WECIV

http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/Stevenson%20...0on%20F-22.pdf

W

highsea

Lol. The LWF Mafia strikes again.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

rickusn

Well if this is true:

That the Topgun saying was that the biggest target in the sky is the first to die.

Then whats up with the USN's F-14 Love Affair.

Looks like the article has a credibility issue.

Or am I missing something?

Jimmy

That article uses inaccurate numbers and descriptions of a lot of things. Its about as realistic as all those "Reviews" that have spammed this forum lately.

WECIV

I would hardly call the F14 a premo air-to-air platform. It bleeds energy like it is going out of style. If there is something that is incorrect in the article...then point it out. However, I do agree that objective air-to-air exercises would be a good idea. That is what happened when the F15 was fielded in the early 70's. The F15 was tested against everything from F4's to T37's. Why not now?

W

Jimmy

I'm not going to point out every problem with that article, but I'll hit a few high points. Also, the Raptor flies against other fighters every day that flight operations are taking place. I dont understand why people dont think it does. This thing is not a hanger queen. They dont even park it indoors unless its undergoing maintainance (at one base, anyway).

Lets address mediocrity first:
4: Raptors regularly fly vs F-15s and F-16s. In fact, they do it pretty much every day. And they win almost every time, both in BVR and WVR engagements. They have little/no problem maneuvering into position. Flying against certain threats (HMS and AA-11) could pose problems, but I've heard the first block upgrade will include the JHMCS, which will help nix that problem.
5: I'm not sure how they came to this conclusion at all. Firing a missile from an F-22 is no more difficult than firing one from an F-15. Its a button, for crying out loud.

And now for liability:
1: The best F-15 pilots are the primary choices to upgrade into the F-22. Its that simple. These guys are among the best IPs the AF has to offer. And they regularly whoop on their former squadron buddies "stuck" in the Eagle.
2: This makes absolutely no sense at all. The F-22's radar is so beyond the APG-63 that I honestly dont understand the logic behind their statement. In any case, the USAF doesnt send fighters in without AWACS support, so even if they were right, it wouldnt matter. MiGs arent going to see the Raptor first. Period.
3: This is kind of a concern, but not much. Obviously you want to outnumber the enemy, but frankly the Raptor doesnt even need to. It slaughtered F-15s in a 1v5 engagement. The Eagles NEVER SAW HIM until he flew over them after they were all dead. This isnt hype, I worked for that F-22 pilot and he's not a bullsheeter.

Comparing the Top Gun program to a standard flying training squadron in the Air Force is absolutely disingenuous. The F-22 pilots get a similar amount of training compared to the F-15 pilots. If you want more flight hours (which everyone does) write your Congressman. The Air Force doesnt have a program like Top Gun at all...Red Flag is about the closest we've got. Oh by the way...NAS Miramar, the home of Top Gun, is closed. NSAWC is not the same.

Oh boy. "Below 10 per cent" probably refers to the Sparrow back in the old days...the first generation of US BVR semi-active radar A2A missiles. The Sparrow is not used anymore. There are a few on the shelves probably, but not for long. The AIM-120 is vastly superior, and is combat-proven. Hell, in the Sparrow's defense, most of its misses in Desert Storm (the AMRAAM was barely being fielded by a handful of F-15s at the time) were because the pilots fired them off as soon as possible, at the absolute fringes of the engagement envelope.

IFF problems have, in fact, led to a handful of aircraft losses. Primarily to US Army Patriots. Not to the Air Force. Once again, the article selectively chooses its point, and ignores the facts that dont support it. Like for example, no American pilot launches a missile without a target being declared "hostile." Simple fact. To do otherwise is to enjoy a lengthy stay at Fort Leavenworth, a less-than-pleasant place from what I'm told. Part of my job is to run the ID process necessary to make the hostile declaration. This process was completely revamped after the Blackhawk shootdown in 1994, and iit takes a bit more effort to declare someone a hostile the way its implemented nowadays.

Oh for crying out loud. Its no secret that "ancient" long-wave radars are more effective at picking out stealth aircraft under certain conditions. The difference is that just because they can see them in search doesnt mean they can lock onto them worth a damn. If you cant actually TRACK a target, you cant SHOOT that target. Detection and tracking are NOT the same thing, and the authors of that article absolutely know it, but they choose to ignore it. In Serbia, the F-16 flew more sorties than the F-117. They also flew much safer routes. If the Viper took over for the cockroach and used the same tactics, we'd lose more than 1.

Ok, I've had enough of that. That's a little more than half the article, and it holds about as much water as a strainer.

Gun Grape

And I get to ride by them just about every day

Jimmy

I miss 2 things about Tyndall: the beaches and the jets.

-{SpoonmaN}-

lol

That is all.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

urmomma158

LOl there is nothing new about this article. Every US weapons system has been calleda piece of crap,junk,wadte of money,failure,turkey etc.

We all know most of those statements are now BS.

What's new here? Absolutely nothing!

PS. This report has been beaten to death many times on this board and many others.

__________________

avon1944

Yesterday I read a couple of articles along the same lines. Taking statistical data and get it so wrong. Sprey is one who made the charge that a well trained pilot with helmet mounted display system (HMDS) in an F-5 is competitive to the F-22! He feels the F-4 was poorly designed and while the F-15 was better the F-16 is even better. He might not be a formal member of the light weight fight lobby but should be a card carrying member.
He makes the charge that USA pilots would have about the same as Syrian pilots did over the Bekaa Valley. He failed to mention the statistics of American pilots had to honor bias rules of engagement (ROEs). That the Israelis did not calculate any BVR shots or that the IAF pilots had HMDS. What would you expect the results to be? This is so much like Cope India, it isn't funny!

The following articles are 'basically' accurate but they get it all wrong. Distortion URLs;
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062906E
http://www.strategypage.com/respect/articles/d_day.asp


After real combat these people are silent and never again talk about that particular item.

Adrian