiles.

That's the 1980s. Starting in the 1990s, TWO things began happening:

3) Less than friendly nations start trying to get AWACS. Russia already got it but it is for PVO (and apparently its tracking ability is limited). Now it is the turn of China ... etc. Even if the American AWACS is better, often getting a basic system in a category is 50% of the battle.

4) Did you notice that the Sovs built the A-50 for the PVO and not the VVS? And that when they tried to build a VVS AEW aircraft (project stalled like so many others with the end of the USSR), they made it small (An-71), even though considering their electronic inferiority a BIG AWACS (say one built on an An-124) would probably allow them to meet requirements more easily? And they don't even have a PROJECT for a J-STARS type aircraft? If you ask me, it is because they figure big ISR platforms are ultimately vulnerable, so any VVS AEW has to be as small and cheap (expendable) as possible - if it is only worth a bit more than a ground radar site that's best even if it is less capable individually. During the 1990s, a bunch of anti-ISR weapons such as the 300km range R-37 got extremely close to completion. Even before that we had the SA-12B Giant, and the new S-400 is to have 400km range...

I leave it to you to imagine what these 4 developments together, along with modernized Flankers and Fulcrums, might do to a force that's composed mostly of "4th generation" aircraft, even upgraded. An enemy equipped with these has improved combat support, while being able to push away or even defeat entirely the combat support that allowed the murderous kill ratio enjoyed by Western style forces since the 80s. Lethality and, in some ways, ease of use of weapons have greatly improved.

Now, let's head to 2005-2010:

5) VHF radars: We all knew it. Stealth can be beaten. But it wasn't supposed to be quite that convenient. Of the anti-stealth theories, it seems VHF radars have been taken furthest, perhaps encouraged by the downing of a certain F-117 in Kosovo. Anyway, VHF radars have somehow evolved from being huge, static things with poor precision into semi mobile and even mobile configurations that have deployment times matching the S and X band radars of the 80s. Worse, they got precise enough to guide missiles!

6) Alternate sensors: IR, in particular, is making headway in resolution and range. Even fighter radars are gaining power-aperture to "punch through" weak stealth.

The upshot of these developments is that even stealth, by itself, may not be enough against the new air defenses. You also need some good old-fashioned kinematics. Which means the JSF is out.

From 2010 on, in addition to further developments in 1-6 (and further improved missile kinematics), 7 will appear in the form of enemy built VLO aircraft. Hopefully, experience (and development funds) will count for SOMETHING and what comes out won't be quite as stealthy as the F-22. But again getting the basic stealth is half the battle, especially when supplemented by 1-6*. If the enemy can hurt the F-22 force, it can annihilate the lesser guys, so effectively the F-22s will have to have the numbers to carry the battle.

*Remember America isn't doing a whole lot on most of the 6 I mentioned, especially when one considers its sheer total budget. Europe is going for ramjet powered Meteors, but America prefers to rely on supercruise to improve kinematics, which leaves one wondering what they'll do when the enemy has SC as well as ramjet missiles. Patriot is a nice system but still takes over 30 minutes to deploy, which is about the standard of the S-300PT of around 1978! They are world leaders in 3, but they don't seem to be working as hard on anti-ISR measures - they even canceled the AIM-154. If those darn anti-ISR weapons start working America may well find itself on the "Iraq" side of the combat support equation. Nor are they working too hard on VHF radars, so against enemy VLO aircraft they may start sympathizing with the Iraqis here too. The APG-77 has excellent power aperture and America got nice FLIRs, but they don't seem as happy to integrate them into air-air even as a supplementary device.

So what's left? Training. But the enemy is working on his training too, and as I said the employment of weapons probably has gotten easier on the technical front over the years.

The current generation of American air weapons have been granted a very long honeymoon. First they were committed against weak enemies, and the implosion of their main rival delayed the overall development and proliferation of their counters - the S-400 may have used CRTs if the Cold War had gone on, but it'll have been in service ten years ago. Harping too much about it is a bit like harping about a force of Su-35BMs rolling over a force of F-4 Phantoms. Prudence suggests it cannot last forever. The time of decision seems near. What next, Americans?

[Morts]

Is it just me? Or is everyone in this world blind robots that are incredibly short sighted?

-S


yes, its always everyone else, never Grand master SUBMAN1 who knows everything

[joegrundman]

kazuaki-san, could you include a glossary for some of those TLAs?

[Stealhead]

The quality of your argumentation does little to defend the USAF. "Dishonoring" it and "making us lose even more confidence" sounds more like it.[/quote]

:down::down::down:
By they way my good man the Us military does not have Political Officers does this look like the USSR to you?(dont answer that is a rhetorical question)
And I was an Areospace Ground Equipment Technician if you must know. You can discuss something but lay of childish insults about any persons military service I know that you would not have said that in my face.;)
I know some people that where cooks by they way every member of the military has a vital role your desire to insult this or that field shows you lack of understanding of how militaries function.

You sir are dishonoring the USAF by saying such a thing to someone who served in it.You are just jealous that you are not and never have been a member of this Air Force and dont have anything to stand up for when something untrue is said as Zachstar said there are an awful lot of arm chair generals around here.I agree that there mixed feelings inside the USAF as to how many F-22s are needed and I was never saying anything aginst the F-22. Talking about the value of the F-22 is fine lay people talking about combat tactics and training of which they have no understanding I am not going to even discuss.You can if you wish but it is purely amature speculation at best nothing more.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

By they way my good man the Us military does not have Political Officers does this look like the USSR to you?(dont answer that is a rhetorical question)

Obviously, sarcasm completely blows over your head...

And I was an Areospace Ground Equipment Technician if you must know. You can discuss something but lay of childish insults about any persons military service I know that you would not have said that in my face.;)

Obviously, the fact that it is not your military service, but your quality of argumentation that is being attacked there blows over your head.

I know some people that where cooks by they way every member of the military has a vital role your desire to insult this or that field shows you lack of understanding of how militaries function.

Well. Cooks certainly have their role to play on the battlefield. But let's face it.

You sir are dishonoring the USAF by saying such a thing to someone who served in it.

I'll argue that if you really were a member of the USAF, you might do more to honor it by delivering more quality argumentation than you have done so far.

You are just jealous that you are not and never have been a member of this Air Force and dont have anything to stand up for when something untrue is said as Zachstar said there are an awful lot of arm chair generals around here.

I understand the desire to defend your Force. As an armchair general, we don't need such blind pride you are demonstrating and can take a nice backseat view.

[Stealhead]

There is nothing more for me to say I said what I needed to say in the other posts.You are using web pages which will have the opnion of whoever wrote the given page highly baised infomormation what you are talking about is purely speculation you dont know what any given air force does for training so anything you say is pure speculation and no active pilot or intel officer of any nations air force is going to post on this teeling the rest of the world how they train they are the ones who know not you not me (or other former AF members besides the fact that we know our force is very well trained) not anyone on this site.

The employment of weapons probably has gotten easier on the technical front over the years.
see here you are speculating are you a fighter pilot? No you are not. A fighter pilot must know how fully utilize his given aircraft to the max I dont give a damn how "easy" you think it is to use the weapons that means nothing a pilot must have training ask Chuck Yeager.If you put two pilots in the same given plane and one has say 750 in aircraft combat level flight trianing and the other has only 150 the one with 750 hours will very likely be the victor.Of course it is rarely ever one on one but the odds are still in the favor of the higher hours.

All I have to say is any one thinking of going toe to toe with USAF(or Navy,Marines most any NATO,JSDAF,ROKAF,IAF) had better pray to god that they are not going up aginst one of the projected 186 or 7 F-22s because he will not be coming home. If they run into an F-15 or F-16(or non-stealth fighter for most nations) flight just the same he will be wondering why we are so good and then as he floats down to earth he will say "Ah the americans(other ally) have trained 4 times as much as we did note to self dont fight the USAF or any of thier allies because they are trained fully to destroy threats my nation on the other hand said "Oh we have an easier to use(and more primative) weapons."

End of story.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

When a serviceman does feel that to counter open-source based arguments he must heavily rely on classified sources, smart move for him is to stay silent. They are smart enough to know that in a debate, a source you can't show is worth zero.

[Stealhead]

Your still going? And I am not in the Air Force anymore and I and the active Air Force have nothing to prove to you thier actions speak louder than words or any of your "sources".

I am no longer posting anything in this thread. Your argument is not valid. You are trying to say that training makes little diffrence anyone with brains can see that it does but you.You have been playing way too many games like HAWX and the like it is preety clear.




This is my last post you can keep going with your invalid ideas fine by me.
This thread is sooo dead.:yeah:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Your still going? And I am not in the Air Force anymore and I and the active Air Force have nothing to prove to you thier actions speak louder than words or any of your "sources".
What actions? Their ability to roll over countries fielding relatively small amounts of mostly 1970s equipment?

[baggygreen]

I think the current number of f22s is too low for you fellas. I'll lay out why below.

Those in favour of keeping numbers as they stand are doing so for good reason (in their minds). These machines are expensive. Very expensive. We’ve also been told over and over how great they are, how they can beat anyone else’s aircraft at the moment.

This leads to a sense of complacency around them. Why do you need a few hundred of these miracle machines when we already have 180 that can do everything except tie its own shoes, so to speak?

It is a perfectly understandable point of view, and in monetary terms it looks attractive.

However, time to learn from past lessons.

Firstly, the US has ensured continued hegemony by building the absolute best, and building it in big numbers. How many F86s were produced? Look at how many F16s have been built. Going broader, look at your carriers – more than all the other nations combined, and bigger than any other nation’s carrier. This has helped maintain the aura which surrounds the US. It certainly struck fear into the hearts of the US’s enemies over the past 50 years.

What do you have to fear, I can hear you ask? These F22s are invincible! Granted, they may be top of the line now, however with the rate at which technology is advancing, it will not be long before there are competitors to its aerial supremacy. I’m not even taking into account the advances in radar and missiles. What is stealth now may not be in 10 or 20 years, and if you can be found, you can be killed.

*Hypothetical*

What happens if in say 20 years you fight China in a limited war over say, Taiwan? F22s can be seen by some radars now. You will probably lose some to SAMs. F22s have a limited carrying capacity. When they run out of missiles, they have to head home. China has enough aircraft to take a beating but still keep coming with more numbers, and eventually they may be taken on the ground by aircraft-launched missiles or cruise missiles.

*end hypothetical*

Airframes will eventually fatigue – conflict or no conflict – and that will result in crashes. The problem with having so few is that every loss will be keenly felt, much like the B2 crash last year.

Taking a brief turn to ww2 to finish, lets go to the eastern front. German tanks were superior in most, if not every way to the Soviet tanks. However, the Soviets made more of the cheaper tanks, and simply swarmed and overran the german machines. If the Germans had had more numbers, weren’t outnumbered as greatly, they may well have held. But there was too few against too many. Same with the African Desert – inferior tanks outnumbered and overwhelmed better machines who simply couldn’t keep up. Different era and different vehicles, but the lesson remains the same.

[Task Force]

I think of the F 22 as a graphics card... (stupid I know.) Right now, its like the the best card you can get. but in a fiew years, it will be kind of like the 7XXX or the low 8XXX series, no longer the "best of the best". just good.:yep:

[Dowly]

I think of the F 22 as a graphics card... (stupid I know.)

And that, my friend, is the reason you're not in any important position. :O:

[Raptor1]

Taking a brief turn to ww2 to finish, lets go to the eastern front. German tanks were superior in most, if not every way to the Soviet tanks. However, the Soviets made more of the cheaper tanks, and simply swarmed and overran the german machines.

That's highly debatable, Soviet tanks were in many ways superior to the German tanks...

[Dowly]

I think it would be an endless debate to finally make out who had the best tanks.

But what russia had, was the resources to keep pumping those T34s out of the factory. While the germans were upgrading and designing new tanks, instead of keeping their production levels up for the tanks they already had in service. Granted, Tiger & Panther were both good tanks, but I'd say the cons outweighted the pros, for them to really have an impact.

Guderian said it spot on:
As interesting as these designs were, the practical result was just a reduced production of the Panzer 4, our only efficient tank then, to a very modest level...

[HunterICX]

I think it would be an endless debate to finally make out who had the best tanks

I think any ''what is the best....'' debate will go on forever.

HunterICX

[Dowly]

I think any ''what is the best....'' debate will go on forever.

HunterICX

Which is debatable aswell. :O:

[baggygreen]

I knew I shouldn't have tried erging govt policy writing with subsimming...

The point there was the numbers overwhelmed superior quality machines (on the whole).:yeah:

Hopefully I'm clearerrer drunk than at work!!