How to shoot down an F-22

[krashkart]

Apparently the Raptor doesn't do so well in close-in dogfighting. :huh:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/f-22-germans/

[nikimcbee]

$400-million-a-copy F-22 (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/f-22-real-cost/)

My guess was defund it.

[Ducimus]

In a 2008 study (big file!), the Air Force-funded think tank RAND warned against assuming long-range missiles will work.

I hear something. Do you hear it? A faint echo of the F4 phantom. Only in this case, its not a lack of a gun, but a lack of agility?

[Stealhead]

It is my understanding that the USAF decided to focus on long range missiles and focus on that type of combat and less so on dog fighting.Funny that RAND which was founded by the USAF back in the 50's no less says other wise.

It seems that the military industrial complex does not learn lessons of past wars very well we focused heavily on long range missiles in the early 60's and then the North Vietnamese Air Force gave us a real headache. Technology fails and always at the most ideal times.

Sure part of the issues of Vietnam can be blamed on many teething troubles that the Aim-7 and Aim-9 had that is only part of the picture.TAC squadrons where not allowed to even train in dog fighting tactics by and large:timeout:.
When they did is was very poor and unrealistic and was always against the same type of aircraft nothing dissimilar.

We changed that after Vietnam well the Navy changed it during Vietnam during the Line Backers the Navy saw greatly improved kill ratios.Now it seems they have placed faith into long range missiles again.History repeats.Perhaps even in a harsher manner
this time around foreign nations could now decide to focus on producing better jamming systems to decrease the reliability of our missiles.

I have no problem saying that the Typhoon is a much better aircraft and more cost effective than the F-22 and the Typhoon looks better as well which is always a sign of a good fighter. Prove me wrong the Spitfire it looked good German pilots got distracted by its graceful lines it made them think of French women.

[Ducimus]

It is my understanding that the USAF decided to

Whenever the USAF decides to do something (IE more change), more often then not, the result is bad. If "change" was a drug, the USAF is a wasted junky that should have gone to rehab at least 10 years ago. The only tradition the USAF has (last i checked at any rate) is change.

I served when McPeak was Chief of Staff. I think earned the right to bitch about it.

[Stealhead]

He is the one that came up with those silly name patches the uniform stuff right?I came in on the tail end of that nonsense lucky for me my job did not require me to wear blues very often.

I can agree with you there.For example the new Air Force symbol they sent out several questionnaires about it and it was a topic of discussion I do not recall a single person saying that they liked it but we got stuck with it.

I was lucky enough at my last base we had an E-7 that had been at the same base since 81'(I have no idea how he pulled that off) if someone had a "bright" idea he had seen it fail or succeed before of course the brass and senior NCOs usually ignored him.Then the "bright" idea would wind up sucking and I would think "why did they not listen to the old man".

I have to hand it to the people that can do 20+ years kudos for putting up with it for that long (if you where the decent type).

[nikimcbee]

I hear something. Do you hear it? A faint echo of the F4 phantom. Only in this case, its not a lack of a gun, but a lack of agility?

:haha:That was the first thing I thought of. With our luck, the PRC has probably written a virus to make all of our long range missles "circle-runners."

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

:haha:That was the first thing I thought of. With our luck, the PRC has probably written a virus to make all of our long range missles "circle-runners."Your military has habit to tout its "network centric" capabilities. Its indeed cool and useful but its also an achilles heel. I would say that Chinese are dumb if they don't atleast try turning your own network against you. It would be very interesting if you ended up into situation where enemy uses your own "secure" network to figure out where to fire their stand-off weapons or even your own weapons. :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Overpriced. Sooner or later - it seems sooner - getting caught up with, but being so expensive that it is available in limited numbers only. Too small a force as if technology alone can compensate for the disadvantegous size of forces. The F22 looks sexy and on paper is a great thing, but I have a somewhat dampened attitude towards it since years. I do not buy into this overpriced super-hightech. Give me a robust alternative in fighters that is cheaper, lacks some of the miracle gizzmoes onboard, but is available in three times as high quantities.

Technology can compensate low numbers only to some degree, and not beyond. And the less units you have, the more costly and negative for a war every single loss becomes that you suffer. Because you have no reserves to fill gaps.

Sometimes size does matter. Force sizes, for example.

[Skybird]

Your military has habit to tout its "network centric" capabilities. Its indeed cool and useful but its also an achilles heel. I would say that Chinese are dumb if they don't atleast try turning your own network against you. It would be very interesting if you ended up into situation where enemy uses your own "secure" network to figure out where to fire their stand-off weapons or even your own weapons. :hmmm:
Exactly. I hold every bet that the Chinese know this and for that reason it is that they have boosted their efforts in cyberwarfare so tremendously in the past 2 or 3 years. But I would not bet that the US has the upper hand in that field anymore.

And satellites - as long as there are no Star Trek style deflector shields, dpending on a network of satellites would not let me find sleep.

This kind of technology is comfortable. I think it is worth to contemplate about this single sentence a bit.

[Ducimus]

He is the one that came up with those silly name patches the uniform stuff right?I came in on the tail end of that nonsense lucky for me my job did not require me to wear blues very often.


Given your second sentence, you probably don't have a very good idea of what was since, you did not wear blues very often, this would impact you the hardest. Pull up a chair fellow airmen, let me tell you a tale of stupidty that can only be hatched by our nations glorious aeronautic service. You honestly, could not make this stuff up.

In the beginning was the plan... err i mean, your standard BDU's, with rank on the sleeves, name tape, usaf tape, wing patch, command patch, etc etc. For some people the number of patch's sewn onto their uniform rivaled even a boy scouts. This, i shall name, Uniform number 1.

Then came General McPeak, and he went unto the AF and said, we're going for simplicity! So off came ALL the patchs. Yup, all of em. No more rank, no more wing or command patch's, not even a United States Air Force. In their place, was a crew patch, that had your name, your rank, USAF. It was affixed onto your BDU's directly above your left breast pocket via velcro. (great fun for practical jokes) The idea, as i recall was to save on uniform costs. (keep this in the back of your mind) This ensemble I shall name Uniform Number 2.

Then the pencil pushers at CBPO's everywhere went unto McPeak and said, this sucks, we can't use the pen holders in our pockets because the crew patch gets in the way! The officers too were all unhappy. For nobody could tell their rank! Officers weren't getting saluted! This simply will not do! Then, the almighty powers that be, said, unto us poor plebians tending the fields, thou shalt now wear your rank upon they sleeve again, thine crew patch shall now be 1/2 inch above your left breast pocket. Thou of the guilded cast, shall now affix thine shiny adornments upon thy hats. The officers were again being saluted, Senior NCO's again had difficulty rolling up their sleeves, and nearly all of us were mocking the "save uniform costs" rational for the change that started it all. This I shall name Uniform number 3.

So to recap, during this time period, we, as field sloggers who wore BDU's every day, had no uniformity at all, and hence, no real uniform. We had in any open ranks inspection anywhere:

- Old style bdu's
- singe crew patch directly above left breast pocket
- crew patch 1/2 " above pocket, and rank on sleeves.

In the end, guess what happened? If you guessed that the next cheif of staff came in and said, "this is a pile of excrement and it stinks, everyone back to the old uniforms!" then you are correct.

Ahh yes, I remember when I enlisted. I was the VERY LAST flight in the 3201st BMTS. While I was in basic, it was renamed to the 321st BMTS. Infact, everywhere i went, 4 digit squadron numbers were becoming 3 digit squadron numbers, buck sargeants still existed but wereso rare, so to be an oddity, I saw dudes with ICBM badges still, but they too were an oddity, AFSC's were being combined and renamed, and EVERYWHERE i went, i heard, "beware the new air force".

[TLAM Strike]

So lets see...

The F-22 is a failure because (based on a mock dogfight) BVR missiles are not as capable as believed.

The F-35 is a failure because (based on anecdotal evidence) BVR surface to air missiles are more dangerous than we believe.

If the DoD listened to the internet the USAF would be flying around in something like this:
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/7013/mx799onf82twinmustang1s.jpg

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

So lets see...

The F-22 is a failure because (based on a mock dogfight) BVR missiles are not as capable as believed.

The F-35 is a failure because (based on anecdotal evidence) BVR surface to air missiles are more dangerous than we believe.

If the DoD listened to the internet the USAF would be flying around in something like this:
<pic removed>Well if you can't get generation by generation increasing costs under control you are either flying those or - like old joke says - you got to decide which service flies your fighter in each weekday. :03:

[Platapus]

It is difficult to calculate the "cost" of an F-22 as it depends on what developmental costs are included. A common way of calculating this is to calculate the total expected life-cycle cost per unit.

The GAO has listed the life-cycle cost of the F-22 at $469,000,000 per aircraft.

I think that is way too much to pay for a single aircraft. Half a billion dollars per aircraft? Yikes!

Here is a disturbing thought. The F-22 became operational in Dec 2005. Since then, we have had air operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and in other conflict zones. Pretty much all of our operational fighters have participated in these actions. But not the F-22.

An aircraft that has been operational for 6 years, during which time we have been in a constant state of OOTW and no combat sorties.

Half a billion for an aircraft that has not fought and does not seem expected to fight in the near future. That's a swell deal for the taxpayers. :up:

[Ducimus]

I place the blame for that BS on the Fighter Mafia. The Air Force doesn't need the F-22. But the fly fly boys with the stars on their epaulets ALWAYS want the latest and greatest Air superiority toy they can buy, regardless if they really need it or not, or regardless if we need something else that ISN'T a fighter or not.

[Platapus]

I served when <expletive deleted> was Chief of Staff. I think earned the right to bitch about it.

I also served during "the Dark Times", when He Who Must Not Be Named was in charge. It was indeed the dark times. There are names associated with the Air Force that deserve to be forgotten. He is one of them.

Fortunately, I was on a SAC base.. well.. *the* SAC base and many of our generals simply ignored what He Who Must Not Be Named said.

He may have been the Air Force Chief of Staff, but he sure the hell wasn't SAC's Chief of Staff. LoL

We often thought that the real reason he disbanded SAC was because many of our Generals told him to go away and bother the rest of the Air Force.

[Ducimus]

I also served during "the Dark Times", when He Who Must Not Be Named was in charge.

The Dress uniform before he took charge.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Merrill_McPeak%2C_official_military_photo.JPEG/445px-Merrill_McPeak%2C_official_military_photo.JPEG

The cheap suit he left us with when he finally departed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Gen_Merrill_McPeak_1993.jpg/390px-Gen_Merrill_McPeak_1993.jpg


Just for you Platapus. I didn't utter his name again, just his fugly mugshot. :O:

But yeah, I have no kind words either. I HATE that new uniform. Thankfully, being in CE circles, I NEVER had to wear it.

[Oberon]

Looks like someone defragmented his ribbon collection too.

Not the kind of frag many would have wanted I'd wager... :03:


Hmmm, the Golden Goose has a problem, if the J-10 is as maneuverable as some think it is (rivalling the F-18F) then if a mass of J-10s were able to push through the long range missile spam of the F-22s, then the Raptors would find themselves in deep trouble. Particularly since an F-18 has already 'shot' down a Raptor at close range in tests:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/F-18_HUD_gun_symbology.jpeg

The F-4 turned out to be a solid aircraft once they remembered to put a cannon in it and the AAMs were tweaked to be more reliable. Let's hope that the F-22 turns out the same way...but the cost is worrying. Will they become so expensive that they are never used for fear of breaking them? :hmmm:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Cost is extremely prohibitive, I've just Googled* F-16 costs which vary from $17m - $45m, F-18 $29m - $57m, Typhoon about £120m or ***8364;120m (easily confused :/\\!!) maybe much less if we had the US buying power.
So worse case is 4:1 Typhoon to F-22, and the F-16/18s would be nearer 10:1.

I'll take the ten, please. Unless one of your aircraft can carry eleven long range AAMs.

But the JF-17s are even cheaper, mass produce them and throw them at your very expensive aircraft. :hmmm: Ten launch per incoming threat, shoot four down, two will fall apart, that leaves four still (trying to) kicking your ass.


*as such these may require a pinch of salt, but I'm guessing not too dissimilar to real costs.

[Oberon]

It's a historically viable tactic. Unless the difference in technological capability is vast, and I'm talking Iraqi-US vast here, then using overwhelming numbers of almost as good units is a good way to wear down your opponent. The Soviets used it against the Germans, heck the Americans used it against the Germans, what was it one Panzer commander said?
"We could kill five of your Shermans with our Panther, unfortunately you always brought six..."
Obviously one can debate the ratios all day, but it has been shown that in certain situations quantity has a quality of its own, and I think it terms of F-22 vs J-10 that may well be such a situation unless the cost of the F-22 can be driven down enough that it becomes viable to actually use it against something tougher than an Iraqi dumper-truck.

[Stealhead]

Given your second sentence, you probably don't have a very good idea of what was since, you did not wear blues very often, this would impact you the hardest. Pull up a chair fellow airmen, let me tell you a tale of stupidty that can only be hatched by our nations glorious aeronautic service. You honestly, could not make this stuff up.

In the beginning was the plan... err i mean, your standard BDU's, with rank on the sleeves, name tape, usaf tape, wing patch, command patch, etc etc. For some people the number of patch's sewn onto their uniform rivaled even a boy scouts. This, i shall name, Uniform number 1.

Then came General McPeak, and he went unto the AF and said, we're going for simplicity! So off came ALL the patchs. Yup, all of em. No more rank, no more wing or command patch's, not even a United States Air Force. In their place, was a crew patch, that had your name, your rank, USAF. It was affixed onto your BDU's directly above your left breast pocket via velcro. (great fun for practical jokes) The idea, as i recall was to save on uniform costs. (keep this in the back of your mind) This ensemble I shall name Uniform Number 2.

Then the pencil pushers at CBPO's everywhere went unto McPeak and said, this sucks, we can't use the pen holders in our pockets because the crew patch gets in the way! The officers too were all unhappy. For nobody could tell their rank! Officers weren't getting saluted! This simply will not do! Then, the almighty powers that be, said, unto us poor plebians tending the fields, thou shalt now wear your rank upon they sleeve again, thine crew patch shall now be 1/2 inch above your left breast pocket. Thou of the guilded cast, shall now affix thine shiny adornments upon thy hats. The officers were again being saluted, Senior NCO's again had difficulty rolling up their sleeves, and nearly all of us were mocking the "save uniform costs" rational for the change that started it all. This I shall name Uniform number 3.




The ideas that always are planned to save money usually end up costing money in most cases because most times they are stupid ideas.Seems like the ones with stupid ideas are attracted to the Air Force for some reason.Which is lousy because it makes outsiders think that airmen are morons and though some are some of the smartest people I met where in the Air Force.

Yeah I think I wore blues about 5 times excluding basic my usual set up was the BDUs and 90% of the time only the bottoms and the undershirt covered in coveralls only time I wore a full uniform was to and from the shop when in "public" view.

The F-22 is just something fancy and smart looking that the brass wants to show off.

You said CE(you have spoken of the Red Horse before) I had some good friends that where red horses they where a wild bunch(more so than the regular CE guys) a gather up some aircraft mechanics some transportation mechanics and some CE guys led by a red horse then you go and crash the party at the medical dorms carry the keg away.:haha:

[TLAM Strike]

I'll take the ten, please. Unless one of your aircraft can carry eleven long range AAMs.

If they used the external hard points (there are four each capable of carrying 2 AIM-120s plus a tank) the F-22 could carry 14 AMRAAMs and 4 Sidewinders. :03:

[Oberon]

If they used the external hard points (there are four each capable of carrying 2 AIM-120s plus a tank) the F-22 could carry 14 AMRAAMs and 4 Sidewinders. :03:

If you can afford to deploy it in a scenario where there's a greater than 20% chance of it being shot at effectively.
If you can actually field enough of them to make a difference.

I think that there is a real danger in this current economic and technological climate of the US pricing itself out of the weapons market. Not in exports but for its own airforce. Not just the US but the UK as well, how often does it happen in both our countries that a specific number of a unit is set down on paper when the plans are drawn up, but when it actually comes to making it, the numbers are cut and cut and cut because we just can't afford it.
I guess that's the problem with privatised military firms, they don't work unless you throw billions of dollars at them.

[MH]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-german-eurofighters-impress-during-red-flag-debut-373312/

OK so this proves that Typhoon just may be at least close to Raptor in visual contact engagement in terms of performance.
I think it does complements Typhoon but still proves nothing because Raptor pilot for most part can chose terms and conditions of the fight due to the capabilities of his aircraft.

[Herr-Berbunch]

And how does such an external weapons load reduce the stealthiness and effective range, amongst other things like handling? :D

[Skybird]

This reminds me of that several years ago, the Eurofighter had quite some problems, the German planes were grounded when the weather was cold, since the engines were not reliable or could not be ignited at colder weather, and the Germans had no weapons for their fighters back then.

Has anyone a credible link to how the status today is regarding these and other issues? I must admit I am out of touch with the German Eurofighter program. They surely had plans to arm the planes :), but has it acctually happened meanwhile? If war would break out next month, would the planes be operational under combat conditions?

[krashkart]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-german-eurofighters-impress-during-red-flag-debut-373312/

OK so this proves that Typhoon just may be at least close to Raptor in visual contact engagement in terms of performance.
I think it does complements Typhoon but still proves nothing because Raptor pilot for most part can chose terms and conditions of the fight due to the capabilities of his aircraft.

Ah, thank you for the link, MH. This article gives a better overall impression of what both the USAF and Luftwaffe think. :salute:

[TLAM Strike]

And how does such an external weapons load reduce the stealthiness and effective range, amongst other things like handling? :D

Stealthiness would probably make it equal to say... the Typhoon.

Handling, well you can ditch them when entering a dogfight (they would be the weapons used first so the rails would most likely be empty) so it would not effect it much over the F-22 baseline.

For effective range it would increase it, those pylons (at least the two inboard ones) apparently can also carry a droptank. So it would increase the range of the aircraft.

[Herr-Berbunch]

If they used the external hard points (there are four each capable of carrying 2 AIM-120s plus a tank) the F-22 could carry 14 AMRAAMs and 4 Sidewinders. :03:


All my (panic google) reading suggests weapons or a tank, and these definitely removes the stealth option. And, apparently, history proves that aircraft with a requirement for external stores of 14,000-15,000 lb only carry combat loads of 4,000 - 8,000 lbs. :hmmm: I could, of course, just be typing a load of rubbish. :03:

[the_tyrant]

Maybe I'm wrong for using starcraft logic, but why can't the f22 be used solely on longer engagement ranges?

I mean, high cruise speed + stealth + dependence on long range missiles

Wouldn't this work as a "sniper" kind of thing? aka, fire off the missiles at long range, than use the stealth and speed to get away

[CCIP]

Maybe I'm wrong for using starcraft logic, but why can't the f22 be used solely on longer engagement ranges?

I mean, high cruise speed + stealth + dependence on long range missiles

Wouldn't this work as a "sniper" kind of thing? aka, fire off the missiles at long range, than use the stealth and speed to get away

TBH, I thought that's what it was primarily designed for anyway :hmmm:

Mind you, reality often interferes. The F-4 was designed much around the same logic, and yet in actual combat wasn't able to follow through, largely because the situation dictated it having to go over enemy territory, and its missiles turned out to be not what they were made out to be. The F-22 has every chance of falling into the same type of reality in combat.

[TLAM Strike]

All my (panic google) reading suggests weapons or a tank...

Some sources say 'yea' some say 'nay'.

The F-15 could for example carry AIM-120s and tanks on its external pylons. That pylon had a tank with two LAU-128 hardpoints, the F-22 uses the same hardpoints for its external AAMs.

The USAF might not be doing it now, but they could do it very easily.

[the_tyrant]

TBH, I thought that's what it was primarily designed for anyway :hmmm:

Mind you, reality often interferes. The F-4 was designed much around the same logic, and yet in actual combat wasn't able to follow through, largely because the situation dictated it having to go over enemy territory, and its missiles turned out to be not what they were made out to be. The F-22 has every chance of falling into the same type of reality in combat.


Well in this case, wouldn't the f22's high speeds (I believe the only fighter with a supersonic cruise speed?) allow it to avoid enemy fighters better than the f4? especially considering that the f4 never had a crushing speed advantage over other fighters.

Or, would it be a good tactic to send other fighters with good short range performance to protect the f22?

[TLAM Strike]

Or, would it be a good tactic to send other fighters with good short range performance to protect the f22? If only we had some kind of light weight stealthy fighter-bomber to assist the F-22. Something with a highly networked computer system allowing it to operated as part of an integrated team...

:hmm2:

[CaptainMattJ.]

Well in this case, wouldn't the f22's high speeds (I believe the only fighter with a supersonic cruise speed?) allow it to avoid enemy fighters better than the f4? especially considering that the f4 never had a crushing speed advantage over other fighters.

Or, would it be a good tactic to send other fighters with good short range performance to protect the f22?
This. Personally i agree that the f-22 is a huge mistake. unless they can seriuosly scale down the price, its way, way, way, WAy too expensive to buy an F22. We could buy 55-60 abrams, a battle proven monster of a tank, or we can buy 1 unproven, overpriced, high tech machine that is 100% better than it needs to be. I dont trust anything that completely collapses under technology failure. Because technology fails. Technology fails often. and technology fails at the worst possible moments. The only thing we can, and should do with the F-22s we already have, is send one or two in formation with other aircraft like the F-15C, and youve got yourself one hell of an air superiority force.

What the USAF needs, i believe currently, is NOTHING. we have aircraft now being mothballed that are PERFECTLY GOOD, able, and incredibly cheap in comparison. In the future, we need to revert back to the teachings of the F-15, and build a maneuverable, low-cost, reliable airplane designed specifically for air to air combat. trying to do everything presents one of two problems (if not both). You either have no money left for the rest of your military, or you dont do anything particularly well and the plane gets swatted by planes designed for a specific role.

[Karle94]

The F-15 is not a cheap warplane. Far from it. If the F-15 was cheap, there would be no reason at all for the existense of the F-16. Which is actually a better dogfighter than the F-15 and almost any other plane in the world. The F-15 is being updated, or should I say rebuilt as the Silent Eagle. A stealthy version of the F-15. A cheaper alternative to the F-22 and F-35.

[Stealhead]

Correct the F-15 is by no means a low cost design it is/was very expensive there is a reason why only a handful of air forces fly them.The F-16 is easily the most cost effective fighter in the USAF inventory the A-10 is having its day in the sun (for the second time) because it just so happens that the current conflict suits the Hog very well (no enemy air assets to challenge it).

There are two basic versions of the F-15 the C/D and the E the C is there for air superiority the E is a strike aircraft actually a replacement of sorts for the TAC F-111.The "Silent Eagle" F-15SE is a proposed upgrade of the F-15E thus far the USAF has not interested it is actually marketed towards the foreign F-15 operators.

For TLAM you are 100% correct on you theory 8th post feature pictures of the F-22 with drop tanks(I think the poster is 100% wrong about the IDF ever getting F-22s) http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16656.html

I do not know if they plan on making a pylon that can carry ordnance as well as tanks at the same time as is done with the F-15s I am thinking not. My guess is for the F-22 it will either carry ordnance on external pylons or tanks on a given pylon not both on the same pylon.

[gimpy117]

well yeah the Knife fight Is a different thing. If we were going by that, a close In dogfight would be DOMINATED by the new thrust vectoring flankers. but modern Air combat is more than that...and and Aircraft that is so hard to hit at range, but has technology that allows it to hit you at that same range is, well quite scary. By the time a flight would make it to merge I bet heavy losses would already be there, making up the "maneuverability difference"

[Stealhead]

Only thing is as with other weapons of war stealth will be countered it only takes a matter of time I think this is why many air forces are not as interested in stealth due to its high cost and to the fact that is will be countered at some point.

Another issue is unless they completely change how the AIM-120 is locked onto a target the F-22 will give away its presence as soon as it fires one or even begins the target acquiring process they must use radar to lock on and the radar waves can be detected I think USAF has a lot of faith that they would be able to get a successful first attack and destroy most of an enemy force and make the others retreat ideal thinking.Trouble is a little thing called murphy's law.Vietnam taught us that we should not place all of our faith into one style of combat.

What you posted Gimpy is pretty much what they said back in the late 50's and early 60's and they where wrong "Our better missiles will win the day dog fighting is a thing of the past old boys".Today we are saying the same thing with the F-22 with even more advanced technology than what was available in the old day and just as likely to perform less than ideally in the real world.

The F-22 is a relic of Cold War thinking that is no longer valid if you ask me.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Only thing is as with other weapons of war stealth will be countered it only takes a matter of time I think this is why many air forces are not as interested in stealth due to its high cost and to the fact that is will be countered at some point.At my understanding Russians' new PAK-FA will have both X band and L band radars: L band for improved stealth detection and X band for targetting and other purposes. Russian tech seems to be (almost) always for sale at right price atleast in some version so it will be interesting to see what happens if Russians' prove that concept works. :hmmm:

[MH]

What you posted Gimpy is pretty much what they said back in the late 50's and early 60's and they where wrong "Our better missiles will win the day dog fighting is a thing of the past old boys".Today we are saying the same thing with the F-22 with even more advanced technology than what was available in the old day and just as likely to perform less than ideally in the real world.


So far the kill ratio f22 has is very impressive in the exercises.
In dogfights the raptor loses on some rear occasions mostly due to ROE that put it in disadvantage.
The f22 seems to be very effective against 4th generation fighters.
It might be currently an overkill with high price but it seems to be good at what it was designed to do...in the far future who knows.

[Stealhead]

You can make anything look good in an exercise in an exercise you are not actually firing a real life missile for starters.Any person that puts their faith in
something based on supposed performance in an exercise clearly has not spent a day in the military or is a bit naive.The US military is always fighting under un favorable ROE why will the F-22 be an exception? So the F-22 has an impressive pretend kill ratio.Honestly I simply distrust the military industrial complex in the US.

What matters is real combat of which the F-22 has seen none until a piece of military has seen the harshness of front line conditions and the reality of real combat it has not been truly tested.You also never assume that the ROE will be in your favor.Vietnam is a good example of this in 1965 there was an incident where an F-4 shot down another F-4 with an Aim-7 after this the ROE was that a boogie had to be visually IDed before and engagement.

[MH]

You can make anything look good in an exercise in an exercise you are not actually firing a real life missile for starters.Any person that puts their faith in
something based on supposed performance in an exercise clearly has not spent a day in the military or is a bit naive.The US military is always fighting under un favorable ROE why will the F-22 be an exception? So the F-22 has an impressive pretend kill ratio.Honestly I simply distrust the military industrial complex in the US.

.

As far as i can tell training contributes a lot...hope it is the same in USA.:03:

Red Flag exercise usually puts blues in favorite position yet i had been reading that F22 engagements usually make sense if Raptor is at disadvantage.
But hell...with American industrial military complex its wonder why you don't have stealth pigeons.:haha:


..........

[krashkart]

[...]stealth pigeons.:haha:


..........

Shh! :stare: We're not supposed to talk about those. :shifty:

[Stealhead]

As far as i can tell training contributes a lot...hope it is the same in USA.:03:

Red Flag exercise usually puts blues in favorite position yet i had been reading that F22 engagements usually make sense if Raptor is at disadvantage.
But hell...with American industrial military complex its wonder why you don't have stealth pigeons.:haha:


..........

What you say is true and untrue.In my experience some training was good and some was not very good at all.The tech school training for my job was not very effective they taught us good basics but very little to prepare us for the actual job.The USAF also cut the number of training hours for F-22 pilots due to operational costs .Also you have never severed in the United States Air Force if you did you'd have a different opinion.

What I am saying is that if certain interests want a bit of hardware bad enough they will get it.The F-22 overall is just far too expensive to truly warrant any advantage that it might have in certain situations.We still think with a Cold War mindset while our enemies think differently why fight our powerful military when they can simply cyber attack our banking system? We should be spending 150 million dollars on cyber warfare not the F-22 or what ever it costs I have seen as high as 400 million per unit claimed.

[MH]

So be it....
i did not serve in air force(been green mud dweller) but simply like airplanes a lot.The politics behind them does not interest me.
So far it seems that F22 does what it is supposed to do.

[gimpy117]

What you posted Gimpy is pretty much what they said back in the late 50's and early 60's and they where wrong "Our better missiles will win the day dog fighting is a thing of the past old boys".Today we are saying the same thing with the F-22 with even more advanced technology than what was available in the old day and just as likely to perform less than ideally in the real world.

The F-22 is a relic of Cold War thinking that is no longer valid if you ask me.

well, it depends how you USE the fighter. We have dogfighters in our arsenal for sure. all you would need to do is send a mixed group of fighters up.

Give the agile fighters instructions to go in to a dogfight with the enemy, and have the very hard to detect F-22 Provide Top cover.

The minute somebody tries to disengage with those agile little vipers is the F-22's moment to shine. Its fast and stealthy, a perfect hit-and-run fighter.

This is a pretty old tactic and has been used since WWI (in this case the slow but agile Dr.I and Albatross)

[Oberon]

The thing is, if and when the US can make its RC channels completely secure (ho-hum) then will the F-22 be the last human operated aircraft in the USAF arsenal? Is the drone the future? Cheap (ish), no human cost, and able to maintain station for lengthy periods without the risk of human fatigue running into it (one pilot gets tired, you pull him out of the chair, put him by the pool and get another pilot to put a quarter in), heck if the work on the micro-batteries pans out then solar powered UAVs could stay in the air indefinitely.

The biggest hurdle at the moment is securing control links.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

The thing is, if and when the US can make its RC channels completely secure (ho-hum) then will the F-22 be the last human operated aircraft in the USAF arsenal? Is the drone the future? Cheap (ish), no human cost, and able to maintain station for lengthy periods without the risk of human fatigue running into it (one pilot gets tired, you pull him out of the chair, put him by the pool and get another pilot to put a quarter in), heck if the work on the micro-batteries pans out then solar powered UAVs could stay in the air indefinitely.

The biggest hurdle at the moment is securing control links.I don't see how you could make control links secure enough. Only way I see to completely remove manned fighter aircraft from the equation is by developing very smart AI which can take pilot's place.

I'm not sure do I want to do that.

[em2nought]

So lets see...

The F-22 is a failure because (based on a mock dogfight) BVR missiles are not as capable as believed.

The F-35 is a failure because (based on anecdotal evidence) BVR surface to air missiles are more dangerous than we believe.

If the DoD listened to the internet the USAF would be flying around in something like this:
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/7013/mx799onf82twinmustang1s.jpg

A country still flying those would get into a whole lot less expensive foreign boondoggles I'd bet. Same if soldiers only wore american looking helmets vs. nazi helmets, and drove around in cheap jeeps. :huh: