Forum: F-22A Raptor

Many of us have been seeing these rumors floating around the internet and news media regarding the F-22 and F-35 - and some simulated report claiming that both were ineffective in a future war scenario. It looks like the source of these reports has finally been published by Flight International's website:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... r-pow.html

Slide 79 appears to be the basis for claims of the F-35's reported inferiority over opposing aircraft (such as under the link below):
http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-a ... -4e6b.html

Much of the rest of the report focuses on the F-22 and a theoretical match-up against Chinese Su-27s over the Taiwan Straits - a match up which the F-22 is claimed to loose when an overwhelming number of Chinese fighters succeeds in breaking through the CAP and shoots down the air refueling tankers on which the F-22s rely.

This latter simulation has already been reported across the web and by various media outlets.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ed-by.html

This slide show fundamentally boils down to the old quantity versus quality argument.

F-16.net Sponsor

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

Seventy two SU-27 could beat six F-22s. The sky is falling, we should get hysterical and cancel the JSF and F-22.

If the F-22 and F-35 is as ineffective as many of these spammers and political proponents hysterically claim; then why are so many countries trying to copy the technology; by developing aircraft that are similar and using similar technology? If the F-22 is as inferior as some people claim, then why are countries begging to purchase it? If the F-35is as inferior as some people claim, then why are countries lining up and continue to line up to purchase it?

Vast quantities of inferior aircraft could overwhelm superior aircraft. So does that mean we should try to defend ourselves using Fokker Dr.Is?

If technology always advanced in the same direction than we would have stuck with triplanes instead of going to the less maneuverable monoplane.

Quote:

FOR RELEASE
Thursday
September 25, 2008

OFFICE OF MEDIA RELATIONS
703-413-1100 x5117
and 310-451-6913
media@rand.org

Statement Regarding Media Coverage of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

Last edited by MKopack on Oct 02, 2008 - 05:42 PM; edited 1 time in total

(double post)

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

ATFS_Crash wrote:

Vast quantities of inferior aircraft could overwhelm superior aircraft. So does that mean we should try to defend ourselves using Fokker Dr.Is?

You're on to something! Or maybe just Cessna 152s. We can build them super cheap and the passenger can be given a Thompson SMG, no need for any of that complicated firing through the prop nonsense. Brilliant!

Better yet:

Ultralight Swarm!

Great ! So they admit the superiority of Raptors (they admit themselves they have to rely on enourmus numbers of planes.. well, of course 2000 boys are able to get Mike Tyson's KO)

You wonted submit China whit only six Raptors ?? Ok, let's play this game ! Very Happy

1)Well, let's develop a stealth tanker (or feed B2's internal bay with fuel and use it for that purpose).
2)Hmm.. What else?.. develope a blended wing of AIM120 and AIM9 so that F-22 can carry 8 + 4..
3)Jam the missiles heading on your tanker whit your APG77 so they all change their direction heading on you due they probably have "home on jam" function, but stop jamming at the right moment so they lost both target...
4)Again, develope a SU27-like refueler-pod so that a "support-F22" can refuel another F-22.
... Anyone have other ideas?? (ok, ok, don't take me too seriously!! Very Happy

)

With regards to the 35: I find it just as gut rotting to hear officials say on one hand that, 'The weapons system only failed in a computer simulation,' and then to hear other officials claim, 'Computer simulations have proven the weapons system to be perfect for whatever its supposed to do.' Hell a lot of you military guys are touting the 35s effectiveness based only on computer simulations. But when computer simulations show something negative, then its then considered not to be real world. I will say that the 35 could be the airplane that puts the USA at the top of the fighter pyramid, but ONLY if its bought in very huge quantities. As the commies said, "Quantity is a quality all it's own." Just too bad we want a large quantity of owels instead of a large quantity of raptors.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

darkhorse wrote:

Just too bad we want a large quantity of owels instead of a large quantity of raptors.

I guessing you meant "owls"? Point of fact: Owls are raptors.

I've got problems with getting the slideshow.. anyone have a 2nd source?

SpudmanWP wrote:

I've got problems with getting the slideshow.. anyone have a 2nd source?

Don't bother. It's purely for entertainment, so not a must read.

Neno wrote:

Great ! So they admit the superiority of Raptors (they admit themselves they have to rely on enourmus numbers of planes.. well, of course 2000 boys are able to get Mike Tyson's KO)

You wonted submit China whit only six Raptors ?? Ok, let's play this game ! Very Happy

1)Well, let's develop a stealth tanker (or feed B2's internal bay with fuel and use it for that purpose).

I have a better idea for the B-2… see below. Stealth tanker = yes, along with stealth JSTARS, AWACS, etc.

Neno wrote:

2)Hmm.. What else?.. develope a blended wing of AIM120 and AIM9 so that F-22 can carry 8 + 4..

Already on the way (looking for info)

Neno wrote:

3)Jam the missiles heading on your tanker whit your APG77 so they all change their direction heading on you due they probably have "home on jam" function, but stop jamming at the right moment so they lost both target...

possible

Neno wrote:

4)Again, develope a SU27-like refueler-pod so that a "support-F22" can refuel another F-22.
... Anyone have other ideas?? (ok, ok, don't take me too seriously!! Very Happy

)

ok… let me put my “Dale Brown” hat on Wink

Configure a B-2 to launch AIM-120s. Shoulkd be able to carry 50 - 75 of them. Use the F-22’s cuing so as not to give yourself away.

What about all the naval assets in the area?

What about the native forces?

What about all the AAA and SAM coverage?

Better yet, one B-2 solid state ABL.
range: 6500
weapon load: unlimited
sensor: multi-spectrum
crew: 0

Miller time Cheers

strykerxo wrote:

Better yet, one B-2 solid state ABL.
range: 6500
weapon load: unlimited
sensor: multi-spectrum
crew: 0

Miller time Cheers

Would that be one bay for the ABL and the other bay for the reactor needed to power it Smile

Let's not forget the Flux-capacitor and the Klingon cloaking device.

and the 22's will be 5000 miles away, so they will have to use thier warp drive

Here is a good writeup on the RAND report

http://steeljawscribe.com/2008/10/01/of ... als-part-i

It is the first, of what will be 4 pieces on the RAND report.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Rand Report