F-22 problems
#21
The Fort Worth paper had a few paragraphs
The latest dogfights took place in the past week. A former Pentagon official involved in the development of the F-16, F-18 and A-10 aircraft in the 1970s said in an influential defense publication that "the F-35 is a dog."
Newspapers in Australia, where the government's plans to eventually buy F-35s are a subject of intense political debate, reported that the planes were "clubbed like baby seals" in a computer-simulated war game conducted by the U.S. Air Force.
Newspapers in Australia, where the government's plans to eventually buy F-35s are a subject of intense political debate, reported that the planes were "clubbed like baby seals" in a computer-simulated war game conducted by the U.S. Air Force.
#22
#23
I never has the chance to talk to a Concorde crew, but the BA guys I talked to once said that due to the "sector" utilization on the Concorde, the "rostering" on it didn't provide much flying compared to other types in their fleet. So having that much experience sounds like a buttload to have spent and not having use "re-heated thrust" to do so.
And odd coincidence, the son of another notable Concorde pilot used to live across the street from me. His father, John Eames, spoke highly of Cook. On this page you can see the painting of Concordes in formation. Down the page is Mike Bannister, CP, and pilot of the last Concorde flt to JFK and home.
Concorde Prints ALL Limited Edition from SWA Fine Art
I asked if they were going to upgrade to GPS and the CP said that LORAN worked quite well 'for such short legs' and there was no need to hop through the hoops.
It was interesting rides, both of them.
oh.. as for reheat, the first check came at around M1.4 where the engineer verified the ramps and nozzles were working properly. At Mach 1.7 you came out of 'reheat' and Concorde continued to accelerate to about M2.01. Coming out of reheat cut fuel burn approximately in half. (On takeoff in burner, like most fighters, Concorde had about 1hr of fuel on board)
#24
How about the MULTIPLE F-15's with nearly all of the offensive capability (just not quite so stealthy) that Boeing offered for the price of one F-22? The fact that those aircraft were combined with datalink/HMS/advanced IRCMD/ESA/etc that already exists made it an even better decision.
Let me be clear...I am no major fan of the Raptor or the way we porked away that whole program. I am an enormous fan of the Eagle. But if your argument is that a souped up Eagle is basically a non-stealth Raptor, then you are speaking absolute uninformed nonsense.
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
TBone,
What is your experience going against the Raptor? Not JUST their best fight, but over all of the engagements. In my experience, they are nowhere near 100% success. As a matter of fact, I can give you names of people who had "kill ratios" close to parity or better against them once the handcuffs were eased - and those handcuffs will be removed in the real world. I've had very good success when I did not abide by some of the handcuffs - and some when I did. We would have had a few more really good successes towards the ends of the vuls if the pre-fight tankers would have fallen through. In the real world, even some T-38's have been able to have an effect according to the video I linked to - and who knows what damage they would have done as strikers that got through.
As far as the F-15 vs the F-22, what are the chances that the ROE will let F-22's shoot on EID alone past Day 1 of the war in a high-EA environment? AWACs track-transfers alone are enough to add too much risk to BVR shots in a muddled environment - add unreliable friendly replies due to high-EA and comm jamming (you know, all of those legacy IFF's and radios still flying around) and it's VID for all. In a real-world VID environment, I would take more HMS/ESA/Link-16 F-15s with AIM-9X and the improved IRCM over fewer F-22's anyday. Besides, the big threats have IRST/etc so how stealthy is the airplane against that system in that VID environment? Did they go to war with external tanks due to a too high threat to get the tankers in close, there goes that low RCS. Add the real-world Pk of real-world missiles, and the reality of a full-on shooting war being so one-sided starts to be not so real.
There is a mission for the F-22 - double-digit SAM's, cruise missiles, etc - but we don't need 100% of a fleet that is half of the size (or less) of what a real air superiority fleet should be to have that capability.
It's a good airplane, but the realities of trying to maintain air superiority with just 187 are not good - especially with the MR rate that it has now, and the one that it will have when the ops tempo required from having 35% of the required fleet start to take its toll. When it comes to national defense and air superiority, I am more concerned with what can stop the hordes than I am with what's the coolest airplane. One leaker is too many and with the F-22 there will be many, especially when they have to go home for more missiles.
The uninformed nonsense is sitting around saying that 187 F-22's are better than some mix that includes maybe a few F-22's but A LOT MORE new off-the-line F-15's or refurbed F-15's. Wishful thinking has never won a war and 187 F-22's will not keep our HVAA from being shot down nor our troops from being bombed.
By the way, there is no reason why a new off-the-line Eagle could not approach the offensive capability of an F-22 - it's the electronics that do the work, not the airframe structure.
What is your experience going against the Raptor? Not JUST their best fight, but over all of the engagements. In my experience, they are nowhere near 100% success. As a matter of fact, I can give you names of people who had "kill ratios" close to parity or better against them once the handcuffs were eased - and those handcuffs will be removed in the real world. I've had very good success when I did not abide by some of the handcuffs - and some when I did. We would have had a few more really good successes towards the ends of the vuls if the pre-fight tankers would have fallen through. In the real world, even some T-38's have been able to have an effect according to the video I linked to - and who knows what damage they would have done as strikers that got through.
As far as the F-15 vs the F-22, what are the chances that the ROE will let F-22's shoot on EID alone past Day 1 of the war in a high-EA environment? AWACs track-transfers alone are enough to add too much risk to BVR shots in a muddled environment - add unreliable friendly replies due to high-EA and comm jamming (you know, all of those legacy IFF's and radios still flying around) and it's VID for all. In a real-world VID environment, I would take more HMS/ESA/Link-16 F-15s with AIM-9X and the improved IRCM over fewer F-22's anyday. Besides, the big threats have IRST/etc so how stealthy is the airplane against that system in that VID environment? Did they go to war with external tanks due to a too high threat to get the tankers in close, there goes that low RCS. Add the real-world Pk of real-world missiles, and the reality of a full-on shooting war being so one-sided starts to be not so real.
There is a mission for the F-22 - double-digit SAM's, cruise missiles, etc - but we don't need 100% of a fleet that is half of the size (or less) of what a real air superiority fleet should be to have that capability.
It's a good airplane, but the realities of trying to maintain air superiority with just 187 are not good - especially with the MR rate that it has now, and the one that it will have when the ops tempo required from having 35% of the required fleet start to take its toll. When it comes to national defense and air superiority, I am more concerned with what can stop the hordes than I am with what's the coolest airplane. One leaker is too many and with the F-22 there will be many, especially when they have to go home for more missiles.
The uninformed nonsense is sitting around saying that 187 F-22's are better than some mix that includes maybe a few F-22's but A LOT MORE new off-the-line F-15's or refurbed F-15's. Wishful thinking has never won a war and 187 F-22's will not keep our HVAA from being shot down nor our troops from being bombed.
By the way, there is no reason why a new off-the-line Eagle could not approach the offensive capability of an F-22 - it's the electronics that do the work, not the airframe structure.
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
oh.. as for reheat, the first check came at around M1.4 where the engineer verified the ramps and nozzles were working properly. At Mach 1.7 you came out of 'reheat' and Concorde continued to accelerate to about M2.01. Coming out of reheat cut fuel burn approximately in half. (On takeoff in burner, like most fighters, Concorde had about 1hr of fuel on board)
#27
I will say this to answer your question: I have as much experience fighting with and against raptors as anyone around...from BFM to LFEs. I've flown their sims. I've watched their tapes a million times (on their bad days, too). I've been Msn/CC in more composite force vuls than I can count. I am about as full-up as a non-raptor dude can be on the raptor and it's capes/limfacs. Of course they are nowhere near 100% success! Of course dudes can get in unobserved. Of course there is video out there of them getting gunned. That's because there are real dudes in the jet who make real mistakes. All the electronic gizmos and stealth in the world don't help if you pork away your flow, misprioritize groups, or go out right off the nose of the bad guys. The jet doesn't do the fighting for you, it just makes it easier to have SA and make good decisions. That doesn't make it invincible.
As a lifelong MacAir driver, I scoff anything that was not made in St Louis on principle. I am not a Raptor fan! There are many, many limfacs to the craptor, and you've highlighted some accurately, but grossly mischaracterized others. But believe it or not, there are reasons that the Eagle could never be as effective as a (working) raptor...regardless of upgrades. That discussion is not for this forum. That being said, a mix of upgraded 4th gen and 5th gen is essential. But 187 5th gen is not enough and the F-35 is absolutely not the answer to our future air superiority needs. To buy NEW souped up 4th gen is actually almost as expensive as buying raptors--despite Boeing's sales pitch--and not nearly as capable (not to mention stealth). The real numbers do not support the argument that you could buy a bunch of new F-15s for the cost of one new F-22. If it's difficult to sell the budget dudes on expensive 5th gen stealth fighters, how on earth do you think we can sell them on almost-as-expensive 4th gen fighters? It has never been a realistic political option.
To say that we never should have bought the raptor and should have simply bought souped up 4th gens instead is an argument enabled solely by hindsight as the issues with cost, mx, etc, have arisen. Few would ever have made that argument when the dollars were actually allocated. We didn't sell the farm to buy the 187...we sold the farm to try and buy 381, then 243...and failed at a high cost to the entire USAF. I had an entire diatribe written to keep going on this, but I've deleted it and I'll just call it a day here and exit the fight knowing full well that you don't buy what I'm selling. Cheers.
#28
Although we tried to get an actual flight in Concorde, they merely laughed at us. We were able to get time in the sim and do 'circuits' and 'bumps'. Interesting machine. Lots to know and the left seat was a lifetime lock. Check out was six months and then additional schooling after IOE and about 3 months on the line.
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
This is not about the F-22 or McD or LM or anything other than the state of our air superiority capabilities. I didn't say the F-22 wasn't capable, I said it isn't that capable where it can reliably fight 20-1 ratios and be 100% effective.
The point is that the leadership pressed forward with their selling of the farm even when it became painfully obvious that the buy was going to be far less than what was needed. We knew long ago that we wouldn't get all of the F-22's we wanted, but we still pressed forward. The fate of the F-15/F-117/etc was decided when the buy was going to be several hundred, and when the buy became 187 the plans for the remaining fleets were not modified to any great extent. The USAF was not reacting to the world around them - they thought the Senate would save them, and it did not.
When the buy was going to be several hundred, certain decisions were perhaps more prudent. When it became obvious that the buy was going to be substantially less, new decisions and new acquisitions should have been considered and they were not.
Now, we have Gates saying we stop at 187. The generals started off saying years ago that we need 740. They then lowered that to 381, then again to 243 - what changed? It was "different warfighting assumptions". Now, the USAF has decided to attach its future on the F-35. As if we didn't learn the lesson from the F-22. Here's the CSAF's take: U.S. Air Force Live Moving Beyond the F-22
The F-22 is the best we have, but 187 is not enough - someone in authority needs to say that the emperor has no clothes. Someone needs to say that we need to radically change our plans regarding the drawdown of our existing fleet and the conversion of all of these guard units away from fighters. The common opinion is that air superiority is a mission of the past - even though we have not had bombs dropped on our troops in over 40 years. Instead we have everyone saying that the F-22 is this great airplane that can do it all and save the world even though we don't have enough.
Everyone else can talk about it from the marketing point of view, but I am facing reality. Your experiences in all of those LFE's are no different than mine - a protracted war with those few F-22's will not be the one-sided war I would hope for.
The point is that the leadership pressed forward with their selling of the farm even when it became painfully obvious that the buy was going to be far less than what was needed. We knew long ago that we wouldn't get all of the F-22's we wanted, but we still pressed forward. The fate of the F-15/F-117/etc was decided when the buy was going to be several hundred, and when the buy became 187 the plans for the remaining fleets were not modified to any great extent. The USAF was not reacting to the world around them - they thought the Senate would save them, and it did not.
When the buy was going to be several hundred, certain decisions were perhaps more prudent. When it became obvious that the buy was going to be substantially less, new decisions and new acquisitions should have been considered and they were not.
Now, we have Gates saying we stop at 187. The generals started off saying years ago that we need 740. They then lowered that to 381, then again to 243 - what changed? It was "different warfighting assumptions". Now, the USAF has decided to attach its future on the F-35. As if we didn't learn the lesson from the F-22. Here's the CSAF's take: U.S. Air Force Live Moving Beyond the F-22
The F-22 is the best we have, but 187 is not enough - someone in authority needs to say that the emperor has no clothes. Someone needs to say that we need to radically change our plans regarding the drawdown of our existing fleet and the conversion of all of these guard units away from fighters. The common opinion is that air superiority is a mission of the past - even though we have not had bombs dropped on our troops in over 40 years. Instead we have everyone saying that the F-22 is this great airplane that can do it all and save the world even though we don't have enough.
Everyone else can talk about it from the marketing point of view, but I am facing reality. Your experiences in all of those LFE's are no different than mine - a protracted war with those few F-22's will not be the one-sided war I would hope for.
#30
I get it. The world has changed. The nature of conflict has changed...this time...and we need to adapt. The problem is that we don't see that there are realistic potential nation-state conficts out there, but are there any? I don't know, but if there aren't, why are we still spending billions on submarines and such? The taliban doesn't have a navy after all. We have never predicted accurately the nature of any of our wars in advance (except maybe Storm), so who knows what the next one will look like. We don't exactly get 10 years of notice before the balloon goes up. But every country with a checkbook is investing right now in advanced fighters, EA pods, missiles, and IADS and they aren't doing it to defeat our swarms of predators or MRAPs.
Totally, completely true. And that, my friend, is the problem.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post