Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Last edited by viper_pilot on Apr 23, 2005 - 05:03 PM; edited 1 time in total

Ok everyone is all hyped up with the F-22. It's the new fighter aircraft for the USAF and the most advanced aircraft ever built. It's the new kid on the block and said to be the baddest of the bad. But is it really that good?

I'm not trying to bash the F-22. If you don't want to hear anything bad about it then I would strongly advise you to leave this topic. I know if I had the chance to fly one I would do it in a heartbeat and probably love it. But in my opinion I really don't think the AF is doing a good job on it.

They say the F-22 is an air dominance fighter that can shoot down any plane in existence and I completely believe that. They mainly designed it for BVR combat and not WVR. When they should have considered that other countries like China and Russia are developing their own stealth tech which would cause both planes to have to get closer in order to lock-on. But the F-22 has just about the same role as the F-15. After about 2 weeks into a combat situation the F-15s circle the AWACS until they run out of fuel looking for a bad guy that is never going to leave the ground because they already blew them up. So most of them go back home. That means we are spending over $100 mil per F-22 to have it circle the AWACS and occasionaly blow something up. Now everyone is probably saying it's really the F/A-22 and it can attack ground targets as well so it will still be useful after the 2 weeks. But if it can attack ground as well as air, then why in the hell would we need so many F-35s? Plus we can take out ground targets easily with a Tomahawk and not risk losing an aircraft to a SAM.
I really think the JSF will become the workhorse of the USAF just like the F-16. Although the F-16 was not intended to be a multi-role fighter until the AF brass "Gold Plated" it, they do it with all aircraft.. Building a multi-role fighter that can do the jobs of many aircraft seems like a far better idea to me.

The F-35 has many pluses over the F-22 such as: it is far cheaper than the F-22, can carry a greater payload. and is or will be stealthier than the Raptor. It will also be able to shoot down A-A targets and bomb A-G targets. It seems to me that the F-22 is nothing but an F-15 with a new airframe. I serioulsy don't hate the F-22 or the F-35, I would like to fly either one of them. I just think the F-35 is a better plane mission wise than the F-22.

Well, I said what I think now it's your turn. I am sure I will be cussed and I know I have left out a few things. The F-22 is not bad it just has a few things that should be improved.

F-16.net Sponsor

OK, I'll start the responses Wink

.

First, I think the FA-22 is that good. All the ground troops and pilots I've talked to swear by it.

Unfortunately, seeing an airforce scared under the sand can give the impression that a more advanced aircraft isn't needed. People have started thinking that all conflicts will be like the last two rounds in the Middle East. What would happen, however, if we came up against a country like China? I don't think their pilots are that well trained, but they've got one heck of a military and lots of land to put all those SAM sites on. If nothing else, they might try to overwhelm US forces with numbers. Shoot enough BVR radar missiles at an F-15 or F-16 and you might just get a hit. Not only that, but what happens if they do happen to have some really good pilots and send 'em up in the latest generation of SU ? The Viper and Eagle are both old designs and are starting to show a bit of thier age - they can still put up a good fight, but they'r not as dominant as they used to be.

I don't think the F-35 should be thought of as a "better" plane than the F-22 for air superiority, either. The F-22 has a lot going for it such as a bigger radar and more internal weapons carriage. Think of it this way - more internal weapons means more bad guys ejecting without compromising stealth and increasing vulnerability to air and ground based radar guided weapons.

Someone might just decide to attack an AWACS in numbers someday, and they'll have an idea by their own radar of what's circling it. They might just think twice if they can't see whats up around the AWACS and they think Raptors might be in the area. I think it's just as good if the bad guys never come up for a fight because they're too scared. It might be boring and appear to be a waste of money to have the jets circiling that big frisbee in the sky, but in the end it means fewer lives lost on both sides and I'm all for that Thumb

!

VP - You may already know this but there are several other discussions which have just recently gone over a lot of the pros & cons of the Raptor. I flew against it and I recommend looking at the thread "F-22 Maneuverability" - just ignore the argument in the middle pages.

Overall, I think you're right - the JSF probably will be the workhorse, but we need some Raptors. (Just like we needed some Eagles - even though I'll still mock them) As for true payload, I don't know the full answer, but I suspect in overall payload the Raptor can carry more - just maybe not internally. I know the JSF weapons bay has been designed from the beginning to hold many different weapons which the current version of the Raptor can't.

The JSFs avionics will probably be more advanced that the Raptors simply due to the fact that it is a much newer design. It will use a lot of the learning from the Raptor to ease its production. Supposedly much of the cost of the Raptor has covered the same type of design used in the JSF; thereby, it has reduced the cost of the JSF. The Raptor does have exclusive capabilities which the F-35 won't - supercruise, altitude, maneuverability (TV nozzles), and some of its stealth. It will be able to many things the F-35 can't but vice versa will probably also be true (V/STOL, weapons, etc.)

One day we are going to run across an air force that will come up and fight. When we do we will need a better plane than the F-15 or F-16. As good as those two are they are dated designs and we need something better.
But I also think that the F-22 is the wrong plane to buy. I'm probably the only one on the planet who thinks so. The reasons why the F-22 is the wrong plane are several. But the biggest is my belief that the BVR missiles such as the AMRAAM will have a PK around 10 % and that the F-22 will be in more visual range fights and it is not designed to be in a visual range fight.
my other big conern is cost. At over 100 million per copy we cannot afford to buty the number we need to defend the US and fight in another country.
There are other reasons why I think the F22 is the wrong plane but those are the two biggest.

Let me allay your fears - the Pk of the AMRAAM is WELL above 10% - you could call it "Certain Death" and not be wrong. Sorry but I can't say the real #'s. I've been in a visual fight with a Raptor and it was over quickly - despite the fact he was gun only.

Your cost concern is valid. The last I saw, each jet was $130M each, but the cost will be down to $100M soon.

danhutmacher wrote:

One day we are going to run across an air force that will come up and fight. When we do we will need a better plane than the F-15 or F-16. As good as those two are they are dated designs and we need something better.
But I also think that the F-22 is the wrong plane to buy. I'm probably the only one on the planet who thinks so. The reasons why the F-22 is the wrong plane are several. But the biggest is my belief that the BVR missiles such as the AMRAAM will have a PK around 10 % and that the F-22 will be in more visual range fights and it is not designed to be in a visual range fight.
my other big conern is cost. At over 100 million per copy we cannot afford to buty the number we need to defend the US and fight in another country.
There are other reasons why I think the F22 is the wrong plane but those are the two biggest.

Why do you think it will be in a lot of visual range fights?

My 2 cents...

Quote:

Why do you think it will be in a lot of visual range fights?

When other countries start optimizing stealth it will be... I think its pretty obvious the reasons why.

Also, we should remember that the ultimate goal of any war relies on the ground troops. You cannot occupy territory without physical human beings standing there. The JSFs are not optimized for A2A capabilities. They are however designed to be an extremely effect A2G A/C. Now, you need something to support the JSF so they can support the ground troops. Thats where the F-22 comes in ahead of time to wipe screens of fighters clear. Think of it like a pyramid. Food pyramids a good example! Your ground troops are your wheat and grain. They come first and if you ever look at numbers we have more combatants in the infantry than anything else. From the AFs point of view, you move up and you have your close A2G support. Right now that role is played by the A-10, but the JSF is supposed to replace that (though im still not certain how but oh well). Maybe on that same level you have "Strategic/Diplomatic Target Removal". This would be the intentional elimination of structures/sites that make the oppositions defense to our ground forces more effective. Bridges, Railroads, command post, communications towers, that kinda stuff. If you move up the level above that, thats where you have support for the support. The F-22 stands in this level. It supports the F-35s, A-10s, F-15Es, F-16s, whatever, in completing their A2G roles. Also on this level, I think should go missions that eliminate the enemies Anti Aircraft capabilities since these directly support the A2G movments of the A-10s, etc... as well....

Anyways, if you ever look at how stuff gets done, its in that order too. Top to bottom, we eliminate the enemies air support, then strategical sites to prevent the effectiveness of our ground troops, and at the very end the ground troops walk into the decimated city and occupy it Smile

This explains a lot on why there are less F-22s than F-35s etc.... It funnels upward. What happens when you try to skip a step? Well a lot of the problems associated with Vietnam was that the decisions of attack sites wouldnt allow US pilots to attack one of the top steps of the pyramid, airfields, air support structures, etc.... And thats why as an air war Vietnam probably drug out longer than it had to and became more deadly than needed be. Anyways, enough on that.

A disclaimer on the above, its my little theory ive been thinking about for a while. It makes sense but if you want to pick it apart go ahead Razz

I think its a pretty accurate surmission of Air War in the last 100 years though....

-Aaron

Tengu hit the nail on the head. Warfare has little to do with A2A domination, or even just A2A fighting in general.

So you shoot down a couple MiGs? In aviation circles, you are awesome! In the broad picture of war, however, the loss of a couple of MiGs will change nothing.

When you have a plane that can completely dominate another country's air force, and break the back of their aerial operations capabilities, you have definitely got yourself a great piece of warfighting machinery.

The F-22 was designed to do just that. Air domination in low numbers.

Every critic of the Raptor you speak to is completely wrong. We need the Raptor. It is useful. It will be useful. It was not designed to be the AF's workhorse, just like the Eagle is not the AF's "workhorse".

Then again, the Eagle has dominated the skies for the past 30+ years, and allowed the bombers, strike jets, tankers, cargo, and command & control to do their job unimpeded.

Now, take the fighting capability of the Eagle, allow the plane to do everything it can do, only better, and give it an RCS that is the lowest in aviation history, and what do you have?

You have a plane which will dominate the skies for another generation, and will work hand in hand with another dominant aircraft, the F-35.

As far as how they will work together? Well, the Raptor will be up there keeping the 35's 6 cleared while he rolls in and lays a JDAM in on a target.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Last edited by goatmilk on Apr 23, 2005 - 10:05 AM; edited 1 time in total

First, viper_pilot, were you wondering if the F-22 is THAT good as far as its capabilities, or is your point more about the cost vs. the current scenario of no potential threats? True, the U.S. is on top right now, but as mentioned earlier, WHAT IF someday, an air force out there will come out of hiding and accept the challenge? Times always change, and so must our military. (Some) people seem to have the notion that things will always stay the same. Perhaps because we have been in conflict for quite some time with a country with an air force that is non-existent. You compared the F-22 as having the same role as the F-15. Might I remind you that the F-15 performed superbly during the Gulf War, scoring many A2A kills....yes, Iraq DID have an air force then, and they did challenge the USAF despite their futile efforts. That was over a decade ago. Point...change is inevitable. Combat scenarios are going to change. The F-35 will compliment the F-22 (or vice versa) just as the F-16 and the F-15 have fought side-by-side in past conflicts. You can't always count on one platform, such as Tomahawk missiles, to complete different kinds of combat scenarios. Why do we need the F-35 if the F-22 can do A2G? Well, why do we need the F-35, the supposedly next A2G workhorse, if we have Tomahawk missiles to take out ground targets easily, as you mentioned. Yes, the F-22 is costly. That's the price of new technology. If it's the wrong plane to buy because of the price, then we should check our local boneyard and see if we can muster up some F-5s or fly the remaining F-16s until their engines fall off. That is why the U.S. and other countries invest in science and technology...to push forward, prepare for the future and to keep up or move ahead of modern technology. That is how air dominance, ground dominance, war dominance is accomplished....and I'm not just talking about our conflicts with good ol Iraq and their underground air force. When that time comes that x country flies their super stealth cloaking device nuclear missile armed fighter over Disneyworld, then we'll be asking where that good-for-nothing F-22 went.

parrothead said

"First, I think the FA-22 is that good. All the ground troops and pilots I've talked to swear by it."

here is one of the problems that come up ( not a swipe at you Parrothead)
the plane is still too new for people to "swear by it" as you say. very few have sat in it and even less have strapped her on to see for there self what she can do. most are just towing the company line. if "VprWzl" is a air force guy he should know what i mean. the Air force brass has wanted this plane for a long time and if the cost was $500 million they would still try to Justify it. To the AF brass(lot of old fighter jocks in that bunch) its the true Fighter plane they always wanted. when the F 15 was being made they said "not a pound for the ground" meaning they didnt want it to be a flying dump truck for bombs. When the F 16 came along part of the reason for it was so they could keep bombs off there Eagles. now you see F 15s droping bombs because there is not much need for air to air job when the other guys air is buring on the runway. Even when this came up and people said we dont need this cold war fighter they quickly (and smartly i may add they know congress is not too smart)stuck the "A" on the name and said "but it can drop bombs too" the arguement goes back and forth If you say we dont need a Air to Air fighter like it people will say it can attack ground targets. "protect the troops" ( "you dont want to indanger the ground troops with a lesser jet do you!") If you say the F 35 will do it much cheaper and better they will say but what if we fight someone with a big bad Air force? our "old F 15s wont be able to do it. a lot of the stuff is [Link pending approval] its a new thing and they want it. they dont care how much it cost or if they really need it.

I think the answer is very simple: "If any pilot of F-15/F-16 thinks the Raptor is not so good and trying to persuade the most persons in this web. He should try to defeat F/A-22 in the BVR engagment, or escaping the BVR attack from the F/A-22 and defeating it in WVR engagement during the training course at first."

As far as I know, the F-15C/Ds and F-16C/Ds have been defeated more than 380 times by the F/A-22 of Tyndall during the training courses up to now, and the times that the F-15C/D and F-16C/D defeat F/A-22: An F-15D pilot declared that he defeat the F/A-22 for two times in the WVR combat (But he also admitted that the F/A-22 had gave up the BVR engagement at first); and a F-16C defeated a F/A-22 successfully (The condition and detail of this "combat" is still unclear to me) after having been defeated by F/A-22 for more than 80 times.

Well, an "extremely" smart Eagle or VIPER pilot may use his/her fighters in the best way and defeat F/A-22. But it seems that such an "extremely" smart guy is quiet rare in your country, and not to mention others. On the other hand, will the drivers of F/A-22 be brainless, or much, much, much..........worse than than the drivers of F-15/16??? I don't think so.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

From what I can see it's not obvious that the F-35 in SO MUCH a better choice than the F-22. It is likely to cost around 100 million per aircraft to field, while the cost of the F-22 will continue to go down. The AF has invested 600+ million to improve the manufacturing of the F-22. So it's likely that its price will end up not so much higher than that of the -35.

The F-22 could also generate more sorties than the F-35 thanks to its supercruise. Add to that its phenomenal a/a capabilities and you have an AF that's almost invulnerable.

What's more for a lot of missions, the AF doesn't need such a powerful aicraft. Not every country has very advanced fighters, and if they do they don't have many. For missions like CONUS defense and CAS, an aircraft like the F-22 is overkill.

This to say that the AF could increase its production of raptors and get new blocks of F-16s to ensure it can fill all the missions that it has to do.

A mix of F-22s/F-16s/UCAVs would meet the AF requirement nicely. As UCAVs become more and more effective, the number of manned aircraft would be reduced. I'm a computer guy and I can tell you that 10 years is an eternity for computers! God knows what UCAVs will be capable of 15 years from now..

If the F-22 didn't exist that would be different, the F-35 would be the best choice probably, but with the F-22 already in full production and with its price going down, I don't see the need for the F-35.

Also, for an "expeditionary" force like the AF, having a nucleus of very lethal aircraft complemented with enough cheap but still good aircraft makes more sense than a large number of average aircraft.

I see I have had a lot of replies. As for the F-22 I can see it being a great BVR aircraft but what about WVR? A plane that big would have a hard time fighting something as manuverable as the SU-37 or some small fighter that can turn really tight. As for the price I don't see how it could be coming down. It was projected to be $100 mil a plane but now it's like $130-$140 mil seems to me it has gone up. I know that the Generals in the AF don't care about the price. Afterall it's the taxpayers that are buying these things. I just hope it don't get close to the B-2s price.

I know that eventually we will need 22s for future wars. I also know that not every war will be like the Gulf. But does anyone really think China will attack us? I mean the U.S. is thier biggest consumer and if they attack us we stop buying their stuff and in a few days bam! thier ecenomy hits rock bottom and they're in big trouble. But it would alos be bad for the U.S because we buy everything from them it's a no win situation. It would be better for both of us they stay peacefull. The only threat I can see is North Korea. And they just want to build nukes and threaten the World. I think it could be a way for them to attack South Korea and keep anyone from getting involved by threatening to nuke em.

Plus I'm sure China is developing their own stealth. You know Russia has said they have that plasma stealth junk. If it's true who knows, but if they do and can retro fit any aircraft with it. Any plane can be invisible to radar. That means they could put it on some 50 year old aircraft and make it as stealthy as the 22. Then something like a Mig-21 could be right on the 22s six and the pilot wouldn't know it until it was too late. If that happens radar would become useless and we would be back to the WW2 days of looking out the window, spot the bad guy and engage in a close in dogfight. Not what the 22 was designed to do.

I also think Russia could be developing a plane to combat the 22, they tried the same thing with the 15. The Russians are extremely inventive, who knows what secrets they could have down in their bases. The U.S came up with T-V but the Russians took it to a whole new level with the 37. They could have some kind of Death Star thing but who knows. I just hope they stay friends with the U.S.

As for the JSF and the 22 I am sure both are good airplanes and will do well working together. But if the JSF was developed before the 22 I'm sure everyone wold be talking about it instead.

Last edited by toan on Apr 23, 2005 - 09:50 PM; edited 2 times in total

1. The BVR engagement will dominate the air-combat in the future. Just take a look of the air-combat record of USAF in the recent 10~15 years, how many enemy fighters were killed by the AIM-120/AIM-7 and how many enemy fighters were killed by the AIM-9 / M-61A1 canoon??

2. Even you want to emphasize on WVR, what is your evidence that Su-37's WVR capability is superior to F/A-22??? The HMD + off-board NG WVR missiles have spread the whole world today, any cobra-style superagility (the extremely-high alpha maneuver that makes the fighter lose its speed and energy very, very quickly) will make the pilot closer to the death. According to the flight-research study of BAES for EF-2000: "Any maneuver with the alpha angle higher than 40-degrees is useless in the real combat today, which will make the fighter lose its speed and become a defenseless target for the enemy's NG WVRAAM". The "practical" skills for the WVR combat nowadays is emphasized on the fighter's performance of speed, energy, acceleration, turn / roll / yaw / pitch rate, and according to the data and information I know, because of the world best SEP, T/W ratio, wing-load, and FCS controll, the F/A-22's performance of the indexes for the WVR combat mentioned above is significantly better than Su-35/37 ~ only EF-2000 can be comparable in some (but not all) areas.

3. Will F/A-22 have a hard time to fight with a small fighter that can turn really tightly??? Just ask the F-16 pilots who have had the experience to fight with F/A-22. The data I know is that F-16C has defeated F/A-22 for just one time after being defeated by F/A-22 for more than 80 times. And in most fighting scenarios, there were only 1 or 2 F/A-22 to fight with 3~4 or 6~8 F-16C. That is really a hard time for F/A-22.

4. Plasma stealthy techonology, a great legendary, the Russian declared that it can reduce the conventional fighter's RCS to the degree of 1/100 comparing with the original RCS. However, it is also true that this system is still "invisible" in any formal fighters of Russian air-force and the Russian fighters for exportation. Even the Russian advertisement is true, with the help of this system, the Su-27 series fighters' frontal RCS will be reduce to 0.1~0.2 m2 (It's original frontal RCS: 10~15m2), and the Mig-21 series fighters' frontal RCS will be reduce to 0.03 m2 (It's original frontal RCS: 3 m2), which are still much inferior to the frontal RCS of F/A-22 (0.001~0.0001 m2 class). The F/A-22's radar (AN/APG-77, AW&ST declared that it can detect the target with 1 m2 RCS 200 km away) still can detect this kind of targets 80~130 km away and to kill them in the BVR engagement.

5. By the way, do you know which airplane is the first one that was said to get plasma stealthy techonology in the world?? Ans: the B-2A of USA. If the plasma stealthy techonology is really so great and practical, I don't see the reason why American don't use it to their fighters (including F/A-22) widely. The Russian may be creative, but the American is creative plusing rich.

6. Many countries have the technological potential to develop the fighters of F/A-22 class (Russia, China, EU, France...........) in the foreseeable future, but I don't think any of them can make it become truth in the next 15~20 years at least. A fighter of F/A-22 class will have the price (R&D, purchasing, training, and supporting) of F/A-22 class, only the USA, whose defensive budget is more than the sum-up of defensive budgets of the countries of Russia, China, Japan, India, South Korea, Taiwan, British, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Austrilia, should be able to afford it.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

The price of the F-22 continues to decrease from what I've read. I read an article the other day that said that the AF has spent over 600 million to make the production more affordable. Stopping the production at 179 would render that investment worthless.

It is my understanding that the unit cost could go down to 100 million or a bit more if enough were to be built, something like 300. This is not much more than an F-35 when you consider that the program is now estimated to 245 billion for 2500 aircraft.

The raptor would still cost more per aircraft probably and be more costly to operate, but wouldn't it be still worth it considering the other advantages that it has? It is still a much better plane than the 35.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Is the F-22 really that good?