Interesting series on F-22 at Defensetech.org

Raptor ... or Turkey? (Part One)

There ain't a lot of love for the ol' F-22A Raptor outside of Air Force and Lockheed Martin circles these days. Critics, especially author James Stevenson and F-16 designer Pierra Sprey, both from the Center for Defense Information, have called the Raptor an overweight, gas-guzzling, unaffordable turkey. Their presentation on the F-22 has inspired a number of scathing articles. The bottom line, Sprey told me in June, is that the Air Force has forgotten how to design fighters ... and besides, fighters are irrelevant in today's conflicts. If the Air Force were truly interested in winning wars, Sprey said, "it would buy more A-10s" to support the grunts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the folks at the 1st Fighter Wing, which will fly 36 F-22s alongside 24 F-15Cs from Langley Air Force Base in southern Virginia, told me (in so many words) that Sprey is full of it.

"One thing we've done really well in the United States is not predict the next war," 1st FW commander Brigadier General Burton Field told me last week. "[So] the Air Force, a while back, started concentrating on ... capabilities across a spectrum."

The F-22 represents the high-end of that spectrum. Yes, it is expensive. No, it is not suited to all fights. But if and when it comes time to take down integrated air defenses to achieve air dominance, especially in a conventional conflict, the F-22 is the best weapon around. "As long as you own the air," Raptor jockey Captain Phil Colomy said, "you have the freedom to do what you want on the ground."

Surprisingly, despite the Raptor's strong air-to-air record in recent exercises (108 kills to no losses at Northern Edge), it's the aircraft's air-to-ground prowess that Field and Colomy are most excited about. They said that with strong front-aspect stealth, high ceiling, long range (when properly tanked), and the ability to cruise faster than Mach 1, the F-22 can get to distant battlefields, surprise air defenses and lob Joint Direct Attack Munitions farther than 20 miles to kill them. No other aircraft can do that, Colomy said.

As for Sprey's criticism -- based on a cursory glance at technical data -- that the F-22 is a poor performer, former F-15 pilot Colomy pointed to the aircraft's huge control surfaces, powerful engines and advanced flight control system. "We will turn inside anybody."

But even if it is a kick-ass performer, the Raptor remains disproportionately expensive. Cuts to the program mean the Air Force will field only 183 F-22s against a requirement for 381. That's just seven operational squadrons, three fewer than the Air Force needs to give each rotational Air Expeditionary Force a Raptor component. Plans are already afoot to improve F-15s to soldier on alongside F-22s, but that's a stop-gap. Bottom line: "We need more Raptor squadrons," Field said.

In subsequent posts, I will address some of the particulars of Sprey's criticisms ... and the Raptor fliers' responses.

Raptor ... or Turkey (Part Two)

In a fight against other airplanes, the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor's stealth capabilities are useless, claims noted fighter designer Pierre Sprey, since the Raptor must radiate to detect the enemy, thus announcing its location to everyone in the vicinity with a Radar Warning Receiver.

Under these circumstances, a Raptor is no better than any late-model fighter such as the Sukhoi Su-27 series, which is considerably cheaper.

Not so, said the Raptor jockeys of the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

"I'm going to be able to see him before he sees me," Captain Phil Colomy assured me. He was refering to radar detection, not visual.

How so? I asked. If you radiate, everyone's going to know where you are. To use Sprey's analogy, it's like using a flashlight in a dark room. Sure, you can see the bad guy, but he can see you too.

Colomy just smiled. 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field spoke up:

"Enemy RWR can't detect radiating F-22s," he said. "We haven't had a problem with that."

I asked if that had something to do with the Raptor's Raytheon APG-77 Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, which uses many tiny nimble radar beams instead of one big, slow beam.

Field just smiled. This is classified, but widely known to be true.

Basically, here's how it works. RWRs are like any sensor: they operate at a certain fidelity lending a certain degree of dependability. If you radiate only briefly or only a little, RWRs aren't going to be able to pin you down. A small, smart, well-directed beam -- such as that from any new AESA -- is too fleeting for a firm fix. It's like using a flashlight in a dark room, but snapping it on then off in a fraction of a second.

One day RWRs will catch up to the new AESAs. But for right now, the radars have the advantage. What this means is that the F-22 can use its radar without entirely sacrificing stealth. That's on top of the other advantages of the AESA.

Raptor ... or Turkey (Part Three)

At Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, 27th Fighter Squadron pilot Captain Phil Colomy opened his presentation on the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor with a video of inert bomb impacts set to a rock soundtrack. Clip after clip showed 1,000-pound Boeing GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions slamming into derelict trucks and digging craters in sand.

The footage was from the squadron's recent weapons camp at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, where Raptors climbed to higher than 50,000 feet, accelerated to faster than Mach 1 then dropped JDAMs 20 miles or more from targets. According to 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field, all 22 drops resulted in direct hits at greater accuracy than any other aircraft has ever achieved with JDAM.

From 2002 to 2005, the F-22 was known as the F/A-22, emphasizing its ground-attack capability hauling two internal JDAMs or (in the future) eight 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs. "We were trying to tell a story, trying to say that the F-22 is not just a better [Boeing] F-15C," Field explained.

Wing spokeswoman Captain Elizabeth Kreft pointed out that, during the period of the "F/A" designation, James Roche, a former sailor, was Air Force secretary. The dual designation has been standard in Navy tactical air since the early 1980s with the Boeing F/A-18A Hornet.

But with the major fights over Raptor funding over and with Roche having stepped down, this year the Air Force switched the Raptor's designation back to the traditional F-22. But lest anyone take this to mean that the Raptor is once again just a fighter, Field pointed out that the Raptor's only truly unique capabilities lie in the ground attack realm. "Shooting down other aircraft is not what the F-22 is best at." (Though it is pretty good at this -- check back for Part Four.)

Where the Raptor truly excels is in the high-energy, long-range delivery of smart bombs in a high-threat environment. The weapons camp was a basic demonstration of that capability.

Colomy brought up a schematic of Iran's integrated air defense network featuring overlapping radar coverage and the latest Russian-made surface-to-air missiles. The systems' detection and engagement ranges were plotted with circles based on their performance against legacy Air Force aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-16C and F-15E. Next Colomy brought up a slide that showed the effect of the F-22's superior speed and stealth on the performance of the same air defenses. Their ranges were halved, leaving huge gaps in the network.

"There's no shortage of bomb droppers in the Air Force," Colomy said. "But can they get close enough?"

With its front-aspect stealth and its ability to supercruise faster than Mach 1 at high altitude over long ranges (contingent on adequate tanking), the Raptor can sneak up on enemy defenses then release a pair of JDAMs with far greater energy than other aircraft can manage. That means more destructive weapons effects and fewer sorties to roll back air defenses. "We use the F-22 to clear a path for other aircraft," Colomy said.

Thus has evolved the Raptor's new niche. In light of the tiny production run of just 183 jets, Raptors will equip only seven squadrons -- effectively a "silver-bullet" force. Rather than replacing F-15s wholesale, the Raptor will complement modernized F-15s and work alongside legacy aircraft to enhance their capabilities. While Raptor-Eagle teams clear the skies, ground-attack Raptors will poke holes in integrated air defenses so F-16s, F-15Es, Lockheed Martin F-117s and strategic bombers can bring their firepower to bear.

Raptor ... or Turkey (Part Four)

The vaunted Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor is less a nimble, sharp-eyed bird of prey than a sluggish, half-blind buzzard, according to noted fighter designer Pierre Sprey. He cites several figures to support to his claim:

* The F-22 has higher wing loading than the Boeing F-15A, meaning more weight on the wing and less maneuverability

* The Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 50 with a General Electric 110 engine out-accelerates the F-22 with its two Pratt & Whitney 119s -- at any altitude

* The F-22 has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-15A

* The F-22 pilot's rearward and downward visibility is inferior to the F-16 pilot's

The result, Sprey contends, is that the F-22 will lose in dogfights against older, supposedly inferior aircraft.

The fighter jocks of the first operational Raptor unit, the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, scoffed at the notion during my Aug. 10 visit.

"I don't know what people have been reading, but this thing is a monster," Brigadier General Burton Field said. "It's more maneuverable than anything out there."

"We will turn inside anybody," Captain Phil Colomy seconded.

Exercises have tended to corroborate these pilots' contentions. At Northern Edge in Alaska in June, the 27th Fighter Squadron's Raptors killed 108 F-15s and F-16s for no losses. In one four-hour engagement teaming F-22s and F-15s against other U.S. aircraft, the Raptor team killed 83 and lost just one Eagle.

To explain this apparent disconnect between the Raptor's flight performance and its exercise results, Field and Colomy point to aspects of the F-22's design that Sprey ignores, such as:

* An advanced flight control system that renders smarter aircraft reactions to control inputs: The F-22, like the F-16, is an aerodynamically unstable aircraft that relies on computer systems to stabilize it in flight and translate pilot inputs into aircraft movements. The sophistication of the computer is a factor in the maneuverability of the aircraft.

* Large control surfaces: The F-22 features some of the largest elevators, flaps, fins and stabilizers on any fighter aircraft ever built. The single-piece stabilizers are as large as an F-16's entire wing. Control-surface design is another key factor in maneuverability.

* Thrust vectoring: The P&W-119s terminate in vertical thrust-vectoring nozzles that can direct 35,000 pounds of thrust apiece 20 degrees up or down, improving turning ability. Confronted with the criticism that these nozzles incur a weight and drag penalty, Colomoy laughed and pointed to a nearby F-15's large, unmoving nozzles. "You've got to have nozzles," he said. "The only difference with these is that they move." In other words, they're no heavier or draggier than any other nozzle.

The one criticism that the Raptor fliers can't counter is that the jet's canopy affords poorer visibility than the F-16's. It's true: the F-22's canopy is slightly obstructed by the intakes and the spine, but this flaw hasn't resulted in any lost dogfights in recent exercises.[/b]

We can buy 200 more F-22As for cheaper than 200 new F-15Cs.

skrip00 wrote:We can buy 200 more F-22As for cheaper than 200 new F-15Cs.

Well, I don't think that's true, but it would be silly to stop buying Raptors at 183 giving that the R&D investment has already been made. I think, by the way, that the writer of these articles comes down decidedly in favor of the Raptor. I think Sprey, unfortunately (he was a hero of mine for a long time), has likely gone a little senile, and has little or no understanding of the technological transformation of the past twenty or so years. He evinces a total lack of understanding of stealth and modern sensors, specifically AESA. And does not seem to appreciate the F-22 is virtually a lifting body, the enormity of its control surfaces, its very low drag design, and the true power of its engines. By god, this plane in MIL can out-accelerate an F-15 in afterburner. Anyone who thinks an F-16, any F-16, even an A model with an F-110 can out-accelerate an F-22 must be on acid. Then again, Sprey IS a child of the 60s...

Nope, skrip is right. By the time the first 183 roll off the line the production cost is $117 mil a pop. The newest Eagles are up around $120 mil a pop (citing recent competitions where they won). That is of course if I correctly remember numbers from other threads on this forum. Also, the guy would have had to be referring to a combat with full combat loadout vs. a clean Viper to even make the competition fair. Even then... here is your complimentary baby seal and your club.

Well, its true because of lifetime costs.

Its cheaper to operate brand new F-22As than it is to operate 40~50 year old F-15Cs for another 50 years.

Also, the F-22A is cheaper to upgrade. It was designed with enough space and processing power for the next 20~30 years of advances... easily.

Maintaining the F-22A is also cheaper and less time-consuming than the F-15C. Spares are readily available and plentiful. The aircraft was built around ease of on maintenence, and has a computer doohicky which helps with problem solving.

Sprey, like Ricconi, is misguided and yearns for the good ol days of flight. Unfortunately, our enemies dont think that way.

With costs of $115~135 million per F-22A, the USAF can easily afford, and will do so for many years to come.

Think the F-22A is amazing? I wonder what the F-22B will bring...

Can anyone tell me how old the youngest F-15C is in the fleet? In terms of years, and hours flown?

Spey and CDI are once again dealing in misleading grandeur and half-truths. The rebuttal from the 27th guys is good but some more points if I may:

* The F-22 has higher wing loading than the Boeing F-15A, meaning more weight on the wing and less maneuverability

If wing loading is the most important design spec of maneuverability (or in this case turning ability) then his beloved F-16 would be trouble (or F-5 for that matter). The F-22 with full internal gas, 6 slammers and two winders has the same wing loading as the F-16A with only two AIM-9s and full internal fuel. The F-22 also has the same wing loading -- fully loaded -- as the F-16C with two AIM-9s and 65% internal fuel. Rodan has a lower wing loading than the Viper, but ask any Viper driver if they would have any qualms going guns and heaters with an Eagle.

* The Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 50 with a General Electric 110 engine out-accelerates the F-22 with its two Pratt & Whitney 119s -- at any altitude

This one’s hard to call. Metz likens mil thrust acceleration to the F-15 in full blower. Then again he says this:

The best seat in the house for supercruise is from a chase F-16 or F-15. Remember, we fly both these chase jets with just a centerline fuel tank to give them a fighting chance to play with the Raptor. Still, the F-22 usually leaves these aerodynamically “slick” chase airplanes in the dust. The F100-110, -129, and -229-powered F-16s don’t fall very far behind the Raptor in the initial acceleration through Mach. But the race is really no contest at the higher Mach numbers and once on cruise conditions.


* The F-22 has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-15A

Yes, but it’s also carrying 9,000lbs more gas. Further at any given relative range point it will have a lower wing loading and higher thrust to weight. This doesn’t take into consideration that the F119 is widely regarding as being a capable of 39,000lbs in full blower.


Brad

EM Formula of SEP:

a. (Fighter's Thrust - Fighter's Drag) * Fighter's Speed = SEP

b. SEP / Fighter's Weight --> The real factor that determines a fighter's maneuverability. T/W ratio is just an over-simplized index for this factor, which maybe highly inaccurate when you use it to compare the fighters of different generation.

Taking F-22 v.s F-15 for example, although the difference between their T/W ratio may not be very significant, but if you take drag into consideration, then the difference between their SEP should still be very prominent.

F-15C v.s F-22A

EMPTY-WEIGHT:
F-15C: 12,973 kg ~ 13,427 kg(With AN/APG-63V2 AESA radar)
F-22A: 18,144 kg ~ 19,489 kg

STANDARD TAKING-OFF WEIGHT FOR A-A MISSION:
F-15C:20,350 ~ 20,830 kg
F-22A:27,216 ~ 28,125 kg

WING-AREA:
F-15C: 56.48 m2
F-22A: 78.03 m2

T/W AB Sea-Level:
F-15C: 1.038~1.062
F-22A: 1.129~1.300

T/W MAX. MIL Sea-Level:
F-15C:0.639~0.654
F-22A:0.822~0.850

WING-LOADING:
F-15C: 360.30~368.80 kg/m2
F-22A: 348.79~360.44 kg/m2

SERVICE CEILING:
F-15C: 60,000 fts
F-22A: 70,000 fts

EMERGENCY TAKING-OFF:
F-15C: 900 fts
F-22A: 800 fts

FERRY-RANGE:
F-15C: 5,745 km: 6,103 kg internal fuel + 4,423 kgCFTs fuel + 5,395 kg tanks' fuel)
F-22A: 2,728 ~ 3,500 km(9,300~9,400 kg internal fuel )

FRONTAL RCS:
F-22A: 0.00015 ~ 0.00060m2..........1~4 --> 1.00~1.40
F-15C: 10 ~ 25m2...........66666~166666 --> 16.07~20.21

Radar Tracking Range:
F-22A, APG-77V5: 200 km for RCS 1m2 target.....Score: 222+
F-15C, APG-63V2: 144 km for RCS 1m2 target.....Score: 160
F-15C, APG-63V1: 160 km for RCS 10 m2 target...Score: 100

So has Sprey become a blind fool or does he really believe what he's asserting? I'm sure the same things were said about the Viper when it came out:

Not big enough
Can't haul enough
Not enough range
Too tricky to fly
Too fragile compared to its Sov counterparts.

History has proved otherwise.

Call me naive but if a daily operator tells me this jet will make the first day really, reeeeeally ugly for the other side, I'm gonna tend to believe 'em, rather than some "analyst" sitting in some cubby hole whose contribution to the argument is his/her personal interpretation of aircraft data sheets.

LinkF16SimDude wrote:So has Sprey become a blind fool or does he really believe what he's asserting? I'm sure the same things were said about the Viper when it came out:

Not big enough
Can't haul enough
Not enough range
Too tricky to fly
Too fragile compared to its Sov counterparts.

History has proved otherwise.

Call me naive but if a daily operator tells me this jet will make the first day really, reeeeeally ugly for the other side, I'm gonna tend to believe 'em, rather than some "analyst" sitting in some cubby hole whose contribution to the argument is his/her personal interpretation of aircraft data sheets.

Thing with Sprey is, and the reason his arguments are getting so much "play," is that he isn't a mere "analyst" in a "cubby hole." Anyone who loves the Viper deeply admires this man, without whom the Viper would never have been possible. I'm not sure if you are aware of his role as head of the "Fighter Mafia" back in the late 60s and early 70s. Anyone who ever wanted a pilot's fighter, who wanted more power, more maneuverability, and less BS in his mount, loves this guy. Unfortunately, like many older folks, he has failed to adjust his standards for a completely different kind of air warfare. His ideal continues to be the YF-16 with the most rudimentary of radars, a couple of Sidewinders and a gun. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to get the fact that you could litterally throw swarms of such fighters at a formation of Raptors and the latter would eat them alive. Things have changed a great deal in the last 30 to 40 years. Unfortunately, Sprey hasn't.

idesof wrote:

LinkF16SimDude wrote:So has Sprey become a blind fool or does he really believe what he's asserting? I'm sure the same things were said about the Viper when it came out:

Not big enough
Can't haul enough
Not enough range
Too tricky to fly
Too fragile compared to its Sov counterparts.

History has proved otherwise.

Call me naive but if a daily operator tells me this jet will make the first day really, reeeeeally ugly for the other side, I'm gonna tend to believe 'em, rather than some "analyst" sitting in some cubby hole whose contribution to the argument is his/her personal interpretation of aircraft data sheets.

Thing with Sprey is, and the reason his arguments are getting so much "play," is that he isn't a mere "analyst" in a "cubby hole." Anyone who loves the Viper deeply admires this man, without whom the Viper would never have been possible. I'm not sure if you are aware of his role as head of the "Fighter Mafia" back in the late 60s and early 70s. Anyone who ever wanted a pilot's fighter, who wanted more power, more maneuverability, and less BS in his mount, loves this guy. Unfortunately, like many older folks, he has failed to adjust his standards for a completely different kind of air warfare. His ideal continues to be the YF-16 with the most rudimentary of radars, a couple of Sidewinders and a gun. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to get the fact that you could litterally throw swarms of such fighters at a formation of Raptors and the latter would eat them alive. Things have changed a great deal in the last 30 to 40 years. Unfortunately, Sprey hasn't.

We must always think forward or should I say "Think Out of the Box"! Many back in the 70's and 80's said we should upgrade and continue to build F-4's. What the pundits don't understand you don't win by being as good. You win by being better! Maybe if there necks were on the line they would think otherwise........

This rubbish sounds so familar. I am old enough to have read this about the F-14A and F-15A. "IF".... cone calculates the price of either of these two aircraft and account for inflation completely, the price of the F-22's price is competitive!
These two men James Stevenson and Pierra Sprey probably feel like Col. John Boyd (also worked on the design of the F-16) felt the F-16 was a better design than the F-15 but, was still to "gold plated" to for what he wanted in a fighter.
They both remind of the "so called" experts before the PGW#1 who predited casualty rates in the airwar in access of "twenty" percent the first night against Saddam's integrated air defence. Still others cited they felt the T-72 was a better tank than the M-1 in desert warfare! So much for experts.

There are some valid arguements against the F-22's initial cost versus the national 'will'! The Cold War is over and the national will is not there.
I ask, "if not the F-22 then what? Should we start over and built an airsuperiority fighter with a target price of $50M? The cost of living will double before it flies! If the USA does not field a fighter that has a technical edge over any opponent, is America prepared to sustain and accept kill ratios of, 3.4:1 like the US Navy averaged over Viet Nam?"

Corsair1963 wrote:What the pundits don't understand you don't win by being as good. You win by being better!

AMEN!!!

Adrian

idesof wrote:Raptor ... or Turkey (Part Four)
The vaunted Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor is less a nimble, sharp-eyed bird of prey than a sluggish, half-blind buzzard, according to noted fighter designer Pierre Sprey. He cites several figures to support to his claim:
* The F-22 has higher wing loading than the Boeing F-15A, meaning more weight on the wing and less maneuverability

Hadn't seen this thread before, and I'm not gonna just repeat all the good comments that many have made. But...

It just drives me nuts when people compare wing loading numbers for an F-22 and F-15. Why? In short, because of the lift distribution for unstable vs stable airframes. Conventional (stable) airframes require downforce from the horizontal stabs to maintain trim. Relaxed-stability (unstable) airplanes do not (at least not in the portions of their envelopes where they are likely to approach Clmax). In other words, the F-15 wing has to not only support the weight of the structure, it has to generate additional lift to balance the downforce from the tail. An F-22 gets the opposite effect - the wing can actually generate less lift than weight because the tail is helping, creating positive lift. (This, by the way, is a significant portion of the drag savings, as all lift (up or down) generates drag.)

Sprey should know the fallacy in referencing simple wing loading numbers for a comparison like this. Either he has truly lost it, or .... well, let's just assume he has lost it.... (I think the first part of the quote confirms that anyway).

Raptor_claw wrote:

idesof wrote:Raptor ... or Turkey (Part Four)
The vaunted Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor is less a nimble, sharp-eyed bird of prey than a sluggish, half-blind buzzard, according to noted fighter designer Pierre Sprey. He cites several figures to support to his claim:
* The F-22 has higher wing loading than the Boeing F-15A, meaning more weight on the wing and less maneuverability

Hadn't seen this thread before, and I'm not gonna just repeat all the good comments that many have made. But...

It just drives me nuts when people compare wing loading numbers for an F-22 and F-15. Why? In short, because of the lift distribution for unstable vs stable airframes. Conventional (stable) airframes require downforce from the horizontal stabs to maintain trim. Relaxed-stability (unstable) airplanes do not (at least not in the portions of their envelopes where they are likely to approach Clmax). In other words, the F-15 wing has to not only support the weight of the structure, it has to generate additional lift to balance the downforce from the tail. An F-22 gets the opposite effect - the wing can actually generate less lift than weight because the tail is helping, creating positive lift. (This, by the way, is a significant portion of the drag savings, as all lift (up or down) generates drag.)

Sprey should know the fallacy in referencing simple wing loading numbers for a comparison like this. Either he has truly lost it, or .... well, let's just assume he has lost it.... (I think the first part of the quote confirms that anyway).

The thing you soon see about that bunch is they hated the F-15 because it was "gold plated" and they lost that fight and they've simply transferred their hatred to the F-22. Most of their "arguements" have little to do with reality. I'd love it if someone had the cash to make a fighter to their specs and put it against the Raptor and watch it get it's a$$ kicked sky high.