SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - How to shoot down an F-22

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - How to shoot down an F-22 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=197317)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus (Post 1916016)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 1916083)

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/wikipedi...ary_photo.JPEG

The cheap suit he left us with when he finally departed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...cPeak_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.

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/wikipedi...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:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus (Post 1916063)

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch (Post 1916108)

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike (Post 1916148)

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.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-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.

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

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH (Post 1916166)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch (Post 1916177)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike (Post 1916148)

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:

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