+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 55

Thread: F-22s now require less maintenance than F-15s?

  1. #31
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    ...While laser guided bombs are more accurate than their GPS-guided counterparts
    I've had this debate with JA Boomer before, but I will repeat.

    JDAM is a 95% hit within 5m cep. LGB is somewhere between 60 and 70% according to the Canadians, based on Kosovo- the US DOD doesn't release that data.

    With JDAM you can put 2 or more bombs on the same target, weather and altitude are not a consideration. LGB is good for one shot in clear weather, then debris obscures the target.

    Does anyone think a F-117 driver can hold a designator on the target with greater accuracy than JDAM from 40,000 feet, at night, while flying the plane and watching out for bad guys/SAMs?

    Yes, training is a factor- F-117 is a single mission AC, so pilots trained for that mission only. But that is the only possible advantage- the platform is far inferior to Raptor.

  2. #32
    Patron Phoenix10's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 10
    Posts
    253
    Country: United States
    Highsea, thanks for the correction on that. That only further enforces the point I was hoping to make.
    No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Banff, Alberta
    Posts
    750
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    JDAM is a 95% hit within 5m cep. LGB is somewhere between 60 and 70% according to the Canadians, based on Kosovo- the US DOD doesn't release that data.

    With JDAM you can put 2 or more bombs on the same target, weather and altitude are not a consideration. LGB is good for one shot in clear weather, then debris obscures the target.
    You're perfectly correct highsea, I have overlooked this point.

    I still remember for instance though, pilots saying that a laser-guided weapon can be dropped down a chimney, whereas the satellite guided bomb will hit the roof.

    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    Yes, training is a factor- F-117 is a single mission AC, so pilots trained for that mission only. But that is the only possible advantage- the platform is far inferior to Raptor.
    I would I no way compare the Raptor to the Nighthawk as a platform. My point is simply that the F-117 squadrons had a clearly defined mission, and trained as such. What I am questioning, is the amount of training time Raptor pilots get on this type of mission ie. would the USAF employ them in this role tomorrow? It's not a question I can answer, but I just never hear of the Raptor community training much in the air-to-ground role, never mind the first day of war strike mission. Now it's a fairly new aircraft, with capabilities still being developed, so perhaps more time will be dedicated to this in the future.
    Last edited by JA Boomer; 20 Aug 10, at 07:11.

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Banff, Alberta
    Posts
    750
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    Boomer, respectfully, I have to disagree with some of your points. Please note that I am no expert in these things so if I am misinformed please let me know!

    First, I would agree that this would be a gamble if we were talking about F-22s taking out an entire IADS and performing Air Superiority. This is not the case. I am talking about a small number of F-22's flying as tip of the spear for a much larger strike package. I see no reason this would require vast numbers of F-22s.

    Second, the F-22 will carry the SDB Increment I. This is hardly the "least accurate weapon in the entire USAF (the USAF does still use dumb bombs after all). While laser guided bombs are more accurate than their GPS-guided counterparts, the SBD is far from inaccurate or ineffective (and has much greater range).

    Third, while I agree 100% with your point that the F-117 has the training edge in ground attack, I do not think the F-117 can be considered a more effective asset overall in attacking an IADS. The F-117 would go into an IADS subsonically, at 40,000 feet, no self-escort ability, unable to identify targets in realtime, with all communications off. In contrast, the F-22, by block 35, will fly into the teeth of an IADS at Mach 1.7+, 50,000+ feet, smaller RCS, can provide self escort in and out, can use its AESA to paint very detailed SAR maps to find mobile targets realtime, and can use MADL or IFDL to coordinate with other assets without giving away its position (correct me if I am miss informed on any of this). The F-22 will have 8 SDBs versus the F-117s 2 laser guided bombs. This seems like vast and increase in capability to me.

    This is how I see it going down (assume block 35 raptors)... Three 4-ship formations of F-22s are tasked to lead a much larger strike package by taking out 2 SAM sites and a Command and Control bunker. This should be enough to punch a small hole for F-35s and B-2s. Each of the 12 Raptors carries 4 SBDs, 2 AIM-120s, and 2 AIM-9s. This is a total of 48 SBDs, 24 AMRAAMs, and 24 Sidewinders. The Raptors use AN/APG-77 to paint SAR maps and find the mobile SAM sites. On the way in, they encounter fighter resistant but are able to handle this (greater altitude, more energy, stealth, combined 48 A2A missiles, better SA). After the fighters are gone, The F-22s launch a volley of SDBs from 50,000 feet and Mach 1.7 at the SAM sites and C&C bunker. With the targets destroyed, a very large number of F-35s and a couple B-2s fly through the "hole" in the enemy's front line and take out other targets. If F-22s have more missiles, they can stick around and help defend the strike package. Otherwise, they can egress and let the F-35s prove that they can hold their own in A2A. This required only 12 F-22s. Even if that number was doubled to 24, I don't see that as unreasonable in a high-profile conflict. The second batch of 12 F-22s could be in full A2A loadout and defend the entire strike package. The loadout of F-22s in the three 4-ships could be changed to any other combo of SBD, AIM-120, AIM-9s.

    This seems like a great capability for the American warfighter. Am I way off base here?
    Phoenix, you make a very strong case here. I guess I should explain myself a bit here. I am not saying that the F-117 would make a better first day strike platform then the F-22A. I'm just saying that I'm concerned with the F-22A performing the mission given the level of training pilots currently get in that particular role. Everyone always preaches that the training is the best asset the USAF has over other air arms. I'm not concerned about the platform, but rather the number of airframes and the amount of training in this role. There is currently no other platform that would do a better job then the F-22A at this point. Something like an FB-23 would be ideal, but that's not realistic.

    This is a minor point, but perhaps we can both get clarification from someone with more knowledge in the area. But wouldn't the first day of way scenario lend itself more to the 1,000 lbs JDAM as opposed to the SDB? More explosive to ensure you knock out that IADS site.

    Phoenix, are you sure the F-117 is unable to identify targets in real time? Just a point of interest. Also, while you're idea of having a few Raptors lead larger strike groups into the area of operations, and take out the highest value/threat targets, won't the F-22A's lack of communications with the rest of the fighter fleet hamper this somewhat?

    Bottom line, I like the scenario you have created. I agree that it can be done as the F-22A is an absolutely amazing aircraft. My only problem with it is that I don't think the Raptor squadrons receive training to this effect, making it unlikely they would be used in this capacity. Now I could be WAY off base here, or the training in the air-to-ground strike role could be slowly developing, I'm really not sure on the details.

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor BenRoethig's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jan 04
    Location
    Dubuque, Iowa, United States
    Posts
    1,458
    Country: United States
    Most planes follow basically a three phase maintenance schedule. First phase is when its new and all the bugs haven't been worked out and the maintainers aren't familiar with the aircraft. Maintenance requirements are usually rather high. Next is the mature phase where the bugs have been worked out and the maintainers are familiar with the aircraft. This is the lowest maintenance phase. The last is towards the end of the aircraft's life where material condition is breaking down and maintenance requirements go up again.

    The F-22 is entering the mature phase and the eagle is falling apart.
    F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Banff, Alberta
    Posts
    750
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post
    The F-22 is entering the mature phase and the eagle is falling apart.
    While 'falling apart' may be a slight exageration, the Eagles aren't getting any younger. How they expect to keep the Golden Eagles flying until 2028 is beyong me, and how the Strike Eagles are suppose to last until 2035 is also a eyebrow raiser.

    The entire tactical fighter community of the US Military is in a real jam .. not sure what the best way to get out of it is (ie. it's not just the Eagles, when will the last F/A-18C be retired from the USN?)

  7. #37
    Patron Phoenix10's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 10
    Posts
    253
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    This is a minor point, but perhaps we can both get clarification from someone with more knowledge in the area. But wouldn't the first day of way scenario lend itself more to the 1,000 lbs JDAM as opposed to the SDB? More explosive to ensure you knock out that IADS site.

    Phoenix, are you sure the F-117 is unable to identify targets in real time? Just a point of interest. Also, while you're idea of having a few Raptors lead larger strike groups into the area of operations, and take out the highest value/threat targets, won't the F-22A's lack of communications with the rest of the fighter fleet hamper this somewhat?
    JA Boomer,

    JDAM might be better than SDB in some cases. I guess it all depends on the target.

    The F-117 has FLIR and DLIR but I think (I could be wrong) that was only used for painting targets for LGBs, not for searching for and finding targets in very large areas without support. It is my understanding the the F-117 flew very precise flight plans to go after pre-defined targets in good weather, at night. I don't know that it was ever (or could ever) act as a pure hunter-killer attack aircraft (especially in bad weather).

    F-117A Nighthawk

    The F-22, F-35, and B-2 are all going to be getting MADL. The goals is to have all USAF stealth aircraft a common, secure form on communication. The F-22 also has IFDL for secure comm with other Raptors. I would think that by 2020, only these 3 aircraft (plus UCAVs) would be used to attack an advanced IADS. 4+ gen fighters probably would not survive.

    Work Begins On Advanced Datalink For F-22 | AVIATION WEEK

    Thanks for the clarification on your position. Sounds like we are on the same page.
    No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

  8. #38
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Banff, Alberta
    Posts
    750
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    The F-117 has FLIR and DLIR but I think (I could be wrong) that was only used for painting targets for LGBs, not for searching for and finding targets in very large areas without support. It is my understanding the the F-117 flew very precise flight plans to go after pre-defined targets in good weather, at night.
    I agree that "the F-117 flew very precise flight plans to go after pre-defined targets" however, because it did have the FLIR and DLIR, I see no reason why it couldn't have found targets with these sensors. I'm not saying that it DID, only could if it needed to .. kind of a useless debate regardless haha.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    The F-22, F-35, and B-2 are all going to be getting MADL. The goals is to have all USAF stealth aircraft a common, secure form on communication. The F-22 also has IFDL for secure comm with other Raptors. I would think that by 2020, only these 3 aircraft (plus UCAVs) would be used to attack an advanced IADS. 4+ gen fighters probably would not survive.
    I don't dissagree with anything here, accept what about the NOW. Currently Raptors can only talk to Raptors, which is somewhat limiting...

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix10 View Post
    Thanks for the clarification on your position. Sounds like we are on the same page.
    No problem, I think we are too. I just think it's the number of aircraft and amount of training that will limit the F-22A's ability to conduct these first day of way air-to-ground missions rather than the capabilities of the airplane itself.

  9. #39
    Patron Phoenix10's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 10
    Posts
    253
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    I agree that "the F-117 flew very precise flight plans to go after pre-defined targets" however, because it did have the FLIR and DLIR, I see no reason why it couldn't have found targets with these sensors. I'm not saying that it DID, only could if it needed to .. kind of a useless debate regardless haha.



    I don't dissagree with anything here, accept what about the NOW. Currently Raptors can only talk to Raptors, which is somewhat limiting...



    No problem, I think we are too. I just think it's the number of aircraft and amount of training that will limit the F-22A's ability to conduct these first day of way air-to-ground missions rather than the capabilities of the airplane itself.
    Sorry for the 2020 references. I was switching up my forum postings for a second. Yes, right now the F-22 does not have MADL. However, I still think that an F-22 + B-2 combination could get the job done without this. It would just require more upfront coordination. F-22 is supposed to get MADL in 2015 (last I read), just in time for the F-35 to enter service. I'm not sure when the B-2 will get it.

    USAF selects datalink to bridge communications gap between F-22 and F-35
    No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas

  10. #40
    Regular
    Join Date
    05 Jan 09
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    I've had this debate with JA Boomer before, but I will repeat.

    JDAM is a 95% hit within 5m cep. LGB is somewhere between 60 and 70% according to the Canadians, based on Kosovo- the US DOD doesn't release that data.

    With JDAM you can put 2 or more bombs on the same target, weather and altitude are not a consideration. LGB is good for one shot in clear weather, then debris obscures the target.

    Does anyone think a F-117 driver can hold a designator on the target with greater accuracy than JDAM from 40,000 feet, at night, while flying the plane and watching out for bad guys/SAMs?

    Yes, training is a factor- F-117 is a single mission AC, so pilots trained for that mission only. But that is the only possible advantage- the platform is far inferior to Raptor.
    AFAIK, laser-guided bomb is still the most accurate. But other than that, GPS-guided ones have all other advantages. And in most of the case, their accuracy is enough to do the work, thats way they are much more popular than LGB.

  11. #41
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by drhuy View Post
    AFAIK, laser-guided bomb is still the most accurate. But other than that, GPS-guided ones have all other advantages. And in most of the case, their accuracy is enough to do the work, thats way they are much more popular than LGB.
    I think a lot of it depends on whether or not you have someone on the ground illuminating the target vice doing it from the air.

    But just overall, using JA Boomer's example- I would say you can choose between hitting 60% of your chimneys or 95% of your rooftops. Which is more effective?

    I'm not arguing that LGB is inaccurate, but the numbers favor JDAM.

    Raptor can lob JDAM SDB's from 80-100 NM out. No need to get right on top of the target- another big advantage. With other wing kits like Diamondback, you can extend the range of the 500 and 1000 class JDAMs to 65+ KM or so. In my mind, this is a more preferable approach, especially in high threat envoronments.

    And it's not like the F-117 was the only platform that could utilize LGB's anyway.

  12. #42
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Banff, Alberta
    Posts
    750
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    But just overall, using JA Boomer's example- I would say you can choose between hitting 60% of your chimneys or 95% of your rooftops. Which is more effective?

    I'm not arguing that LGB is inaccurate, but the numbers favor JDAM.
    Highsea, although I remember the previous conversation we had about the merits both laser and satellite guided bombs, I can’t locate it on WAB to recall exactly what was stated. The 60-70% hit probability for laser guided munitions, is that number solely from the Canadian Air Command during the Kosovo campaign? Also, what was the main source of the problem: weather, technical glitches, aircrew mistakes/overtasking?

  13. #43
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Country: United States
    JA, the only numbers I have seen were those Canadian statistics from Kosovo. I think the percentage is reasonable, but not attributable to any single reason. Obviusly weather would be a major factor, but I don't know how much was dependent on weather, how much was technical problems, how much was targeting, pilot coundn't locate the target, etc. I did understand it to include only releases- when the target was not available due to cloud cover or other reasons, no bombs were dropped and that mission wasn't counted in the totals.

    I would also say the JDAM numbers I gave should not be taken as gospel- I think they are on the high side, as they are taken from tests and I don't think the DOD releases that info either.

    Real world is never as perfect as the test range. So I may be comparing apples to oranges in that respect. But JDAM has the advantage of being able to release no matter the weather, so in terms of the number of missions where a bomb is actually dropped, JDAM holds a large advantage over LGB.

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Banff, Alberta
    Posts
    750
    Country: Canada
    highsea, it goes without saying that I mean no personal disrespect when I say this, but I think your numbers are kind of bogus. We have two sets of data from two completely different scenarios (combat/training, air force, platform, etc.). With such limited data available, I would suggest we not cast conclusions over the operational capabilities of said weapons.

    That being said, I think at long last we are on the same page here. While laser guided bombs are both accurate and precise, they are limited in targeting by several factors including line-of-sight, weather, aircrew oversaturation, and in a lot of cases the ability of the aircraft to self-designate the target for the duration of the bombs delivery (which also reduces the effective range of the bombs). Satellite guided bombs are accurate (but not precise), but are far more robust and versatile than laser guided bombs. The targeting problems of laser guidance are largely eliminated using designated coordinates, and the bombs can be employed at larger ranges due to wing/tail kits.

    I think that sums it up fairly well, what do you think highsea?

  15. #45
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    ...I think that sums it up fairly well, what do you think highsea?
    I agree with all that.

    Don't worry, no offense taken- I thought in all fairness I should mention the difference in the way those numbers are arrived at, it certainly does matter. I would like to be able to compare apples to apples, but that info isn't available.

    I should add that Boeing has developed a LJDAM that puts a laser seeker in the nose, so this could be the future of JDAM. Standoff release coupled with on the ground designation, it's also been demonstrated to hit moving targets up to 55 mph.

    Boeing is saying 100% kill rate....
    Last edited by highsea; 24 Aug 10, at 23:57.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Afpak will get worse, take longer, require new leadership
    By Masada in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22 Apr 09,, 18:28
  2. Aircraft Maintenance
    By RustyBattleship in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 26 Jan 07,, 22:20
  3. WAB Maintenance - Complete
    By Chris in forum WAB Information Center
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 17 Jan 07,, 04:35
  4. New Iranian law to require Jews to wear yellow band
    By Ray in forum International Economy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 28 May 06,, 11:28
  5. WAB Maintenance Outage
    By Chris in forum WAB Information Center
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20 Sep 03,, 19:08

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts