Wheeler is at it again

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

disconnectedradical

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 238
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44

Unread post15 Oct 2012, 21:13

Take a look at this.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/15/ ... periority/

The F-22 fighter is described by the Air Force as an “exponential leap in warfighting capabilities.” A review of the data shows the F-22 to be more expensive and less impressive than the hype would have you believe. For one thing, the cost for each F-22 is not the $143 million the Air Force asserts but rather a whopping $412 million, according to the GAO. The plane was supposed to be less expensive to operate than the F-15C; instead, it is 50 percent more. For another, its radar-evading “stealth” capability is significantly limited, as we know from two F-117 “stealth” casualties in the 1999 Kosovo air war, and its ability to detect, identify, and engage enemy aircraft at very long range with radar-controlled missiles relies on a technology that has repeatedly failed in combat. Finally, the F-22 compares roughly in close-in air combat to early versions of the F-15 and F-16. This June, that unexceptional agility was on display when German pilots flew Eurofighter Typhoons successfully against F-22s in mock dogfights.


I just don't understand. He has to know that he's cherrypicking his evidence. What is his motivation for being so...disingenuous?
Online

Prinz_Eugn

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 902
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2008, 03:35

Unread post15 Oct 2012, 22:01

Basically because he was part of a revolutionary movement that culminated in the F-16 and by all means was a huge success, but has not come to terms with the fact that the underpinnings of that revolution have largely been obliterated by advances in technology.

The basic premise was that stripped-down fighters emphazing basically reliable technology and maneuverability are better than complex ones relying on unreliable weapons and electronic systems.
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4633
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post15 Oct 2012, 22:52

Prinz_Eugn wrote:Basically because he was part of a revolutionary movement that culminated in the F-16A, but quickly moved away from in order to survive in the modern battlefield.


Fixed it for ya
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1931
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post15 Oct 2012, 23:24

This strikes me as starting with the conclusion and fitting anecdotes to support it.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.
Offline

1st503rdsgt

Banned

  • Posts: 1547
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 01:23

Unread post15 Oct 2012, 23:47

disconnectedradical wrote:I just don't understand. He has to know that he's cherrypicking his evidence. What is his motivation for being so...disingenuous?

For people like him, it's an ideological philosophy they hold dear... the idea that air-combat should be thousands of cheap platforms dogfighting with guns in a huge furball while others drop dumb bombs Vietnam style.
The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1844
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post15 Oct 2012, 23:47

Prinz_Eugn wrote:Basically because he was part of a revolutionary movement that culminated in the F-16 and by all means was a huge success, but has not come to terms with the fact that the underpinnings of that revolution have largely been obliterated by advances in technology.

The basic premise was that stripped-down fighters emphazing basically reliable technology and maneuverability are better than complex ones relying on unreliable weapons and electronic systems.

I had an interesting conversation with a F-22 pilot recently. The F-16 & F/A-18 are too heavy to turn inside the F-22 at corner airspeed. A fighter like the F-5E has the thrust/weight ratio and its smaller size, enables it to turn tightly.

This does however skip over several points;
- Why did the F-22 get into a knife fight (close-in dogfight)
- The F-5 isn't stealth
- The F-5 doesn't have the endurance/range for long CAP missions without heavy tanker support.

People like Spey and Wheeler criticize the F-35, but IMO it will be a better jet than the aircraft it replaces(except maybe A-10) They can't have a F-5 size & priced aircraft, with the strike capability & range of a F-15, it just doesn't work that way.
Offline

sferrin

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1757
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 Oct 2012, 15:13

disconnectedradical wrote:Take a look at this.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/15/ ... periority/

The F-22 fighter is described by the Air Force as an “exponential leap in warfighting capabilities.” A review of the data shows the F-22 to be more expensive and less impressive than the hype would have you believe. For one thing, the cost for each F-22 is not the $143 million the Air Force asserts but rather a whopping $412 million, according to the GAO. The plane was supposed to be less expensive to operate than the F-15C; instead, it is 50 percent more. For another, its radar-evading “stealth” capability is significantly limited, as we know from two F-117 “stealth” casualties in the 1999 Kosovo air war, and its ability to detect, identify, and engage enemy aircraft at very long range with radar-controlled missiles relies on a technology that has repeatedly failed in combat. Finally, the F-22 compares roughly in close-in air combat to early versions of the F-15 and F-16. This June, that unexceptional agility was on display when German pilots flew Eurofighter Typhoons successfully against F-22s in mock dogfights.


I just don't understand. He has to know that he's cherrypicking his evidence. What is his motivation for being so...disingenuous?



$$$. And given that the F-15 was his White Whale he's simply transferred that bias to the F-22 (and F-35). You see, they're not F-5E's which to that bunch was the pinacle of fighter design. Anything more is "gold plating".
"There I was. . ."
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1844
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post16 Oct 2012, 19:41

sferrin wrote:$$$. And given that the F-15 was his White Whale he's simply transferred that bias to the F-22 (and F-35). You see, they're not F-5E's which to that bunch was the pinacle of fighter design. Anything more is "gold plating".

Then why is the Brazilian F-5 full of Israeli avionics?
Why are half the MiG-21s in NATO service similarly full of Israeli/French avionics?

The USAF that purchased half the F-16s produced, and have been upgraded the jets over the years, at not insignificant cost either. Most of the NATO Block 15 jets in service are now Block 20 MLU jets.

The figure I'd heard is that the adjusted "peak" production cost of a F-22 today is no more than $150m. This does not include "program costs", production re-opening costs, or upgrade costs. This is the cost to send one of 20+ jets produced that year out the door, at flyaway cost.

If Spey and Wheeler plan was followed, the F-16 Block 5 jets would have been lucky to last 10 years in front-line service. When was the last time anyone flew a F-8 or similar fighter jet as a front-line fighter?
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 818
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post17 Oct 2012, 02:16

disconnectedradical wrote:Take a look at this.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/15/ ... periority/

The F-22 fighter is described by the Air Force as an “exponential leap in warfighting capabilities.” A review of the data shows the F-22 to be more expensive and less impressive than the hype would have you believe. For one thing, the cost for each F-22 is not the $143 million the Air Force asserts but rather a whopping $412 million, according to the GAO. The plane was supposed to be less expensive to operate than the F-15C; instead, it is 50 percent more. For another, its radar-evading “stealth” capability is significantly limited, as we know from two F-117 “stealth” casualties in the 1999 Kosovo air war, and its ability to detect, identify, and engage enemy aircraft at very long range with radar-controlled missiles relies on a technology that has repeatedly failed in combat. Finally, the F-22 compares roughly in close-in air combat to early versions of the F-15 and F-16. This June, that unexceptional agility was on display when German pilots flew Eurofighter Typhoons successfully against F-22s in mock dogfights.




What. The. Hell.

Since two F-117s were downed or damaged in the Balkans, we know what the F-22's VLO isn't useful.

Since the AIM-7E's P-sub-K was <10% in SEA, the AIM-120 and all BVR missiles are useless.

It's the same argument, folks.

Oops, I just realized he basically made both claims. It's a good thing this trash is self-described as leftist radical; hopefully the sensible among the public will steer clear. Damn communists.
Offline

bigjku

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 378
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post17 Oct 2012, 13:22

Phantom,

That is my biggest problem with the anti-stealth side of things. Ok, yes, you can be seen and shot down. Everyone admits that. But what would losses have been if the F-117's were not around in GW1, Serbia and so on? No one can really deny that stealth is a huge force multiplier. I also think that his "article" if you want to call it that is really a fair look at things. I honestly don't think there is nearly as much to draw from the most recent conflicts in Serbia and the war on terror as there are from GW1 when extrapolating what US forces might try to do in a major war. Even then that was a fairly circumscribed air campaign.

In a major conflict US stealth aircraft are going to be going after critical targets with weapons that are very likely to hit and destroy their targets. Everyone looks back on what the USAF tried to do in WWII and kind of laughs but I don't think their theories were far from the truth. Economies and air defense systems are fairly fragile. They just could not hit the targets precisely or rapidly enough. The US military now can do that. In a war against a near peer the USAF could do tremendous damage with conventional weapons that would economically and militarily make life very very difficult for the other side. Whatever Wheeler wants to say there is no other air force really equipped to do that.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4633
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post17 Oct 2012, 15:38

If you want to know the loss rate of 4th gen vs F-117 in a like environment, take a look at Package Q.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_Q_Strike

http://www.lucky-devils.net/baghdad.html
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

mk82

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post17 Oct 2012, 16:03

Great article on the counterpunch site...not!!!!! Once a f**kwit, always a f**kwit. I don't understand why would anyone in their right mind waste their time with tripe from Wheeler.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 238
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44

Unread post02 Jul 2013, 14:03

neurotech wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Basically because he was part of a revolutionary movement that culminated in the F-16 and by all means was a huge success, but has not come to terms with the fact that the underpinnings of that revolution have largely been obliterated by advances in technology.

The basic premise was that stripped-down fighters emphazing basically reliable technology and maneuverability are better than complex ones relying on unreliable weapons and electronic systems.

I had an interesting conversation with a F-22 pilot recently. The F-16 & F/A-18 are too heavy to turn inside the F-22 at corner airspeed. A fighter like the F-5E has the thrust/weight ratio and its smaller size, enables it to turn tightly.

This does however skip over several points;
- Why did the F-22 get into a knife fight (close-in dogfight)
- The F-5 isn't stealth
- The F-5 doesn't have the endurance/range for long CAP missions without heavy tanker support.

People like Spey and Wheeler criticize the F-35, but IMO it will be a better jet than the aircraft it replaces(except maybe A-10) They can't have a F-5 size & priced aircraft, with the strike capability & range of a F-15, it just doesn't work that way.


I'm going to necro this thread just to clear up this statement. neurotech, can you please explain? While F-5E is smaller and lighter, it actually has worse thrust/weight ratio than the F-16C block 30, so I'm curious as to why it would turn more tightly.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1844
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post02 Jul 2013, 21:57

disconnectedradical wrote:
neurotech wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a F-22 pilot recently. The F-16 & F/A-18 are too heavy to turn inside the F-22 at corner airspeed. A fighter like the F-5E has the thrust/weight ratio and its smaller size, enables it to turn tightly.

This does however skip over several points;
- Why did the F-22 get into a knife fight (close-in dogfight)
- The F-5 isn't stealth
- The F-5 doesn't have the endurance/range for long CAP missions without heavy tanker support.

People like Spey and Wheeler criticize the F-35, but IMO it will be a better jet than the aircraft it replaces(except maybe A-10) They can't have a F-5 size & priced aircraft, with the strike capability & range of a F-15, it just doesn't work that way.


I'm going to necro this thread just to clear up this statement. neurotech, can you please explain? While F-5E is smaller and lighter, it actually has worse thrust/weight ratio than the F-16C block 30, so I'm curious as to why it would turn more tightly.

The F-5E is a smaller jet, that is lighter in weight, compared to a F-16C. The F-5Es in TOPGUN, USAF FWS, RoCAF service have Leading Edge Root Extensions (LERXs) and fences etc, that assist in turning performance, and high alpha flight. Not F/A-18 level, but still an improvement over jets like the MiG-21. F-5s are tiny, and hard to visually locate beyond about 1-2 miles in a dogfight. I'm not talking Top Gun movie scenes, I'm talking actually in air-to-air engagements.
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 705
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post02 Jul 2013, 22:59

neurotech wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
neurotech wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a F-22 pilot recently. The F-16 & F/A-18 are too heavy to turn inside the F-22 at corner airspeed. A fighter like the F-5E has the thrust/weight ratio and its smaller size, enables it to turn tightly.

This does however skip over several points;
- Why did the F-22 get into a knife fight (close-in dogfight)
- The F-5 isn't stealth
- The F-5 doesn't have the endurance/range for long CAP missions without heavy tanker support.

People like Spey and Wheeler criticize the F-35, but IMO it will be a better jet than the aircraft it replaces(except maybe A-10) They can't have a F-5 size & priced aircraft, with the strike capability & range of a F-15, it just doesn't work that way.


I'm going to necro this thread just to clear up this statement. neurotech, can you please explain? While F-5E is smaller and lighter, it actually has worse thrust/weight ratio than the F-16C block 30, so I'm curious as to why it would turn more tightly.

The F-5E is a smaller jet, that is lighter in weight, compared to a F-16C. The F-5Es in TOPGUN, USAF FWS, RoCAF service have Leading Edge Root Extensions (LERXs) and fences etc, that assist in turning performance, and high alpha flight. Not F/A-18 level, but still an improvement over jets like the MiG-21. F-5s are tiny, and hard to visually locate beyond about 1-2 miles in a dogfight. I'm not talking Top Gun movie scenes, I'm talking actually in air-to-air engagements.


re: F-5E, et. al.

Be careful not to equate turn radius with turn rate. The fact that an airplane can turn in a tighter radius does not necessarily mean that it can turn faster.
Next

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests