Forum: F-22A Raptor

[quote="idesof"]

Raptor_One wrote:

While the Mach 2 supercruise figure is, thus far, arguable, the 60,000 ft. cruising height is not. Article after article references that height, with Raptor pilots actually citing that height, but I am not going to look it up right now as I don't have the time. Nevertheless, one of the basic points in favor of the Raptor is not only that it cruises faster than any other fighter, but that it can fly higher and use that as a tactical advantage. Also remember, while the Eagle and the Viper need to use AB to get that high, the F-100 and F-110 are higher bypass ratio turbofans whereas the F-119 is in many ways a leaky turbojet with a lower bypass ratio than either of those engines.

Oh no no no. The ability to fly at Mach 2.0 at 60,000 ft has thus been determined in other "subjects" on this website as being totally useless since there are missiles that reach out and whack an aircraft at that altitude. (Never mind the AF is drawing up plans for a B-3(is it called that yet) to cruise over 100K ft and at even higher supersonic speeds) Also, it's very bad to carry large ammounts of fuel needed for crusing above ~2.3 Mach and above 70K, but there's also a wish from Raptor "drivers" to have even more fuel on board (thus making her even fatter). As if approx 1/3 the fuel of a SR-71 isn't more than enough for whats supposed to be a nimble fighter. Oh, also it's been determined that flying low altitude 'tree hugging' missions is a thing of the past as well, right in the same league as 1775 British field tactics. (sorry guys)

Oh yeah, because the B-2 has GLAS (which I knew what that bird tail end was all along but never cared to know what its called) that she can hug the deck and keep pace with a B-1B.

I just have to smile at all of the double talk on this website from so called experts. About the only person that I respect is Robert Cook.

Look, the Raptor is as flawed as was the F-111 but she's still the best thing this nation has going for it's Air Force. Light years more important to the USA than the JSF if Capital Hill would open up the flood gates and allow us to rebuild a somewhat decent Air Force again.

You know I was thinking this earlier today on cost effective ways to bolster our Air Force since we're only getting a handful of F-22's (and the JSF is dog food for the real dog-fighters in this world)...... And this totally off the wall while driving my car thinking..... We've got ~96 B-1B's that aren't doing a whole lot of bombing anything (and some are sitting around the bone yard gathering dust and sand). It would probably be possible without too much effort to engineer up some stacked missile racks for each of her weapons bays and carry a hypothetical ramjet'd AMRAAM. Along with a new radar set (F-22's for that matter) to go along with the AAMs, just off the wall thinking mind you, you may be able to have an aircraft for the 'lesser threat' environments carrying upwards of ~36 long ranged AAMs (or about 6 F-22's worth of AAMS not counting sidewinders). Such a force could complement a possible multiple theater war and fly behind a small contingent of F-22's (or just loitering within touching distance of any enemy aircraft). Of course the B-1 ain't no fighter, but I don't see why (at first glance) why such a mission would be too far fetched. With proper mission planning, and risk/threat/geographical analysis......?? The B-1 already has some of the costliest goodies onboard for self defense. Taking into account the B-1's range, she would have a HUGE loiter time that a Raptor couldn't touch. Of course if you're going to re-engineer up the B-1 for such a hypothetical mission then you may as well draw up some new engine 'pods' and take advantage of the advances in engines since the 70's, and perhaps tool up some new wings. You also don't have to worry too much about basing rights either with such a long ranged aircraft. Like I said, totally off the wall thinking that I haven't spent 5 minutes on actually digging into, but..... I'm curious to know what others have to say (so long as they are knowledgeable). The way I sthought about it earlier, the B-1 used to toss SRAMs out of her bays, why not long ranged AAMs since a missile is a missile, is a missile.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Veteran Joined: Jun 23, 2006 Posts: 415 Status: Offline

Quote:

We've got ~96 B-1B's that aren't doing a whole lot of bombing anything (and some are sitting around the bone yard gathering dust and sand). It would probably be possible without too much effort to engineer up some stacked missile racks for each of her weapons bays and carry a hypothetical ramjet'd AMRAAM. Along with a new radar set (F-22's for that matter) to go along with the AAMs, just off the wall thinking mind you, you may be able to have an aircraft for the 'lesser threat' environments carrying upwards of ~36 long ranged AAMs (or about 6 F-22's worth of AAMS not counting sidewinders). Such a force could complement a possible multiple theater war and fly behind a small contingent of F-22's (or just loitering within touching distance of any enemy aircraft). Of course the B-1 ain't no fighter, but I don't see why (at first glance) why such a mission would be too far fetched. With proper mission planning, and risk/threat/geographical analysis......?? The B-1 already has some of the costliest goodies onboard for self defense. Taking into account the B-1's range, she would have a HUGE loiter time that a Raptor couldn't touch. Of course if you're going to re-engineer up the B-1 for such a hypothetical mission then you may as well draw up some new engine 'pods' and take advantage of the advances in engines since the 70's, and perhaps tool up some new wings. You also don't have to worry too much about basing rights either with such a long ranged aircraft. Like I said, totally off the wall thinking that I haven't spent 5 minutes on actually digging into, but..... I'm curious to know what others have to say (so long as they are knowledgeable). The way I sthought about it earlier, the B-1 used to toss SRAMs out of her bays, why not long ranged AAMs since a missile is a missile, is a missile.

I would not argue the technical merits one way or the other. In fact I believe something similar to this was proposed as the B-1R so sure I'm sure it's feasible the question though is it a good use of assets? I don't think so. Why not bring all 96 birds on-line and spend some money on stand off runway cratering munitions. Seems to me it makes more sense using your bombers to ensure that as few as possible enemy AC get off the ground is more efficient than using them as missile carriers and try to pick them off one by one. Sorry but I just think the Bone is far more valuable as a bomber.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Quote:

We've got ~96 B-1B's that aren't doing a whole lot of bombing anything (and some are sitting around the bone yard gathering dust and sand). It would probably be possible without too much effort to engineer up some stacked missile racks for each of her weapons bays and carry a hypothetical ramjet'd AMRAAM. Along with a new radar set (F-22's for that matter) to go along with the AAMs, just off the wall thinking mind you, you may be able to have an aircraft for the 'lesser threat' environments carrying upwards of ~36 long ranged AAMs (or about 6 F-22's worth of AAMS not counting sidewinders). Such a force could complement a possible multiple theater war and fly behind a small contingent of F-22's (or just loitering within touching distance of any enemy aircraft). Of course the B-1 ain't no fighter, but I don't see why (at first glance) why such a mission would be too far fetched. With proper mission planning, and risk/threat/geographical analysis......?? The B-1 already has some of the costliest goodies onboard for self defense. Taking into account the B-1's range, she would have a HUGE loiter time that a Raptor couldn't touch. Of course if you're going to re-engineer up the B-1 for such a hypothetical mission then you may as well draw up some new engine 'pods' and take advantage of the advances in engines since the 70's, and perhaps tool up some new wings. You also don't have to worry too much about basing rights either with such a long ranged aircraft. Like I said, totally off the wall thinking that I haven't spent 5 minutes on actually digging into, but..... I'm curious to know what others have to say (so long as they are knowledgeable). The way I sthought about it earlier, the B-1 used to toss SRAMs out of her bays, why not long ranged AAMs since a missile is a missile, is a missile.

I would not argue the technical merits one way or the other. In fact I believe something similar to this was proposed as the B-1R so sure I'm sure it's feasible the question though is it a good use of assets? I don't think so. Why not bring all 96 birds on-line and spend some money on stand off runway cratering munitions. Seems to me it makes more sense using your bombers to ensure that as few as possible enemy AC get off the ground is more efficient than using them as missile carriers and try to pick them off one by one. Sorry but I just think the Bone is far more valuable as a bomber.

That is in fact another option that I have pondered. If an adversary ain't got a runway, then all the Migs and Sukhois in the world are usless to him.
Maybe strategically we're not so bad off since I'm positive that we can already blast runways into rubble. I'm just concerned about our dwindling fighter forces: 183 Raptors just are not enough to go around if there's ever a big brawl (and only something like 20/year being assembled... gads!). Off topic I know, but the B-1 should have never been limited to 100 airframes. What a mistake.

Veteran Joined: Jun 23, 2006 Posts: 415 Status: Offline

FireFox137 wrote:

Quote:

If an adversary ain't got a runway, then all the Migs and Sukhois in the world are usless to him.

I know I blaspheme on this site but you know the old saying "fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history"

Actually 100 oir so is probably enough B1s as long as they keep the other two bombers in numbers. They complement each other. What we may need more of is B2s. 35 or 40 would have been nice.

Of course 183 Raptors is not enough. I think at the end of the day we are going to end up with more. At the very least the AF is going to do with the F-22 like they did with the F-15 and say they need a striker. Call it the F-22E and put them down for another 80 or 90.

FireFox137 wrote:

I'm just concerned about our dwindling fighter forces: 183 Raptors just are not enough to go around if there's ever a big brawl (and only something like 20/year being assembled... gads!).

And here I thought the US was going to have the F-22, JSF, F-15, F-16, and Super Hornet, silly me, our fighter force will consists of only 183 Raptors and no other fighter AC either in active service or on ready reserve. Rolling Eyes

PhillyGuy wrote:

FireFox137 wrote:

I'm just concerned about our dwindling fighter forces: 183 Raptors just are not enough to go around if there's ever a big brawl (and only something like 20/year being assembled... gads!).

And here I thought the US was going to have the F-22, JSF, F-15, F-16, and Super Hornet, silly me, our fighter force will consists of only 183 Raptors and no other fighter AC either in active service or on ready reserve. Rolling Eyes

F-15's are old and decaying; are gaining more and more flight restrictions on them. They're fine for weapons platforms... But they can't hold a flame to the new Raptor. My god, put it like this. The F-15 was designed ~early 70's and it's now 2006. That is akin to if in 1976 the USoA was still flying P-40s. JSF is.... well, it's Alpo for the real fighters in this world. I have some comments from genuine real life AF officials making some very degrading remarks about the JSF and har lack of ability to actually replace the F-117 Nighthawks capabilities. Not then for the A2A role, she's a turkey.

F-16.... Same dilema as the F-16, only they're slightly newer airframes.

Truth is, Raptor (love it or hate it), is our ticket to air dominance rather than just parity with the bad guys and we're only building up a silver bullet force.

FireFox137 wrote:

F-15's are old and decaying; are gaining more and more flight restrictions on them. They're fine for weapons platforms... But they can't hold a flame to the new Raptor.

Interestingly enough our adversaries aren't flying the Raptor. Now, the F-15C with AESA and better missiles is more than a match for your average Sukhoi or Mig. True it wont have as decisive an edge over them as the F-22 but used in conjunction with Raptors it will certainly make a noticeable difference on the battlefield.

FireFox137 wrote:

JSF is.... well, it's Alpo for the real fighters in this world.

And what prey tell are these "real fighters" that the F-35 will face... don't worry I'll wait.

FireFox137 wrote:

I have some comments from genuine real life AF officials making some very degrading remarks about the JSF and har lack of ability to actually replace the F-117 Nighthawks capabilities.

You mean like former Tomcat pilots complaining about the Super Hornet, or that "he said she said" is the best argument you have against the F-35?

FireFox137 wrote:

F-16.... Same dilema as the F-16, only they're slightly newer airframes.

See above.

FireFox137 wrote:

Truth is, Raptor (love it or hate it), is our ticket to air dominance rather than just parity with the bad guys and we're only building up a silver bullet force.

I wont deny that the F-22 will help us immensely in gaining Air Supremacy, however you are walking with blinders on if you think that's all the US fighter force consists, or will consists of.

Veteran Joined: Jun 23, 2006 Posts: 415 Status: Offline

I think you should read more of Firefox's posts Phillyguy before you jump to conclusions. He is asking should the JSF be built at all. You are making an assumption that if we go ahead with the JSF that we will have enough money to field them as well as upgrade our legacy AC in the manner you describe.

Oh I've read his posts, and there is no love for the F-35, yet I can't understand why, going by the current buy numbers (and I hate basing conclusion on just numbers alone) the USAF will have more then enough fighters to establish Air Supremacy with any given future enemy. Surely there can be no argument about just how advanced the F-35 is, short of the F-22 it will be our most capable bird in A2A. Also, the current plan is to upgrade around 178 F-15Cs with the AN/APG-63(V)3 and JHMCS. We also plan to keep Block 40/50 Vipers in active service for some time, no they won't all be scrapped as soon as the first Lightning is delivered.

Veteran Joined: Jun 23, 2006 Posts: 415 Status: Offline

PhillyGuy

Let me ask you a question. Aside from stealth what is it that you think the JSF has that is not or cannot be incorporated into either new build existing designs or upgrades to existing birds?

What I am (and I think Firefox) is saying is that rather than build the JSF why not take the money to further develop and build more Raptors. Why not use some of the money to buy upgraded new build Eagles.

More than double the Raptor buy (call it 400). Perhaps the F-22B would incorporate JSFs advanced avionics and net centric electronics. Develop a wild weasel version (maybe another 50)

Buy another 500 F-15s that incorporate all the things you say it should have. Add upgraded engines and also incorporate the JSFs avionics and net centric electronics. This is your bomb truck and missile carrier.

Buy 500 stealthy UCAVs that can perform those real dangerous kick down the door missions. Provide targeting data for the the AMRAAM carrying Raptor and F-15s. And also be the dogfighting specialist since there is no 9g limit.

The one and only viable argument for the JSF is so that we have a 5th gen fighter for the export market. The Navy gets lots more Super Bugs and 10 or 20 UCAVs to supplement them. The marines get a rebuilt and upgraded Harrier.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Aside from stealth what is it that you think the JSF has that is not or cannot be incorporated into either new build existing designs or upgrades to existing birds?

Why do you say "aside from stealth" like it's a small factor? It is a HUGE force multiplier. Anyhow, here is an answer.
1. Ability to carry a greater weapon load than a F-117 while maintaining "air show" clean aerodynamics.
2. IR suppression tech built-in to frame design.
3. 360 degree IRST
4. Supersonic Jump Jet
5. Fuel economy and internal fuel load

Thumper3181 wrote:

rather than build the JSF why not take the money to further develop and build more Raptors. Why not use some of the money to buy upgraded new build Eagles.

Well, we would hurt our Marines, Navy, Army (CAS), and allied forces by relegating them to much older tech (especially the Harrier replacement which is desperately needed now.

As to "further develop ... Raptor", what do you want to develop that is not already on the list of block upgrades?

Life is not a zero-sum gain... we do not HAVE to reduce JSF to get more Raptors.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Perhaps the F-22B would incorporate JSFs advanced avionics and net centric electronics.

Already planned as a block upgrade. btw, it's getting an enhanced version of the JSF radar. If it was not for the JSF program paying for the dev work on the new radar, the Raptor may not have gotten it, or would have had to pay for it and reduced it's own buy count because of the cost.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Develop a wild weasel version

Only requires a software patch. The LPI AESA radar can handle all needed modes.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Buy another 500 F-15s that incorporate all the things you say it should have. Add upgraded engines and also incorporate the JSFs avionics and net centric electronics. This is your bomb truck and missile carrier.

Great... a bomb truck that can be seen from miles away with any decent IRST or radar and shot down. We need the stealth of the JSF for our bomb trucks.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Buy 500 stealthy UCAVs

The UCAVs are not even done with their dev work. That puts them at least 10 years out. btw, where did all the research on stealth come from for the ucavs.... JSF.

Thumper3181 wrote:

The one and only viable argument for the JSF is so that we have a 5th gen fighter for the export market. The Navy gets lots more Super Bugs and 10 or 20 UCAVs to supplement them. The marines get a rebuilt and upgraded Harrier.

So our Navy and Marine pilots do not deserve a stealthy A2A asset? What makes the Air Force so special? The Marines are begging for a Harrier replacement. The fact that the F-35b model will be the first to go operational is a testament to that.

Veteran Joined: Jun 23, 2006 Posts: 415 Status: Offline

Spudman

You came to the wrong conclusion about what I was saying. Today, stealth is a game changer, tomorrow it remains a game changer, but what about 15 or 20 years down the line? Surely someone will come up with an effective counter. Why put all our eggs in the the Stealth basket. Without stealth the Raptor is a formidable AC with plenty of growth potential. The same cannot be said for the JSF.

An updated F15 using targeting data from a Raptor or UCAV along with AESA radar will kill gen 4.5 AC with AMRAAMS just as well as the JSF and it will carry more of them.

An updated F15 with the helmet mounted sight and AIM-9X will kill at short range just as well also.

The F-15 flys farther and faster with a bigger payload.The Raptors, UCAVs, and cruise missiles and heavy bombers knock down the door. When the F-15s o in for interdiction there are no radars anymore.

The Marines have a fine a/c in the FA-18, they just don't want to use it. They could also update the harrier with the money saved.

As for UCAVs, the prototype flies next year. It could be in production by 2011.

Thumper3181 wrote:

but what about 15 or 20 years down the line? Surely someone will come up with an effective counter.

But if we wait 15-20 years until we see what their counter is to start a program, it will be 15-20 years before it's fielded. We must deploy NOW with our greatest tech. For now that is stealth.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Why put all our eggs in the the Stealth basket.

All our eggs are NOT in stealth. A great part of the development work and money went into LPI radar, globular IRST, integrated avionics, HOBS, sat comms, IR suppression, better engines, helmet mounted display, etc.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Without stealth the Rap tor is a formidable AC with plenty of growth potential. The same cannot be said for the JSF.

What about the JSF precludes it from upgrades? They already have a unlimited ammo based ABL upgrade that would not have been started if it were not for the VTOL version of the JSF requireing a fan.

Thumper3181 wrote:

An updated F15 using targeting data from a Raptor or UCAV along with AESA radar will kill gen 4.5 AC with AMRAAMS just as well as the JSF and it will carry more of them.

Using any other AC besides a JSF means that the AC can targeted at equal ranges because of the lack of stealth. The JSF can approach closer and launch AMRAAMs without being detected. In an offensive operation, there will not be any UCAV to provide data as they are slower and cannot keep up with the assault force. Oh yeah... UCAV are not operational and are many years away.

There are not enough F-22s to provide data. It there were, they could handle it all themselves. The JSF is primarily a mud-mover, with a secondary mission of A2A.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Spudman

You came to the wrong conclusion about what I was saying. Today, stealth is a game changer, tomorrow it remains a game changer, but what about 15 or 20 years down the line? Surely someone will come up with an effective counter. Why put all our eggs in the the Stealth basket. Without stealth the Raptor is a formidable AC with plenty of growth potential. The same cannot be said for the JSF.

An updated F15 using targeting data from a Raptor or UCAV along with AESA radar will kill gen 4.5 AC with AMRAAMS just as well as the JSF and it will carry more of them.

An updated F15 with the helmet mounted sight and AIM-9X will kill at short range just as well also.

The F-15 flys farther and faster with a bigger payload.The Raptors, UCAVs, and cruise missiles and heavy bombers knock down the door. When the F-15s o in for interdiction there are no radars anymore.

The Marines have a fine a/c in the FA-18, they just don't want to use it. They could also update the harrier with the money saved.

As for UCAVs, the prototype flies next year. It could be in production by 2011.

Spudster!

While I do agree with you that a modified F-15 (new production) would be a formidable aircraft, she can't hold a candle to the Raptro (despite my dislikes about that AC). Look, at the very least in the F-22 you have a durable airframe that is designed to operate thoughout her lifespan flying around at high mach numbers. The F-15.... well, some have been known to disintergrate in flight at high mach numbers.

Point 1 for the Raptor.

The F-22 CAN supercruise and (famously), "Speed is life" for a figher plane.

Point 2 for the Raptor.

Though stealth (and I don't believe the F-22 is superstealthy beast some state it to be) is another point for the F-22. Although systems are out there now which can defeat "stealth" they are not nessicarily installed onto other fighter aircraft that a F-22 will duel with.

Point 3 for the Raptor.

The F-22 will almost most definately fly higher missions than an Eagle can touch. Along with her supercruise ability that is a huge benefit when launching AAMs at enemy aircraft.

Point 4 for the F-22.

Certainly will not need to wait for 15-20 years before anti-stealth systems are fielded. Even still, if and when they are, the -22 is a better airframe than the Eagle.

Though she is still essentially based off of a 35+ year old design (she really is despite what some may argure), the F-22 is a vital asset to the USoA. I may not like everything about her.... Won't go there, since that's a firestorm of "troll" comments launched at me.... The F-22 needs to be bought in quantity. Kill the JSF now, please!!! Someone!!! Double up the tooling on the F-22 and let's actually build a real Air Force again. I don't see why ~1000 Raptors (and ZERO) JSF's wouldn't be more than enough to retire all of the F-15C's and F-16's. Go ahead and modernize some of the latest produced of those legacy AC and thrown towards to Gaurd units. A modernized single seated Strike Eagle.... Let's produce that, sure.

Elite Joined: May 29, 2006 Posts: 640 Status: Offline

Thumper3181 wrote:

Spudman

You came to the wrong conclusion about what I was saying. Today, stealth is a game changer, tomorrow it remains a game changer, but what about 15 or 20 years down the line? Surely someone will come up with an effective counter. Why put all our eggs in the the Stealth basket. Without stealth the Raptor is a formidable AC with plenty of growth potential. The same cannot be said for the JSF.

Oh really? Why don't you back up this assertion with some facts. What exactly is the F-35 lacking that the aircraft it's replacing already have?

Quote:

An updated F15 using targeting data from a Raptor or UCAV along with AESA radar will kill gen 4.5 AC with AMRAAMS just as well as the JSF and it will carry more of them.

No it will not. A Eurofighter equipped with Meteors will see the F-15 before the F-15 sees the EF and will shoot Meteors before the F-15 shoots Amraams. In contrast, the F-35 beats the EF every time thanks to its much greater LO characteristics. The F-35 also shoots down the F-15 ten times out of ten. Moreover, the F-35 should be able to carry six AAMs internally in a fully stealthy configuration. In a less-stealthy but still more LO configuration than anything flying right now except dedicated LO platforms, the F-35 can carry up to 16 AAMs, ten external, six internal.

Quote:

An updated F15 with the helmet mounted sight and AIM-9X will kill at short range just as well also.

No. It will die at short range just as well. At that point, it's a 50-50 split with any opponent similarly equipped.

Quote:

The F-15 flys farther and faster with a bigger payload.

Wrong yet again. The F-15 on internal fuel only is does not even fly as far as an F-16, much less an F-35, which has almost 50% more internal fuel than an F-15 and only one engine. Mount fuel tanks on the F-15 and AAMs, guaranteed it does not aerodynamically outperform an F-35 clean, which it will be with 6 AAMs and full internal fuel.

Quote:

The Raptors, UCAVs, and cruise missiles and heavy bombers knock down the door. When the F-15s o in for interdiction there are no radars anymore.

You will probably knock down all fixed radars and SAM sites on the first day/night. The same cannot be said of mobile systems.

Quote:

The Marines have a fine a/c in the FA-18, they just don't want to use it. They could also update the harrier with the money saved.

The Marines have never been particularly enamored of the F-18 for a very good reason: it ties them to carriers and/or long airstrips while being a short-legged platform. As for the AV, that AC had one of the highest loss ratios in the first GW. It is simply not a survivable airplane in a truly modern battlefield. Find for Afghanistan. Not so sure how well it would do against a future high-tech China (and that WILL happen) or a resurgent Russia helmed by a former Communist tyrant like Putin who is actively murdering his opposition, including members of the press.

Quote:

As for UCAVs, the prototype flies next year. It could be in production by 2011.

USN program, no longer USAF.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-22A and Typhoon meet.... (actually they met a while back)