How to shoot down an F-22
 

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

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

My guess was defund it.

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?

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.

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.

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).

: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:

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.

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.

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".

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/img829/7...nmustang1s.jpg

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:

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:

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.