Forum: F-22A Raptor

Yeah, your right...its just way off topic now. He is set in his ways, though budget proves it to be extremely expensive, he fires back with a price (which by the way is undetermined at this time) from a website almost as bad as Wiki as far as facts go. I wrote it before and I'll say it again....XXXX VS. XXXX will always end this way. Its obvious that the program is going to go over budget as they are now offering incentives on purchasing early.....Check

Totally off-topic for this thread, but in another thread about "elite" F-16 units, I raised the issue of a book called F-15C Combat Units, where the author lambasts the 1st TFW and its poor performance during Desert Storm. Where you with the unit at the time and did you read the book? Just wondering what your thoughts were about it.

Totally off-topic for this thread, but in another thread about "elite" F-16 units, I raised the issue of a book called F-15C Combat Units, where the author lambasts the 1st TFW and its poor performance during Desert Storm. Where you with the unit at the time and did you read the book? Just wondering what your thoughts were about it.

He likes to 'stir the pot", he loves that crap, pure BS in my book......poor performance, what a crock of shitttt

idesof, each mission is different, if a threat presents itself, it would be handled at that time . If no air engagement presents itself, then you cant get that so wanted "kill".

Who gives a damn who was flying at the time the engagement presented itself, it is pure luck the engagement even occurred, hell, most enemy pilots ran and hid or deployed to another country but you knew that...one drunk to another (or did you), do you think any USAF pilot would run....please, the targets have to be present first numbnutz or could you not figure that out for yourself..

MKeldergod - You have NO idea what you are talking about.

The unit price of 44.5 million per unit for each JSF has long since surpassed. Current per unit cost is estimated to be up around $90 million a copy....yes, over twice what the "GlobalSecurity.org" site is. And this is before a single avionics bird has flown. Guess what? It ain't likely its going to decrease as the aircraft gets delayed, bugs are worked out, and new fixes have to be brought on line. Oh, and for the record, the last lot of F-22s rolling off the production line are being DD250'd (that's effectively the Government's "receipt" for purchase) at around $106 million.

Furthermore, its unlikely that your "very cheap" purchase number will ever be met. Don't believe me? A brand new Strike Eagle costs over $75 million dollars each...and its is NOT stealthy, does NOT incoporate 5th gen avionics and advanced composite structures, and does NOT have to be test flown still to find the bugs in the system.

All those bullets that you've copied directly from GS.org? Those are nice, cute little propaganda statements. How exactly do you measure:
"Eight times more effective than legacy fighters in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets "? Because an F-35, in its current munitions loadout, can carry 2...count them TWO...internal A/G munitions, and 2...count them TWO...air to air missiles. Last time I checked, an F-15E can carry a he!! of a lot more than that. So that bullet seems to be out to lunch. Oh, I'm sorry, you want to do that in a high threat environment, perhaps going after double digit type of threats, and using SDBs to increase the number of targets hit? Well, in that case, you can carry 8 SDBs, to maintain stealthy configuration. Along with that, you can still haul 2xA/A missiles in an F-35. Hmmmm...wait a tic!! The F-22 can currently carry 2xGBU-32, and will be able (before the F-35 is fielded!) carry 8xSDB, and still carry 4...yes FOUR...internal missiles! Additionally, the F-22 can hit targets further and more deeply protected than the F-35 due to an increase in altitude and speed over the F-35. So if its a not too heavily defended target, where stealth is not necessary, send a Strike Eagle, 'cuz it can haul a lot more death and destruction....if its highly defended....well, better send a Raptor, 'cuz it can do the same job munitions wise, but its better suited for high threat ops.

Lets see, what were your other points: the F-35 can handle most of the A/A threats out there. Sure, if you only need TWO missiles. Note that if you don't need to do A/G ops, the Raptor can carry EIGHT A/A missiles. If you don't need A/G munitions, then the F-35 can carry...well, still only two. Hmmm...I see a problem. Well, maybe you just want to forego stealth. Okay, then you can hang external weapons, and get a whopping total of...oh, gee, only TWO additional A/A stores. Hmmm...so four missiles, which is still only HALF of the F-22 in A/A config, WHILE being stealthy.

Okay, well, if its not stealthy because its carrying external weapons, I'd probably be better off sending the F-15C, which can carry 8 A/A missiles, and is being upgraded with AESA APG-63v3/4 radars, which have MUCH higher peak power than the F-35's array, purely based on size alone. Whoops...there goes all the good reasons to use F-35s for A/A....

You also clearly do not understand stealth. Its been admitted, from every source under the sun, that the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-22. That means, given an equal fire control radar, the F-22 will be detected later than the F-35....that means that, unless you have a significantly higher power radar (which will require a larger array to achieve higher average power output throughout the frequency spectrum), its impossible to detect the F-22 first (using radar only). Oh, well that's okay, because clearly the F-35 will have a larger array...oh...wait...no, no it won't. So with reduced stealth, and reduced detection capability, I'd say the odds of an F-35 getting the jump on an F-22 are minimal.

Well, fortunately we're not talking about using F-35s against F-22s....so the F-35 can be "just as effective against existing threats" air-to-air wise. Really? With 2 missiles? Since the average Pk of an AMRAAM lies somewhere between 60-70% (according to most sources on this site and scattered throughout the internet), you have to figure that, to be SURE you're killing the threat, you need to shoot 2 missiles per target. Hmmm...so each F-35 can counter exactly ONE A/A threat effectively, after which it needs to go home. Again, you could sacrifice stealth and hang 2 more missiles, but at the expense of detection, you gain the ability to MAYBE shoot down one more A/A threat, while losing the advantage of stealth, but not having the advantage of altitude, speed, average radar power, etc. In short, all the things that make a good A/A fighter....

In short, the F-35 is designed to be a middle of the road, affordable, exportable stealth strike fighter. It is NOT a good substitute for the F-22, does NOT guarantee air dominance, and would NOT make a good front-line air dominance asset for America's future armed forces. It WILL make a good supplement to F-22s, striking targets NEAR the highest threat IADS ranges, while being top-covered by F-22s, supplementing B-2s doing mass strikes against fixed targets, and doing good work with its sensors to find mobile, emerging, or rapidly relocating high value targets. It WILL NOT operate in the highest threat regimes...never was designed to, doesn't have the stealth, speed, and altitude to do it.

It will do good work on the thresholds of those threats, undetected by conventional air/air, and using its sensors as an invaluable contributor to the overall battlefield SA.

No, it won't. Check any of the loadout charts. I've seen the bays, I've seen the design specs, and I've seen the loadout charts. Even though THEORETICALLY its possible to mount an AMRAAM in the space for the A/G munitions, that is NOT part of the design features. Different wiring, different buses, different MilStd architecture is required for A/A munitions vs. A/G....the F-35 is designed to carry 2 A/A missiles for self defense internally, period dot. You can "hope" and "want" them to be equipped that way eventually, but that's NOT how the initial variants will be fielded.

MKeldergod - You have NO idea what you are talking about.

The unit price of 44.5 million per unit for each JSF has long since surpassed. Current per unit cost is estimated to be up around $90 million a copy....yes, over twice what the "GlobalSecurity.org" site is. And this is before a single avionics bird has flown. Guess what? It ain't likely its going to decrease as the aircraft gets delayed, bugs are worked out, and new fixes have to be brought on line. Oh, and for the record, the last lot of F-22s rolling off the production line are being DD250'd (that's effectively the Government's "receipt" for purchase) at around $106 million.

Lets see, what were your other points: the F-35 can handle most of the A/A threats out there. Sure, if you only need TWO missiles. Note that if you don't need to do A/G ops, the Raptor can carry EIGHT A/A missiles. If you don't need A/G munitions, then the F-35 can carry...well, still only two. Hmmm...I see a problem. Well, maybe you just want to forego stealth. Okay, then you can hang external weapons, and get a whopping total of...oh, gee, only TWO additional A/A stores. Hmmm...so four missiles, which is still only HALF of the F-22 in A/A config, WHILE being stealthy.

I think you GROSSLY overestimate the number of F-35s that are going to be bought.

What about reductions in the USN/USMC buy? The USN is trying like heck to back out of this program, content with the Super Hornet for now. They are trying very hard to find $$$ to increase their total fleet size, and expensive aircraft programs are a major blockade. About the only thing keeping them in it for the time being is the USMC's need for the STOVL variant.

The USAF opted to purchase a handful of STOVL variants to help keep that production timeline on track, otherwise they risked losing the USN buy altogether, and having to shoulder a second very expensive fighter program single handedly.

idesof - Never read the book. Had plenty of interaction with the pilots from both wings. I think the author's conclusions are total BS. Both wings did their jobs exceedingly well, Eglin happened to be in the right place, right time. Langley, unfortunately, did not. Being the first in meant that they spent a lot of time on the front lines before the shooting war started, and had, due to jet, pilot, maintenance, and other issues, been rotated out of the "very tip of the spear" by the time the shooting started. They still sent plenty of guys across the line, but they did not end up being where the majority of the shootdowns took place. They were, however, a vital blocking force between Saudi and Iraq....Eglin ended up going downtown, and blocking the eastern escape routes to Iran....guess where there were more kills?

No unit can "refuse ATOs". Once you're in the mix, you take the assignments you are given when you are chopped to theater. You fall under direct OPCON of the JFACC, who decides who flies where and when, ultimately. Individual units do not have say on what missions they fly.

Langley did not "underperform," they just weren't where the threats were...end of story. Now if they'd been commited out, had F-15s shot down, failed to protect strikers, or allowed bomb droppers to get to friendlies...THAT would've been underperforming. Failing to get the same number of kills as another unit is just dumb luck.

The poor performance to which I was referring, Check, is the fact that Langley got all of one kill in the entire war, whereas a unit like Eglin got a couple of dozen, if I remember correctly. By the way, the conclusion of Langley's poor performance was reached by the author, not me, although I tend to agree with him, provided the evidence he presented.