House Panel Votes to Keep the F-22 Jet Fighter Alive

**citanon** · 14 Jul 09, 21:28

Originally Posted by Chunder

The USAF is constantly reassessing it's numbers needed, and certainly isn't so much guided by the absolute superiority of the f-22 as it is an airframes one. I want one source, from an official USAF document, which deems the current number high risk. I only want one source... when you get it, post it. When you do, i'll have to get those committee hearings of Sec Def Gates. The guy running the show.

There are, of course, no unclassified documents of that sort. However:

CQ Politics | Top Air Force General Calls Current F-22 Plan ?High Risk?

What he said was clear enough.

WHY will the F-35 have enormous problems dealing with these fighters. If you can source me an article other than some idiot that goes by the name of CarloKopp and his assorted goons, on why the F-35 is inferior, go for it. Post it here and critique it. Until then it's pure speculation. There are so many technical flaws in such assertions it's a discredit and simply pointless debating it. The amount of times unsubstantiated claims comes up is simply phenominal.

The Israelis and the Japanese are facing next generation Russian systems. Both insist they have a clear requirement for it even though they are also buying F35s. The USAF has a clear requirement for it despite projected buy of over 2000 F35s. That's more than clear enough. The burden of proof is on why the F35 is adequate for dealing with the new Russian systems despite clear statements by air forces facing those threats on the need for the F22.

You have got 20 B-2's which can take out critical high value targets. Only 20 B2's. Thats heaps. It's plenty when you consider the other targetting options available.

And you know that how? The B-2s are going to strike high value targets, take down air defenses and enemy aircraft?

All Aspect stealth? So this aircraft has a lower thermal signature does it? So this aircraft can prosecute an attack on anything, from anyrange, and not be seen right? and the F-35 cannot be?

Not only are you muddling what I said, your statements are also confusing aircraft signatures under different range and altitude conditions and under different engagement scenarios. On top of that it does not even make grammatical sense.

Supercruise is not a fundamental advantage.

Senior USAF officials and pilots have directly stated that it is a fundamental advantage.

In terms of modern targetting systems, the ability for a radar to track and engage a target is half the story. The closer and closer the range, the more and more vulnerable that aircraft is.

That is precisely why supercruise is advantageous.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The F-35 has more integrated assets available at it's fingertips than the F-22. It does so, because it's tech is advanced in it's thinking by 15 years.

Your statement is based on nothing except that the F35 is newer. The next upgrade for the F22 will give data links to all fifth generation systems. The problem with the F22 connectivity is that it cannot send information to legacy fourth generation platforms, not that it cannot receive information.

F-35 doesn't even need it's radar to prosecute an attack. And radar aint mean much if it can't prosecute an attack any better than passive systems can. Even then the launch projectile has to pass through the aircrafts defensive suite. It can use other radar information from other airborne assets as if it were it's own.

Again, you grossly oversimplify. Neither the F22 nor the F35 use only radars or only passive targeting to track and engage targets. Data from active and passive systems are fused and the integrated data is then used to prosecute the attack.

A simple listing of the systems going on the F-35 is enough to suffice. Some of these systems are clearly visible. But the argument runs both ways. It's absurd to insist the F-22 is superior, without so much as taking into consideration the advances made it tracking,targetting & networking since the F-22 was conceived.

It is the USAF and other allied air forces that are insisting on the superiority of the F-22. You also seem to be under the impression that the F-22's equipment is frozen since inception. This is clearly not the case.

Do you actually believe that? What about all the reputable government reviews, that have said the opposite?

The Japanese determination to acquire the F-22 is well known. As is the desire of the IAF. As for "reputable studies", which ones?

Errr. yes it does... Doesn't matter if your a blimp. The pertinent regime is targeting ability.

A regime means the particular set of conditions that represent a pertinent demarcation of different engagement situation. "Targeting ability" is a general area of performance. It is not a regime.

Because proving it would be too harder a question. Im sorry, but this is the same argument at the start of the thread. Answer the question, Why can't the F-35 fight its way in?

Why can't the f-35 do this?

Ask the USAF. The basic differences between the F-22 and the F-35 have already been stated and beaten to death.

Material & source reference please.

According to a number of statements by defense officials over the years in Aviation Week, 15 to 20 miles is the lethal engagement zone for future integrated air defense systems, even for stealth aircraft. IR based EO systems with aperture sizes available on fighter aircraft will not have significantly better range than this based on fundamental physics reasons.

This is going to take a long time. The point is, it quite clearly is not thought of as needed. It's a new engine, and no doubt will be uprated. Plenty of aircraft I can think of that were 'never designed to'. Likewise there are plenty of synopsis available on the usefullness of supercruise. I.E damned useless on an A-10. Damned useless if the F-35 isn't designed to fight that way.

The F-35 wasn't designed to fight that way because it was designed to complement the F-22.

You beleive that the F-22 has all aspect stealth. It does not.

That's another of the little secrets you can keep to yourself. The F-22 has significantly better all aspect radar signatures than the F-35. It further has a smaller radar signature overall, with the F-22 commonly compared to a marble and the F-35 a golf ball.

You believe that because it has the all aspect stealth (which it does not) that it is better than everything in air combat(which it is at present, nobody is denying that).

No, I believe it is better than everything else in existence because the USAF, the IAF, the JASDF believe that it is and because of its achievements at Red Flag and other exercises. How many Red Flags has the F-35 participated in?

If you want to wage rinto the name calling bit, i'd say it's naive to boil the whole of the argument down to the F-22's radar, and it's all aspect stealth which it does not have. If your Plane cannot target until within visual range all that money is useless. If it can't reasonably find it in it's patrol area, all that money is useless.

I did not boil the argument down to any particular aspect of the F-22. You have been doing this because you have not been able to put together a coherent picture of its capabilities or its use in air combat. My argument boils down to its proven record in air combat exercises, its fundamental advantages in those aspects of its performance that have been unclassified, and the assessment of its merits relative to the F-35 by air forces that understand its classified capabilities.

FTR I think LM's advertising is useless junk. They make fantastic high res photo's though. As far as I recall Lockheed Martin changed their slogan from mission success after a serious of their very expensive rockets blew up on launch... rather contradictory...

And yet you pull out their 360 SA bs time and time again. That 360 SA refers to the SA from DAS sensor operating in mid infra red with tiny apertures. It has a stated visual acuity "near 20/20 vision". Clearly it has limited relevance to ranges beyond 20 nm.

Life is very cheap in many parts of the world. If you want to pay rediculous sums of money just so you might save a few pilots lives, instead of pumping it into systems where your gauranteed not to loose any lives, and be a whole lot cheaper, then your a whole way behind the 8ball. At any which rate the F-35 will wipe the floor with them anyway. At this rate, I can see I will be having to source some of my files from the delves of the bookmarks and google

What are some of these magical systems? Lives are at risk in combat, period.

Thats not all it has. I'm tired of saying EOTS, really tired of it. I havn't said anymore, because i've been too slack to look them up recently, but I shall do so I suppose.

That is the main unclassified difference between sensors on the F-22 and F-35. Beyond this I can hardly see how you can state differences without resorting to classified information.

It does not mean that the target has been aquired. It does not mean the target is easily killable. It does not mean the F-35 does have any otherarray of integrated, networked systems onboard to do what the F-22 does not.

20 miles means the stealth aircraft is in significant danger and being tracked by a variety of integrated enemy sensors. It can attempt to defend itself but there is no guarantee defenses will be effective versus a higher performance SAM with and advanced multimode seeker and data links. 20 miles is not the engagement zone of the SAM, which extends out much further.

183 isn't an adequate number?????

Not according to the USAF. How many aircraft can you bring to the fight if you only have 183 distributed around the world? How many are used for training? How many are mission capable? How integrated will the aircraft be with the rest of the Air Force?

Why is readily available information freely available on the f-22, my little secret & dead wrong?

Because the readily available information contradicts everything you've said.

If you would like for me to post a whole heap of technobabble and thesis of these systems I can spend 2 days compiling the information for you. Or i spose 2 weeks of spare time.

No need. The information are posted on this board.

**Chunder** · 18 Jul 09, 12:20

Originally Posted by citanon

There are, of course, no unclassified documents of that sort. However:

CQ Politics | Top Air Force General Calls Current F-22 Plan ?High Risk?

What he said was clear enough.

Ok, here comes the fun.

“To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.”

Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Norton A. Schwartz have supported Gates’ decision. In an April 13 Washington Post op-ed, the two Air Force leaders wrote of the F-22, “The time has come to close out production.”

Clear enough to whoom? Those with selected opinions?

The Israelis and the Japanese are facing next generation Russian systems. Both insist they have a clear requirement for it even though they are also buying F35s.

Im sorry, WHO has insisted they have a clear requirement for it. Is it a formal part of their defence policy or not? Has it passed detailed assesment or not? It hasn't because the F-22 is not for sale period. Neither nation is a major partner nation in the F-35 development. Israel is a SCP partner.

The USAF has a clear requirement for it despite projected buy of over 2000 F35s. That's more than clear enough.

It's clear that it's clear enough because two nations that have no way of accessing any sort of information on the F-22, let alone have pilots that have flown it (unlike other nations)? Thats not clear enough.

The burden of proof is on why the F35 is adequate for dealing with the new Russian systems despite clear statements by air forces facing those threats on the need for the F22.

"The F-35 is designed to satisfy a very challenging operational requirement -- to go deep into enemy territory against the most lethal surface-to-air missile threats. The aircraft is also designed to destroy targets through any weather while outnumbered by the most advanced current-generation fighters equipped with highly sophisticated air-to-air missiles," Burbage said. "The F-35 can perform that mission from any base and at a lower cost than legacy programs. It's a daunting expectation but we are on the way to fulfilling it."

... Tom Burbage.

A Raptor takes twice as long as a Hornet per flight hour to operate. 30 Hours. Scuttlebutt says its close to 60.

And you know that how? The B-2s are going to strike high value targets, take down air defenses and enemy aircraft?

Im sorry since when is the B-2 the only platform capable of targetting high value targets?

Not only are you muddling what I said, your statements are also confusing aircraft signatures under different range and altitude conditions and under different engagement scenarios. On top of that it does not even make grammatical sense.

No I am not. You are clearly implying that the ability to deflect radar energy from multiple angles is all aspect stealth. All Aspect stealth is everything. There's nothing hard to understand about that, no matter how poorly it's worded.

Senior USAF officials and pilots have directly stated that it is a fundamental advantage.

Aircombat patrol is undertaken in cruise mode. This includes, most of the time, engaging in such circumstances, including all air to air engagements of the past. Supercruise is an attrocious waste of fuel. Said aircraft might as well be in afterburner for the short duration it uses it, and accordingly it costs a lot more to have it. This is why the F-35... does not have it! Supercruise didn't exist, granted, and there are a few examples of running for home, like Vietnam also granted. In the context of stealth however, it's not always a great idea.

That is precisely why supercruise is advantageous.

No it's not. If your engaged WVR, you have to detect said missile (I.E have the ability to detect most passive missiles which the F-22 purportedly does not) (unlike the F-35) and you have to evade it. Whatever your option if that missile has an extended booster on it... your toast. Supercruise or not Moreover, piling on the thrust is an all or none approach.. it's why EOTS exists.

Your statement is based on nothing except that the F35 is newer. The next upgrade for the F22 will give data links to all fifth generation systems. The problem with the F22 connectivity is that it cannot send information to legacy fourth generation platforms, not that it cannot receive information.

Nevertheless a truth. WE await to see whether indeed it is applied to the F-22.

Again, you grossly oversimplify. Neither the F22 nor the F35 use only radars or only passive targeting to track and engage targets. Data from active and passive systems are fused and the integrated data is then used to prosecute the attack.

*sigh*
At systems level the F-35 is flat out superior to the F-22. Yup. Thats a statement, and Im happy to stand by it.

It is the USAF and other allied air forces that are insisting on the superiority of the F-22.

Oh dear, superiority of the F-22 to fullfil their doctines? Doubt it. Neither even has access to the F-22, or contribute much tot he F-35 program. Much like these 'superior Russian air Defence systems, which are sure to beat anything we have'.

You also seem to be under the impression that the F-22's equipment is frozen since inception. This is clearly not the case.

Ice age stuff compared to the F-35 at a systems level.

The Japanese determination to acquire the F-22 is well known. As is the desire of the IAF. As for "reputable studies", which ones?

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsp/im..._factsheet.pdf
Thats one by one of the most trusted tech parners of the USA.

"We've done more analysis on this aircraft than any other platform in the acquisition history of the Australian Defence Force,... it's the best multirole aircraft in the world, it can cover the spectrum and will be a good aircraft for us..."
Cheif of Air force, Air Marshal Mark Binskin.

Where are the other like studies from Israel, or Japan? Australias are open for everyone to see. Unlike either, it has a lost more invested in the platform too.

A regime means the particular set of conditions that represent a pertinent demarcation of different engagement situation. "Targeting ability" is a general area of performance. It is not a regime.

The only thing that matters in aircombat is the ability to aquire, target, and kill something. Nothing fancy, really quite simple. If your designed for your regime, then face off on it simple. Like I said. Redflag it before bagging it!

Ask the USAF. The basic differences between the F-22 and the F-35 have already been stated and beaten to death.

No they havn't. Infact, the basic misconception started when people first thought of the platform as a poor-mans, f-22. Misguided at best.

According to a number of statements by defense officials over the years in Aviation Week, 15 to 20 miles is the lethal engagement zone for future integrated air defense systems, even for stealth aircraft. IR based EO systems with aperture sizes available on fighter aircraft will not have significantly better range than this based on fundamental physics reasons.

I don't think you know whats being talked about specifically with EO systems. There's a lot to be said about them, and it basically comes down to ability to track, engage, and disable inbound missiles. Why is that important? Well simply put it's a new parameter.

The F-35 wasn't designed to fight that way because it was designed to complement the F-22.

Tell that to the British, They'd be terribly dissapointed. Likewise all those partner nations, including northern European ones that are far more likely to come up against the latest Russian hardwear, as has traditionally been the case, long before the U.S ever has. Yet they arn't clamoring for the F-22.

That's another of the little secrets you can keep to yourself.

Im Sorry. But all aspect stealth is everything. Your physics teachers didn't tell you that the higher you are the more you stick out like the preverbial. Optically & thermally, with corresponding greather engagement zones. Thats no little secret. Much like my other little secret that wasn't as such.

The F-22 has significantly better all aspect radar signatures than the F-35.

So Now we are getting down to a more concise approach to which stealth mode being refferred to, which is good and about time, that that was recognised as what parameter the F-22 is fundamentally better in.

It further has a smaller radar signature overall, with the F-22 commonly compared to a marble and the F-35 a golf ball.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Aircombat is about the ability to aquire, target, and kill an adversary. You can have a radar signature aquivelant to a floating skyscraper, and it means jack if you can't target it, let alone kill it. Let alone get something up there to kill it, with a maintenance rate double that of existing systems.

You want all aspect low Radar cross section, be prepared to pay for it... and maintain it.

No, I believe it is better than everything else in existence because the USAF, the IAF, the JASDF believe that it is

The USAF believes it is better in aircombat than anything else because it is.
The IAF does not believe it is better than anything in existence. It has no publically available review. The IAF is nothing more than a spoilt brat with an outstretched arm like a 2 year old toddler which has just learnt to say the words "I want". It certainly is not a true multirole fighter in the sence of the word either.

The Same goes for the JASDF... where's their review? I want to see a review because it's the easiest way of seeing the politics involved.

and because of its achievements at Red Flag and other exercises. How many Red Flags has the F-35 participated in?

Keep ordering something because the next thing hasn't been put on exercise yet? Thats a great way to run procurement.

I did not boil the argument down to any particular aspect of the F-22.

All Aspect Stealth and Supercruising... forgoten already?

You have been doing this because you have not been able to put together a coherent picture of its capabilities or its use in air combat.

The fact it's 350 million a piece and a hangar queen compared to it's competition means it actually has far less practical role to play than asserted.

My argument boils down to its proven record in air combat exercises, its fundamental advantages in those aspects of its performance that have been unclassified, and the assessment of its merits relative to the F-35 by air forces that understand its classified capabilities.

Your agument boils down to pre-determined engagements, without peer or comparison. It comes up against a concrete wall after that. Furthermore, Japan or Israel for that matter, do not understand it's classified capabilities because they do not have access to it. Period. The Nations that actually have tech agreements and close tech sharing relationships, including pilots that have flown in the F-22, and have investments in the F-35, do not. Furthermore, they have reviews that are available. It might help to read one.

And yet you pull out their 360 SA bs time and time again. That 360 SA refers to the SA from DAS sensor operating in mid infra red with tiny apertures. It has a stated visual acuity "near 20/20 vision". Clearly it has limited relevance to ranges beyond 20 nm.

Im sorry if your going to call something BS you need to substantiate it. DAS operates in conjunction with things like EOTS, which means a lot more with an incomming missile. Presuming said aircraft can even target F-35 at 20nm.

What are some of these magical systems? Lives are at risk in combat, period.

Things like EOTS, which you havn't read much of, no offence at all intended, information is there if you google it enough. But considering since i've slogged through things like why the F-35 doesn't carry an effective warload, why it's better integrated etc - i'll leave you to search for it. If your still complaining afterwards I guess i'll head to my bookmarks..

Frankly if you lost 4 lives instead of zero at a reduced cost of billions, and effective sortie rate of twice that, I'd say that was worth the risk. 3000 plus troops dead in Iraq. Would we spend the quantitive amount on them? The answer is no. Somewhat hypocritical. More so if you could do something useful with the tech between now and then.

That is the main unclassified difference between sensors on the F-22 and F-35. Beyond this I can hardly see how you can state differences without resorting to classified information.

TBH, the main, REAL differences, are deployability & useability. Including sortie rate & downtime. It's a very confined debate because of the classified information. The are a few other forums that exist, where people interact with people from the Development teams & F-22 Squadrons, where they mention stuff like the system architecture & maintenance. I can barely source that so I barely mention it. I have however done enough reading to know that supercruise is overrated. Don't get me wrong, useful, but overrated. A kill rate is great & astronomical. Whoose to say that same kill rate won't be replicated.Likewise, whoose to say that if a F-22 came head to head with a F-35, that that the F-22 would have an easy time targetting it? Thats an unknown. So blatant overstated reactions of what is a 350 million dollar platform could probably be better spent on the Navy's Next Gen UAV, or similar. Or many other systems in the US Army.

The F-35 will be in production for decades. Even if you extended the production of the F-22, it wouldn't be much better than 8 - 10 more years. It already has big stocking problems. No matter what happens, its more than likely that F-35's will be being pumped off the production line when the proverbial hits the fan. If your stuck with something with high maintenance hourse, high maintenance cost, and little effective combat difference, does it really matter if you loose a few pilots? It's never going to exist in effective round the clock deployability, in numbers, because of it's attrocious maintenance issues.

All this seems to be lost in part on technical superflous. The Best comming out of Russia and China has maintenance issues on par with 1970's F-4 Phantoms. Thats 40 years ago... And they still can't get it right. Moreover much of this 'new tech' is development strain from early Post USSR. When most of their tech was up for grabs, and everything usefull was bought up by the west. We made a killing off of them.

20 miles means the stealth aircraft is in significant danger and being tracked by a variety of integrated enemy sensors. It can attempt to defend itself but there is no guarantee defenses will be effective versus a higher performance SAM with and advanced multimode seeker and data links.

Accurate Statement. Thats why there has been significant research into this area particularly from Mid 90's onwards.

20 miles is not the engagement zone of the SAM, which extends out much further.

And to engage it needs to know the target is real & is what is being engaged.

[Quote]
Not according to the USAF. How many aircraft can you bring to the fight if you only have 183 distributed around the world? How many are used for training? How many are mission capable? How integrated will the aircraft be with the rest of the Air Force?

Way over my head. But with a mission rate half that of other platforms, obviously they can't effectively engage in the fight on a comparable sortie rate!

Because the readily available information contradicts everything you've said.

Hasn't contradicted anything. I've found readily available data thats contradicted what you have said, doesn't mean it's credible, nor fitting in with the greater scheme of priorities.

No need. The information are posted on this board.

Since when was the WAB a world encyclopedia?

**Chunder** · 24 Jul 09, 11:47

Senate votes to stop building Raptors

July 22, 2009
Article from: Agence France-Presse

THE US Senate has voted decisively to stop producing F-22 stealth fighters, siding firmly with President Barack Obama in a high-stakes fight over the future of US air power.
Senators debating a $680 billion defence spending bill voted 58-40 to cut $1.75 billion set aside to build seven more Raptors, drawing immediate praise from the White House.

“At a time when we're fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money,” said Mr Obama, whose aides have underlined that the Raptor has not seen action in Afghanistan or Iraq.

“I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defence projects to keep this nation secure.”

Mr Obama had threatened to veto the bill if the monies were included.

The Senate vote came after the House of Representatives included the monies in its version of the legislation, meaning they could revive the program when they reconcile the rival versions in order to send the bill to Mr Obama.

Vice President Joe Biden, Defence Secretary Robert Gates and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel lobbied senators to scrap the funding, trying to quiet concerns of lost jobs if the Lockheed Martin/Boeing-built program is frozen and underlining that the money could be better used elsewhere, according to Democratic aides.

Mr Gates had fought to cap production at 187 F-22s, meaning only four more would be built. But many Republicans balked at the administration's plans.

The Air Force has also long disagreed with halting production, and just last year called for a fleet of 381 fighters.

Last year Mr Gates sacked the service's two top leaders officially over two major nuclear-related blunders, but his decision was also largely seen as having stemmed from their position on the F-22 program.

In a statement released through a Pentagon spokesman, Mr Gates welcomed the vote as “an important step” towards reining in defence spending.

“Secretary Gates appreciates the careful consideration senators have given to this matter of national security and he applauds their bipartisan support,” spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

“He understands that for many members this was a very difficult vote, but he believes that the Pentagon cannot continue with business as usual.”

In 2009, the Pentagon spent $2.9 billion on the planes, which cost about $200 million each. Critics say the fighter, first made during the Cold War, has not been adapted to current conflicts.

Supporters say that there is a need to ensure US air superiority as China and Russia invest in fighter jets.

Some key US allies, including Japan, have long sought to acquire the F-22, which is currently subject to an export ban.

The difference between a house panel and the senate.

**Maxor** · 24 Jul 09, 16:58

I really like the F-22. I believe it is a great plane. I wish it had been properly purchased and supported. At this point I really feel it is to late for it even if another 20 to 25 get purchased and the lines are kept open for another 2ish years.

The writing is on the wall for it, its not going to be the recipient of major planed upgrades the same way the f-35 is. Its not going to see the funding for a parts chain like the f-35 is. It might get to piggy back upgrades off of the f-35 here and there and it will likely get a mid life extension but it will never be the frontline aircraft of the USAF and as such it will suffer as an airframe with much potential. What really hurts me about it is how much of a waste it will be, getting so close to but not quite reaching that point.

If it was going to be used as an operational testbed for a new stealth platform order 25 and be done, you've got the expense there and it is integrated in one squardon and doesn't have anywhere near the ripple effect through the airforce. If you are going to make it the high end of a high low fighter program do that and order the 350 ish needed to meet minimum worldwide requirements. Get the production line actually running, get the airframes needed so you can have the little odd varients, and training aircraft, It also brings into play the economics of mass production.

The stupid number we have now will end up costing a fortune down the road for fairly little gain. Want to upgrade the avionics suites of 175 aircraft? What are your bids per plane? With the number in service you almost have to give the thing its own batch of career codes, with associated tech-schools. Want to see the retention of those airmen when they see they are basically choosing between 3 or 4 bases total those planes are stationed at? Alot will probably retain to other career fields but it seriously isn't quite the same thing. In 2020 when most of the raptors are between 10 and 15 years old and you get to make a funding decision between the lightening and the raptor for upgrades it will all go to the lightening and rightfully so.

I don't look at it as totally wasted money but really if you are going to practice your buget pruning on military spending do it on programs at the seedling level, or one of the many peices of questionable use shubbery like the life extention of the C/D eagles beyond 2025, or the upgrades to digital cockpits in U-2's. Or go after the stuff that a fortune has been spent on but is no longer going anywhere. It makes no sense what ever to build a project up to the point of being the size of the F-22 and then trying to turn it into a bonsai.

Future notes to the airforce about how not to run procurement programs see B-1 and F-22.

**biteasaur** · 24 Jul 09, 22:41

sometimes i cant believe what im reading or hearing about weapon procurment and whos making the decisions on whats cut/someone needs their btt kicked and canned at lockheed/boeing/northrop anywhere else ,all this wasted overspending, and we end up with 187 rapters, and setback after setback on the f35 ,we should have a few squadrens flying by now,screwballs lining there pockets.man i tell ya.

**avon1944** · 25 Jul 09, 02:47

Originally Posted by Chunder

How many aircraft can you bring to the fight if you only have 183 distributed around the world? How many are used for training? How many are mission capable? How integrated will the aircraft be with the rest of the Air Force?

Well put and, what happens in five years if there is a series of accidents because of some previously undiscovered problems. Loose a few hear and there and now we're walking the same path of the F-14 Tomcat! A total of 712 fighters produced and 113 lost in accidents of one form or another. After all is said and done, it really doesn't matter 'why', if your force is depleted when you need it the most.

Originally Posted by Chunder

Where are the other like studies from Israel, or Japan? Australias are open for everyone to see. Unlike either, it has a lost more invested in the platform too.

Good point... I would like to see their evaluations also.

Originally Posted by Chunder

Tell that to the British, They'd be terribly dissapointed. Likewise all those partner nations, including northern European ones that are far more likely to come up against the latest Russian hardwear, as has traditionally been the case, long before the U.S ever has. Yet they arn't clamoring for the F-22.

If they clamor for the F-22, that would kill the Typhoon program. To state openly that the F-22 is better in the A2A role is one thing, to have so little confidence as to buy a competitor's product, is a kiss of death.

Originally Posted by Chunder

Your physics teachers didn't tell you that the higher you are the more you stick out like the preverbial. Optically & thermally, with corresponding greather engagement zones. Thats no little secret. Much like my other little secret that wasn't as such.

While that is true, it (the PIRATE system) hasn't helped the Typhoon in some of their encounters with the F-22A. They normally don't discover the F-22 until they are well within the heart AMRAAM envelope.

Originally Posted by Chunder

The are a few other forums that exist, where people interact with people from the Development teams & F-22 Squadrons, where they mention stuff like the system architecture & maintenance. I can barely source that so I barely mention it.

There are some pilots over at F-16.net who have flown the F-22A and have commented. I read one posting by "Dozer" was spoken to by superior about some comment he made on that forum. There are others who have had experiences fighting against the F-22 in exercises who have written about the experience.
Since then, Dozer has become the first commander of the 1st Fighter Squadron at Langley AFB.

Originally Posted by Chunder

whoose to say that if a F-22 came head to head with a F-35, that that the F-22 would have an easy time targetting it? Thats an unknown.

There are those associated with the F-22 program who feel the F-22 would consistently defeat the F-35 but, the F-35 would force the F-22 to work for the victory.

Originally Posted by Chunder

So blatant overstated reactions of what is a 350 million dollar platform could probably be better spent on the Navy's Next Gen UAV, or similar.

Oh sure.... like the Navy's oversized 14,000 ton Zumwalt class destroyer!

Originally Posted by Chunder

It's never going to exist in effective round the clock deployability, in numbers, because of it's attrocious maintenance issues.

I disagree with you there, it greatly depends on the 'national will'. That is the key! The F-22's maintenance hours are not that far off from the F-14's and all the carriers were able to keep them available around the clock.

Originally Posted by biteasaur

sometimes i cant believe what im reading or hearing about weapon procurment and whos making the decisions on whats cut/someone needs their btt kicked and canned at lockheed/boeing/northrop anywhere else ,all this wasted overspending, and we end up with 187 rapters, and setback after setback on the f35 ,we should have a few squadrens flying by now,screwballs lining there pockets.man i tell ya.

Butt kicking should start at Congress and the Administrations since the late 1980's! In 1990 Lockeed received word from "DC" to plan on the IOC being delayed at seven years and the maximum production would be cut 'at least' in half! To pass this information on to their sub-contractors. So instead of the F-22 having an IOC in the mid-1990s the IOC came in 2005. Did those in "DC" think developing this plane at a snail's pace would somehow save money. It is like trying to save money on your credit card. You are currently making payments at three times the minimum. Then to save money you make only minimum payments until the debt is paid off. When you calculate the total amount spent you are horrified at how much it cost.... dumb, dumb, dumb!

**Chunder** · 25 Jul 09, 03:41

Originally Posted by avon1944

Well put and, what happens in five years if there is a series of accidents because of some previously undiscovered problems. Loose a few hear and there and now we're walking the same path of the F-14 Tomcat! A total of 712 fighters produced and 113 lost in accidents of one form or another. After all is said and done, it really doesn't matter 'why', if your force is depleted when you need it the most.

That does happen - witness the B2 Programme. It's the problem with hideously expensive platforms, they need to be treated with kid gloves.
I have no opposition to buying attrition replacements and having them put in long term storage, a costly process as is.

If they clamor for the F-22, that would kill the Typhoon program. To state openly that the F-22 is better in the A2A role is one thing, to have so little confidence as to buy a competitor's product, is a kiss of death.

Maybe, but the Brits would tell you about the TSR2 Programme and the F-111 - which fits the category. Probably mention the Fairey Rotodyne and Comet as well. They must have significant confidence in the platform, (f-35) as does the USN because both will be deploying far from effective F-22 / tif support. Currently they are trying their best to get out of tranche commitments of the tiffy as is. Likewise Northern European Countries opting for the F-35 who always have been the first to encounter new hardwear. The world is not Nie without effective F-22 Support, and the west spends more money on networking than the east spends on hardwear...

While that is true, it (the PIRATE system) hasn't helped the Typhoon in some of their encounters with the F-22A. They normally don't discover the F-22 until they are well within the heart AMRAAM envelope.

TBH I think the tif will be very hard pressed against the F-35. Which will be sure to piss off the RAF to the Glee of the RN. Right now, the F-22 is the platform most likely to succeed by far in a premeditated engagement zone on many different factors. But the RAF of all air arms would not commit suicide by signing up to a bottomless pit of maintenance that gets half the operational sorties, at heinous cost, even if it could. With a stingy treasury This is before we even look at LM ripping out a good proportion of the good stuff to make an export version, that someone will have to fund, and then buy - in enough numbers to make the process worth while. That itself is before we even get into case studies where this is precisely what these two other air arms have done - then bit the porkulus bullet and political strife ensuring. We had the same old crap here, where a number of people were insisting that Australia was a potential customer, because a fan club was promoting it, and the opposition got on board for oppositions sake. Only to find out with much dissapointment that it wasn't ever on the cards.

There are some pilots over at F-16.net who have flown the F-22A and have commented. I read one posting by "Dozer" was spoken to by superior about some comment he made on that forum. There are others who have had experiences fighting against the F-22 in exercises who have written about the experience.
Since then, Dozer has become the first commander of the 1st Fighter Squadron at Langley AFB.

There's quite a few and it always makes for very interesting reading.

There are those associated with the F-22 program who feel the F-22 would consistently defeat the F-35 but, the F-35 would force the F-22 to work for the victory.

Purportedly there are those associated with the F-35 Program that apparently believe the F-35 will be just as capable air to air platform as the 22 within a decade. Who knows - like all programs it might experience more failures. It isn't even operational yet...
I can't source that naturally and am somewhat skeptical. The point is though, that tech has come a long way.

Oh sure.... like the Navy's oversized 14,000 ton Zumwalt class destroyer!

Which they have pretty much cancelled bar 3 or so test ships. Far too expensive. Instead they are ordering more AB's.

I disagree with you there, it greatly depends on the 'national will'. That is the key! The F-22's maintenance hours are not that far off from the F-14's and all the carriers were able to keep them available around the clock.

They are 30 to 60 per hour, as opposed to 15. That means less equipment, less spares, less tech knowledge, and greater flexibility and availability for operations. In real world scenario, it means (loosely applied) that the plane will retain it's peak operational performance in half the time, meaning a greater sortie rate, which means more bombs on target & greater flexibility in support of ground formations (this is perhaps the most important of all). Thus, whilst a Nimitz still embarks the same amount of aircraft, not only are their weapons and systems greatly advanced, but their effective air arm has almost doubled.
Russian planes are still a far cry from this, and it is one of the two main things overlooked, actually three main things. Ability to Operate, Ability to use battlespace information, & cost of maintenance. Unfortunately - the Bigger the air arm, the more vulnerable it is particularly it's support network maintaining the high maintenance systems. Every so many hours the platforms must go various checks and deeper maintenance, and the more complex that platform is the longer and more costly that process is.

cheers

**Gun Grape** · 25 Jul 09, 05:38

Both of you have made the case against more F-22s.

Your arguments have pitted the F-22 against the Eurofighter and the F-35.
No mention of "Threat" aircraft.

Just because we can build the most advanced, most expensive fighter doesn't me we need to. And with todays budget constraints, thats what it comes down to. Funding needs vs funding wants.

**biteasaur** · 25 Jul 09, 18:32

the f22 is a fantastic bird but i bet the f35 is gonna open a few eyeballs of the neyseyers once they get it fully off the ground ,im sick of the french rafael lovers,i think the f35 is an awesome rocket.

**zraver** · 25 Jul 09, 19:13

Originally Posted by Chunder

Hey I agree with that. The U.S can also afford it, but a little bit of moderation sure would help. Not anti F-22, anti more F-22's is more like it.

We need enough F-22s, we don't have that number yet.

Not sure what this means?

meant F-117 v F-35

It can perform both though quite aptly. The nore numbers deployed, the better

The more platforms in the fight, the more the strike will be detected.

- numbers that can be deployed with far more flexibility than a F-22 wing.

The F-35 will be much much better if it doesn't have to defend itself.

Why can't the F-35 hit high value targets?

its not stealthy enough and lacks the range.

Why can't the U.S Navy hit high Value Targets?

see above

Why can't B-52's/B1's hit high value targets?

Modern non-stealth heavy bombers would take a beating tryign to reach a hi-val target guarded by modern ADA assets.

Where did that B2 go?

There are only so many B-2's.

Why is it that the F-22 will be able to do it, butthe F-35 won't be able to do it?

Longer range, better stealth.

We've established that The F-35 can carry an adequate bomb load,

No we haven't. Your ignoring the obvious- if an F-35 has to carry bombs and missiles it will either not have enough of one of them, or have to use under wing stores which will ruin its stealth. Or it will need to come in groups like traditional stealth packages which makes the chance of the strike being detected much greater. The F-35's frontal aspect stealth will help it take lower losses but it will still get attrition more than in if it could come in smaller groups because the F-22 had beat down the fighter sand pinpointed/eliminated known the enemy radars.

that it has more information at it's fingertips to find that target, that it has greater situational awareness, and that Terrain following Radar as a concept has been considerably dead ever since lookdown/shootdown radar came into existence, and CIWS defence systems came into existence.

That your on drugs is becoming increasingly clear. go outside how far can you see? Now climb the tallest tree- how far can you see? Height is an advantage and one the F-35 cannot make use of. It is not very stealthy from the side and not at all from the back or from any angle with under wing stores. This means it needs to come in low to avoid detection. I don't care if it can detect an ant farting 3 miles away, if it can't see the enemy fighters being vectored towards it from 20 miles away its dead.

Why can't the F-35 fight it's way in. It has the ability just like the F-22 to engage with superior situational awareness, and third party targetting. It has the ability to update flight plans enroute and use data from other platforms.

Its perch is much much lower.

If it fights its way in, it has less room for bombs if it wants to remain as least partially stealthy.

It has less range

One F-35 is not enough to take on the world. Even F-22's operate in groups of up to 4, little operational difference there to F-15's in GW1. I would HATE to be a flanker pilot looking for 4 F-35's and not knowing even where to look.

Get behind an F-35 and you'll know where it is, and at a close enough range IRST (which is better than that used by the F-35) will detect it as well. If the F-35 is forced into a knife fight vs the new super sukhois its dead.

Thats correct, it's faster. It can properly identify and track targets behind and below it...

But at a much reduced range.

There is a lot of misconception about the use of supercruise. But, since when did the F-35 not have the ability?

Supercruise is more useful in thinner air and higher altitude. because the F-35 is only semi stealthy it needs to come in low, terrain will also force it to slow down. The F-22 up high can zip around responding to threats to clear the way for the strike aircraft.

The EP-3C is.

No its not, it cannot gather data in secret.

The F-35 has more passive systems, ability to use the date from othe aircraft as if it were it's own & more.

The nature of the planes stealth limits the effectiveness of those systems.

Thats a lot of technobabble, way over the top of my head. But the F-35 is networked into more systems and has full spherical SA. The F-22 does not.

F-22= technobabble
F-35= gospel

Not biased are we?

The F-35 barely even has to manauver. Let alone drop it's bombs if detectected. Far from it, EOTS actually encourages it doing nothing.

Do you really believe that?

So now the F-35 is inferior?

Slower, less range, lower operational altitude,bigger IR signature, not all aspect stealth

No country in the world has perfected stealth technology better than the USA.
No country has more expereience in operational doctrine & use of stealth craft than the USA.
No country even has a flying, let alone prototyped example using even simple signature reduction, that is ever likely to be a serious contender.
The U.S However is on it's 4th operational stealth system.

Advantages never last unless you work at them.

Whilst the public still continues to have wet dreams over the world stealth, the U.S has been able to test its tech and theory, WELL INTO the 21'st century and evolve from 5th generation fighters to 6th generation systems. The F-22 has 5th gen.

The F-22 is pure 5th gen the F-35 is a blend of 4.5++ and 5th gen capabilities.

It doesn't even have to emit for the F-35 to sniff it out...

cause the F-35 has ESP. Something that does not emit cannot be detected.

No it's not. At least, As far as i am aware it's factual.

More like seriously biased.

**citanon** · 25 Jul 09, 22:50

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Both of you have made the case against more F-22s.

Your arguments have pitted the F-22 against the Eurofighter and the F-35.
No mention of "Threat" aircraft.

Just because we can build the most advanced, most expensive fighter doesn't me we need to. And with todays budget constraints, thats what it comes down to. Funding needs vs funding wants.

Gun Grape,

Our budgetary constraints today ultimately come from Medicare and wasteful Federal spending. The defense budget is a victim of those pressures. Compared to those accounts, the F-22 is just a drop in the bucket. I blame this on Obama, Bush, and Congress during the last 10 years.

When you get down to the level of the F-22, the inflated price tag can be directly traced to the defense procurement system and our unwillingness to purchase it can be traced to Gates.

The air force didn't just say it wants the F-22. It said that having 182 was high risk. I believe the Air Force and I believe that Gates has made a bad decision. However, I think what's even more inexcusable on his part, is his inaction on reforming the fundamentals and mechanisms of defense procurement. This is exceedingly difficult, so I am in no way calling Gates incompetent. However, given that foolish budgetary decisions at higher levels of the Federal government will constrain defense budgets in the coming years, I believe this reform is necessary to maintain our military capabilities. Thus, I believe Gates lacks the necessary competence to be the defense secretary at this particular juncture. It may be, that no one has the necessary competence to save defense in the present hostile environment, and that's unfortunate.

**Gun Grape** · 26 Jul 09, 06:17

Originally Posted by citanon

When you get down to the level of the F-22, the inflated price tag can be directly traced to the defense procurement system and our unwillingness to purchase it can be traced to Gates.

They have been trying to kill it for years. Before Gates.

The air force didn't just say it wants the F-22. It said that having 182 was high risk. I believe the Air Force and I believe that Gates has made a bad decision.

Not what the COS said before Congress not to long ago. They say they have enough.

However, I think what's even more inexcusable on his part, is his inaction on reforming the fundamentals and mechanisms of defense procurement. This is exceedingly difficult, so I am in no way calling Gates incompetent. However, given that foolish budgetary decisions at higher levels of the Federal government will constrain defense budgets in the coming years, I believe this reform is necessary to maintain our military capabilities. Thus, I believe Gates lacks the necessary competence to be the defense secretary at this particular juncture. It may be, that no one has the necessary competence to save defense in the present hostile environment, and that's unfortunate.

One of the first things that Obama did was contract reform. Part of the plan is to eliminate Cost+ and no bid contracts.

That will help. Give them time. Its been a mess since the 1980s, takes more than 6 months to clean it up.

**avon1944** · 26 Jul 09, 07:02

Originally Posted by citanon

When you get down to the level of the F-22, the inflated price tag can be directly traced to the defense procurement system and our unwillingness to purchase it can be traced to Gates.

I see the system having a problem because of the inconsistent decisions of the different administrations and congress'. The stripping of money from many defense programs due to the "peace dividend". Stretching out the program by more than seven years, slashing the production run after so few had been manufactured and, the low production rate.

Originally Posted by citanon

I believe Gates lacks the necessary competence to be the defense secretary at this particular juncture. It may be, that no one has the necessary competence to save defense in the present hostile environment, and that's unfortunate.

I feel that Gates is our generation's "Robert Strange McNamara" (Yes, that is his middle name) -President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense!

**Bigfella** · 26 Jul 09, 09:10

Originally Posted by avon1944

I feel that Gates is our generation's "Robert Strange McNamara" (Yes, that is his middle name) -President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense!

Already been & gone. Might remember him. Second name Henry. Gates couldn't screw up as bad as he did with twice the time.

**Chunder** · 26 Jul 09, 09:20

Originally Posted by zraver

We need enough F-22s, we don't have that number yet.

Considering since there is no meta information regarding exactly what capability is existent to require the F-22, with it's cost, with it's serviceability, with its deployability issues, and with it's maintenance issues, what number is adequate?

meant F-117 v F-35

The F-117 is outdated. The F-35 is designed with the full spectrum of engagement in mind. It is designed to hit it's target and kill it, and fly away.

The more platforms in the fight, the more the strike will be detected.

It's the ability to aquire, target & engage that effects a kill that matters in combat, nothing else. If your designed for pure stealth, that is your defence. It also ignores the fact that to have this stealth comes at excessive cost.

The F-35 will be much much better if it doesn't have to defend itself.

The F-35 is designed to counter a detection. It is designed to have an appropriate RCS which does not cost the earth to maintain, yuet make it difficult to target. When Targetting does occur, it has an effective electronic suite to make tracking very hard.

its not stealthy enough and lacks the range.

Not true on both counts. It is stealthy. It has the range. Stealth on a level of the F-22 is eggs all in the one basket anyrate. Australia knows when a B-2 Lands at Guam and we tell them that, and we can track aircraft in the pattern at Hong Kong, because we have jindalee. We acknowledge it similarly, and we have a tech agreement with the U.S with it. It's useless for targetting or tracking however. The radar also has shortcommings.

see above

Where you said the F-35 is not stealthy and does not have the range.

The F-35 is stealthy, because it has a RCS designed as such. Apart from the F-22 and B-2, what is it's nearest competitor. It has the range, because it has jettisonable Fuel tanks, and aerial refueling available.

Modern non-stealth heavy bombers would take a beating tryign to reach a hi-val target guarded by modern ADA assets.

Modern bombers use things like cruise missiles,that have stood up, with dispensable success in Gw1, ODF, Kosovo,OIF, and aircraft with large cross sections have successfully struck against syria. They also use cruise missiles with reduced cross sections, that beat the beejeezus out of any manned air platform in terms of cost, success rate, survivability, deployability, peace time upkeep, etc etc. Despite well worn and tried air defences. They continue to do so every time a war comes around, and we see it on our television sets.

There are only so many B-2's.

Take your pick. B2's, Submarines, DD's, Tico's, B-52's. All are platforms equally able to strike a target just as much as what an overly expensive, hard to maintain, limited use, speculative platform is able to.

Longer range, better stealth.

Range is irrevelant with air refueling and disposable fuel tanks. Better stealth does not mean mission success. Certainly not if it takes twice as long to maintain.

No we haven't. Your ignoring the obvious- if an F-35 has to carry bombs and missiles it will either not have enough of one of them, or have to use under wing stores which will ruin its stealth.

Your ignoring the obvious, nothing is stopping the F-35 from operating as a package, and nothing is stopping his/her wingman from employing AAM's. Further more, it is completely ignoring fog of war fundamentals. The Enemy will have to know the F-35 is there, which you contend he will, because according to you it is not stealthy. The Enemy will have to have assets in that location capable of targeting, tracking and killing that target. I.E the enemy has to have at least 5 airborne assets that are capable of targetting the F-35 before it targets them, all whilst the F-35 has an ability to target missiles fired at it. You also don't take into account the standard bomb load deployed & dropped effectively by U.S fighters in recent conflict.

Or it will need to come in groups like traditional stealth packages which makes the chance of the strike being detected much greater.

And said opposition will be able to know it's there because (the systems are quality) (the operators are quality) (those systems they are using cannot be targetted) , whats more said systems will be able to aquire, track & kill, or vector in other aircraft which can. It's like cumulative liklihood. What if what if what if, even splitting it on a 50//50 range, those are bad odds. Even in a stealth war, the radars are the first to be blinded.

The F-35's frontal aspect stealth will help it take lower losses but it will still get attrition more than in if it could come in smaller groups because the F-22 had beat down the fighter sand pinpointed/eliminated known the enemy radars.

The F-22 is the only system available to target radar installations?? Since when. Whats this attrition you speak of? If you loose 2 F-35's, and you have a combat fleet of 500, who gives a damn. Send the letter to the poor widow.

That your on drugs is becoming increasingly clear. go outside how far can you see? Now climb the tallest tree- how far can you see? Height is an advantage and one the F-35 cannot make use of.

So far i've avoided the personal accusations. But this is becomming tiring.
The Higher the Atmosphere, the colder it gets, moreover, the sillhoute for EO systems is easier to target. The F-35 detects missile launch and pinpoints it.

It is not very stealthy from the side and not at all from the back or from any angle with under wing stores.

You do know weapon pods exist don't you. They encase the weapon. The mroe claims you make the easier it is to pick at them. Keep at the simple ones. But they won't be of much use I'd assume, nobody is clamoring for them.. Eitherway, you still need to target, track & kill it. By the way, what source do you have to say it isn't stealthy from the back?

This means it needs to come in low to avoid detection. I don't care if it can detect an ant farting 3 miles away, if it can't see the enemy fighters being vectored towards it from 20 miles away its dead.

The only thing dead is every one of those statments.

Your not going to be taken a heavily laden F-35 into a complex air defence environment to take down some said target, stores will be internally. Moreover, gauranteed, said systems will be the first to be targetted in war. Moreover, loitering munitions are taking on this aspect. The F-35 has sufficient stealth to enable it to do targetting as is. It has the systems to target inbound missiles themselves. It has the missile tech to target array with very good COP hit percentage, so even if it did get shot down, the hole would still exist. Further, nobody comes in low, because it makes you easy bait for AAA systems, and manpads. Moreover, yet again, If you can spot a F-35 from 20 miles away, good luck vectoring much in your area towards it, before you, or them (with a corresponding 20 nm range) become toast.

Its perch is much much lower.

Which means not much if it's designed to fly in that combat space.

If it fights its way in, it has less room for bombs if it wants to remain as least partially stealthy.

If is a very little word, used with far too much regularity, with far to much defference to. Who cares, blow it up. Send in the next package, never stopped us in the past.

It has less range

It does not have less range. It carries less internal fuel.

Get behind an F-35 and you'll know where it is, and at a close enough range IRST (which is better than that used by the F-35) will detect it as well. If the F-35 is forced into a knife fight vs the new super sukhois its dead.

YouTube - F-35 Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS)

doubt it.

But at a much reduced range.

What range. 20nm is sufficient.

Supercruise is more useful in thinner air and higher altitude. because the F-35 is only semi stealthy

So it's only semi-stealth now...

it needs to come in low, terrain will also force it to slow down. The F-22 up high can zip around responding to threats to clear the way for the strike aircraft.

The F-35 won't be comming in low. The only thing comming in low will be all those cruise missiles, knocking out said systems, at much lower cost, with lower potential for loss of friendly life, that completely negate and viable stalth air to ground mission the F-22 might take, in relation to it's cost. It's Porkulus. the whole argument for it's existence relies on simplistic jingoism that ignores warfighting hardwear & systems. The F-35 can clear the way for a strike package of F-35's. But according to you, when the F-35 is performing this mission, it does not have enough payload to strike it's target as well...

No its not, it cannot gather data in secret.

Just because it's a P3 Orion does not mean it gathers data in secret. It does. It also analyises it. The F-22 does not. It isn't deployed to do anything like it. Whereas they are probably some of the most heavily used peacetime aircraft in the US and RAAF inventory, let alone wartime. Everytime a deployment is up, one of those goes along. The F-22 does not have anywhere near the endurance.

The nature of the planes stealth limits the effectiveness of those systems.

Yet it is one of the most effective systems. More effective than the U2. If it was as bad as you imply, how come they get flown like crazy and it's crews get overworked? Stealth is not everything. That seems to be hard for people to understand.

F-22= technobabble
F-35= gospel

Well if your going to be like that, lets reverse the situation. Equally applicable. But lets just stay on topic shall we. The babble inserted about the F-22's Radar has absolutely no relevance to the point at all. It's a diversion. Particular attention has been payed to integrating the F-35's sensor systems, at a far greater level than the F-22's, no matter if the F-22's radar can juggle disco balls using distributed anomoly super conductive reflex changing titanium reinforced arms using ABC Flexovit radar technology, meaning it can juggle with the best, and do it all within a stealthy airframe....

Not biased are we?

Says the guy whoose sole argument revolves around the F-22's RCS, and therefor its ability to deploy weapons..

Do you really believe that?

In tail chase, it can change it's speed into a pure kinematic advantage. It only needs to maintain position long enough to detect the missile launch and for it to be targetted, then it can drop its flares.chaff, or whatever. Which brings me to another point. Reduced RCS against radar guided missiles has exponential chance of succeeding with the use of chaff and it's other advantages, conveniently forgotten & overlooked. Those fighters that get within 20 nm, can they get a missile off, will the missle itself not be targetted, will the missile be able to pick out the golf ball amounts the thouands of other golf balls... if it has a hard time doing so... whats the point of a damned expensive platform that spends most of it's warfighting life as a hangar queen. Moreover DAS provides the pilot with the likelihood that the plane itself is the one being targetted. Aquire target & kill is what matters in a fight.

Slower, less range, lower operational altitude,bigger IR signature, not all aspect stealth

The higher you are the bigger your signature. The Faster you are the bigger your IR signature. The noisier you are the bigger your signature. If you have the same targetability as the next joe at 20 nm whats the practical difference, none whatsoever. If the F-22 gets an IR missile launched at him, he has much less of a chance of ever knowing it, than an F-35 pilot.

Advantages never last unless you work at them.

Which is why the west spends more on R&D & networking annually than the east. Yet somehow our systems are in mortal danger, particularly an non operational platform which has been specified, which LM is contract to meet the specification, because the credibility of speculation against it is not questioned.

The F-22 is pure 5th gen the F-35 is a blend of 4.5++ and 5th gen capabilities.

(whatever that is). Maybe it's the stealth bit.
Or maybe the mark of an intelligent designer, the ones that actually design these systems, think "What do we need to do for the platform to accomplish it's mission". Im sorry but stealth is only one part of the equation. Especially when that plane needs to be affordable, have commonality, fight effectively, and contribute effectively in sorties. I can design my car with 400 kw, Whats the damn point? Speed off to the next traffic light. Get a speeding fine, cost more, harder to find parts, get to 60 2 seconds faster.

cause the F-35 has ESP. Something that does not emit cannot be detected.

Everything emits something.

More like seriously biased.

Nah, just specified, and readily available. Now I havn't really questioned anyones bias; despite an exceptionable ability for speculation on why the F-35 isn't capable enough to meet threats, using scenarios that don't forge the bee all and end all of battle. I havn't besmirched character either. Using political wants instead of reviews of other nations that have no access to the F-22, as opposed to ones that have. Ones that assert that a 250 million platform with a $40,000.00 per flight hour tag, and associated maintenance bill, is so far better to beat threats than an un-operational platform let alone operational hardwear that costs a fraction of the price in it's lifestyle in niche areas, Nor tha the F-35 is being built to requirements that it must meet. Even if you lost a few, who gives a damn. Tell the grunts that you lost 10 F-35 pilots to hostile action and see if they cry you a rainbow, or opt get you the waahmbulance.

Thread: House Panel Votes to Keep the F-22 Jet Fighter Alive

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

.....

Re: House Panel Votes to Keep the F-22 Jet Fighter Alive

......

Re: House Panel Votes to Keep the F-22 Jet Fighter Alive

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Favorite American Fighter jet?

Who needs the USN?

False Alarm Puts White House on Alert

Rat brain taught to fly jet fighter

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions