Forum: F-22A Raptor

Hi all. Time for another layman's question regarding F-22 procurement. You have all probably watched at one time or another 'all time top 10 fighter aircraft' where the grading criteria has such things as, fear factor, numbers, etc. Besides the list being somewhat American biased they nevertheless rate the F-22 at # 10 due to among other things it's length of service (the show is a few years old by the way). Then they have a few 'experts' give their opinions why. And this leads to the heart of my post here; one fellow whose name escapes me puts forth the opinion that a plane like the F-15 is more highly regarded because it is JUST good enough for a SPECIFIC mission whereas the F-22 is designed with no specific mission and an exorbitant performance profile. Now firstly, why is this a negative and secondly isn't this generational leap now a 'fate accompli'? In other words what is the logic of this sort of criticism? I'm sure this fellow (an American who teaches at some military college in Edinburgh) doesn't expect the plane to be undesigned. So is he beating a dead horse or is the subtext of his observation an argument against procurement numbers, tactical role, etc? I'm sure his stance on the issue is common. I just can't figure out what it is, otherwise why would an F-22 rank lower on this list than a MIG-17 that constantly got its a$$ kicked?

Thanks to all who have answered past questions of mine.
(excuse the metaphors please) Cheers

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: Oct 27, 2004 - 10:49 AM Posts: 70

npad wrote:

a plane like the F-15 is more highly regarded because it is JUST good enough for a SPECIFIC mission whereas the F-22 is designed with no specific mission and an exorbitant performance profile.

Would you rather have 2 attack planes and 2 fighters capable of doing 2 sorties a day each rather than 1 multirole plane capable of doing 1 sortie per day as a commander responsible of force projection?

I think the experts on that show have a little broader view on things than a small loud mouthed crowd of armchair warriors on the net :]

Hookturn wrote:

npad wrote:

a plane like the F-15 is more highly regarded because it is JUST good enough for a SPECIFIC mission whereas the F-22 is designed with no specific mission and an exorbitant performance profile.

Would you rather have 2 attack planes and 2 fighters capable of doing 2 sorties a day each rather than 1 multirole plane capable of doing 1 sortie per day as a commander responsible of force projection?

I think the experts on that show have a little broader view on things than a small loud mouthed crowd of armchair warriors on the net :]

The experts on that show are many times no more expert then anyone on here and the guy being asked about here is that Sprey guy from the old so called fighter mafia blah blah blah that thinks any fighter older then the F16 is a waste of time and money and he's basically nothing but a big joke anymore and the fact they even use that idiot on the show says something about it if ya ask me.

Beazz

Copy, one loudmouth armchair warrior chiming in. No wait...I'm not an arm chair warrior. Wink

Anyway, the guys on that show and many others have enough information to make informed opinions...but they are by no means experts on how the Air Force plans to use its expensive new equipment. First couple of days of a tough war (adversary with 4th generation aircraft, complex IADS, and damn near impenetrable SAMs), I'd rather be the commander of the multirole aircraft that can do one sortie and defeat the aircraft and SAMs and return home. Their going to make way for the attack planes and fighters that can do multiple sorties. Otherwise your going to have a lot of smoking aluminum on the ground and a lot of pilots asking for rides back to base if they live. By the way F-22s can do multiple sorties per day.
Think of these shows for what they are...someone's opinion put into the electronic medium...much like my opinion here. I'd get a lot of responses if I was able to produce a video segment for the history channel or military channel and said bar none the Yak-3 was the best war plane WWII not the P-51 or Spitfire or FW-190. Those are all great airplanes and they made history because they were used in combat, had a certain number of victories and strong performance capabilities. Same with the F-15 and F-16's they have been used in combat and have enviable records. The F-22 is brand new and not tested. It costs a lot.
However, a lot of people want to live in the past. Change scares a lot of people. The F-22 is a break from the traditional way of thinking about aerial warfare. Also a lot of people want to claim the F-22's performance is not as good as it could be or it has serious flaws. Not everyone is going to be satisfied because they don't know the whole story and the F-22 doesn't fit into their ideas of what a fighter plane should be. The F-22 is breaking new ground and will perform admirably if ever called upon.
So let the critics voice their opinions or post their rankings. It is good to see what 'experts' think. To have any discussion at all requires different viewpoints. The MiG-17 was a great airplane for its day and has more track record to call upon for what ever formula the 'expert' used to make his list. This Edinburgh professor is/was good enough to get his thoughts produced to video. Just use it as information to make your own opinion once you have more sources.

Those shows they did of "Top Tens" on the Military Channel were RIDICULOUS!!!

They sure seemed to be picking their choices and the orders of ranking from their noses. I thought they were all very disappointing to watch.

Forum Veteran Joined: Jul 01, 2007 - 07:22 PM Posts: 605

Beazz wrote:

Hookturn wrote:

npad wrote:

a plane like the F-15 is more highly regarded because it is JUST good enough for a SPECIFIC mission whereas the F-22 is designed with no specific mission and an exorbitant performance profile.

Would you rather have 2 attack planes and 2 fighters capable of doing 2 sorties a day each rather than 1 multirole plane capable of doing 1 sortie per day as a commander responsible of force projection?

I think the experts on that show have a little broader view on things than a small loud mouthed crowd of armchair warriors on the net :]

The experts on that show are many times no more expert then anyone on here and the guy being asked about here is that Sprey guy from the old so called fighter mafia blah blah blah that thinks any fighter older then the F16 is a waste of time and money and he's basically nothing but a big joke anymore and the fact they even use that idiot on the show says something about it if ya ask me.

Beazz

The Fighter Mafia may be jokes to everyone in the world but some fighter pilots. But the bottom line is that it is their efforts that led us to the tactics and fighters (Eagle and Viper) that have dominated the skies for many years now.

Do you not find terrific irony in the fact that the "fighter mafia" saw nothing of value in the F-15, and the F-16 as it morphed into? The eagle was the complete antithesis of Boyd and his group's theory....big, heavy, twin engines, lugging a bunch of missiles. The joke is that the survivors keep cropping up occasionally from bouts of dementia apparently to say decidedly wacky things like F-16s would have little trouble dispatching F-22s, they are so bad and over-hyped.

I don't think they were a joke, but they certainly have become one with their insistence on saying stupid things to newspapers.

Well, they pretty much got the bomber top 10 right.....

God Bless
Jer

SnakeHandler wrote:

Beazz wrote:

Hookturn wrote:

npad wrote:

a plane like the F-15 is more highly regarded because it is JUST good enough for a SPECIFIC mission whereas the F-22 is designed with no specific mission and an exorbitant performance profile.

Would you rather have 2 attack planes and 2 fighters capable of doing 2 sorties a day each rather than 1 multirole plane capable of doing 1 sortie per day as a commander responsible of force projection?

I think the experts on that show have a little broader view on things than a small loud mouthed crowd of armchair warriors on the net :]

The experts on that show are many times no more expert then anyone on here and the guy being asked about here is that Sprey guy from the old so called fighter mafia blah blah blah that thinks any fighter older then the F16 is a waste of time and money and he's basically nothing but a big joke anymore and the fact they even use that idiot on the show says something about it if ya ask me.

Beazz

The Fighter Mafia may be jokes to everyone in the world but some fighter pilots. But the bottom line is that it is their efforts that led us to the tactics and fighters (Eagle and Viper) that have dominated the skies for many years now.

Yea I've read of his and the others contributions to our current force. But the man is now simply a foolish relic. I mean the guy called the F22 a *turkey* on natioanl TV for Gods sake. How am I or anyone now suppose to take the guy for anything more then a blooming idiot after makiin a statement like that? Of course I'd bet if someone had the time, resources and inclination to investigate him and his cronys with a fine tooth comb, I bet you would find his idiotic remarks all lead to the almighty dollar and he stands to benefit financially from the US staying in the past with his older a/c. Seems to me he went from being a great American to nothing more then a 2 bit, sell yur country out and put it in danger for the almighty dollar weisel.

Beazz

Take with a large dose of Salt.
The opinions of a panel of "experts" sometimes has more to do with 3 things.-Paycheque-Editor-Producers direction.
Certainly when it comes to "Made for TV".

If you take out longevity and combat record, the F-22 would have come out on top. No controversy there. Boring TV.
To be fair to the producers, the F-22 hasn`t proven anything yet, and has not had the time nor opportunity. We should check back in twenty years and do another comparison.

A question? If the F-22 doesn`t see any combat at all in the next 20 years, could we then call it the best ever? I think not, simply because it has never had the chance to prove it.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22 at #10 of all time fighter aircraft