Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Errors needing correction:

Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) will communicate with coalition a/c.

Increment 3.1 F-22 can effectively engage self-targeted ground targets - especially hostile SAM sites or hostile aircraft on ground - with either JDAM or SDB. (don't ask how).

No, F-22 would NOT be a practical CAP a/c option for a no-fly zone. Leave that for an F-15E - requiring just 1 inflight refuel for a 7+ hr CAP sortie - or even better... a fictional F-16XL type which would be the most economical and efficient no-fly-zone enforcer ever invented! Thumb

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

No, F-22 would NOT be a practical CAP a/c option for a no-fly zone. Leave that for an F-15E - requiring just 1 inflight refuel for a 7+ hr CAP sortie - or even better... a fictional F-16XL type which would be the most economical and efficient no-fly-zone enforcer ever invented! Thumb

Why not just use F-15Cs with CFTs? A lot of them have a better AA radar (APG-63V2/V3 AESA).

geogen wrote:

Errors needing correction:

Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) will communicate with coalition a/c.

Increment 3.1 F-22 can effectively engage self-targeted ground targets - especially hostile SAM sites or hostile aircraft on ground - with either JDAM or SDB. (don't ask how).

1.) Is BACN operational?
2.) Is Increment 3.1 cleared for service?
3.) If so, how many aircraft are available and how many pilots are trained?

The report might in fact be correct due the discrepancy of claimed capabilities and what's really available right now. Anyway I don't think the Raptor is required at all.

1> Yes
2> No
3> N/A

Quote:

This may further prove my theory that the USAF gave up on the F-22 as anything more than a recruitment gimmick in order to better secure its megaorder of F-35s and have more fighter seats for its officer corp.

There is no need for theorizing. This has already been explained far more times than ought to have been necessary.

The F-22 was never intended to be a multi-role aircraft. It was designed from the start to specialize in a very narrow mission set, and while it does that that mission very well, that is about all it does.

Meanwhile the US has thousands of heavily utilized multi-role aircraft that badly need to be replaced and upgraded for future conflicts. There was simply no compelling reason to continue to buy F-22s and so procurement was stopped.

Besides the question of why fight in Libya in the first place, why do we NEED TO RISK F-22s over Libya? Baptism of fire? Prove a point? Why? What capability does it offer to justify the wear and tear and potential for loss(see downed F-15E)?

Heck why a no fly zone at all? Seems to me that rather than wasting F-22 flight hours, the bombardment was(is) the right way...

-DA

I don't think it would be called a Baptism of Fire to throw the Raptor out on the battlefield for NFZ Patrol, but it would be a good idea to show that it is effective in a conflict and will probably shut the mouths of a bunch of nay-sayers out there.

It's not just a good plane, but it's fantastic and infamous. Someday, I am sure it will be used in anger.

AvWeek’s Fulgham indicates that the US intended to lead the initial strikes with Raptors but the French were too eager and caught everyone off guard (Canadians and the Brits were still trying to deploy forces when the French went in). As for the current Raptor configuration while it’s true that increment 3.1 hasn’t have formal IOC, FF’s jets have been getting the package and this was being accelerated in anticipation of a deployment order. It wouldn’t have been the first time a system hasn’t been declared IOC and been used in combat. It’s entirely conceivable that FF’s pilots were receiving training in anticipation of IOC.

While I agree that the Raptors are clearly not necessary there are probably other benefits for employing them for the initial strikes. I’m willing to bet that the USAF saw an opportunity to test out doctrine and tactics against a real adversary, possibly testing some of the Global Strike concepts.

No, deploying F-22s for this mission is an absolute waste.

-DA

BDF has the correct answer, imho. Obviously, if you're going to be in an actual combat scenario where your latest tech can be validated and proven in a realistic scenario, it is valid to test it. To not employ it would be incompetent. But I would agree with DA in that F-22 should NOT be a standard NFZ asset employed when more cost-effective airframes could do the job better and that any possible employment and role of F-22 should NOT be announced publicly. It's better to keep such operations classified.

And Spud... can I please ask you how you happen to know 3.1 is not yet operational even in an accelerated, limited fashion? Even for you to positively declare it is NOT operational, (if you somehow know) is a violation of OPSEC. I'm going to personally go with the publicly declared 3.1 timeline however, combined with previous precendents such as GBU-28 'rushed' into service as was, to leave the door open as being highly plausible that this capability would be justified and employed already. Respects.

Geogen,

Combat is about carrying out tactics techniques and procedures that have already been validated LOOOONG before the shooting starts. Of course it's good to study data and conduct after action reviews. But to deploy an unproven system just for the sake of "seeing" what happens when you have proven systems that are more than capable and even overmatched is just wrong. It goes against every risk management principle there is!

Could you imagine if that F-15E that had a mechanical failure and crashed would have been some F-22 deployed on a "let's see" mission? The PR nightmare of losing one of America's premier fighters on a "limited" operation that isnt remotely a national security priority would be a scandal.

Murphy moves in mysterious ways. I told you earlier about the risk of mechanical issues if you recall...

-DA

Deploying an F-22 has to be done for the FIRST TIME at some point though. Your logic cannot be validated for this reason, I'm sorry. This is not an anti-pirate mission either, it's a valid military operation requiring the best capable, operational intel - eyes and ears - and network involvement if anything.

But remember, at some point even a system such as the F-15E itself (ODS) and GBU-28 was rushed into deployment and tested. Sure, a system does not have to be proven by Red Flag alone, nor does it have to be employed in actual combat to be described as proven, I'll agree with you there. But an actual combat situation would indeed accelerate the ability to test systems and verify capabilities for a future REAL WAR application, god forbid - especially for a weapon system of extremely limited numbers, which was prematurely cancelled.

Geogen,

You're missing the point! During ODS GBU-28s were NEEDED for a specific task for which other weapons were not suitable. No fly zones over Libya do not require F-22s! If anything it justifies the Gates decision to limit numbers to levels required to deal with the few remaining high end threats which Libya and it's no fly zone isn't. You're trying to justify deploying an asset for a task that it is unsuitable for. The reality is Libya doesn't require 5th generation air superiority fighters like F-22s but rather multirole aircraft with an emphasis on strike and CAS. Gaddafi was never a true menace by virtue of the MIG. His power comes from the infantry, armor and artillery that's better organized and supported by established logistics capability. In other words the stuff you have to kill BELOW 15,000 ft with bombs and a PID while in range of things like SA-24 that even an F-22 would be vulnerable to...

-DA

Quote:

Geogen,

Combat is about carrying out tactics techniques and procedures that have already been validated LOOOONG before the shooting starts. Of course it's good to study data and conduct after action reviews. But to deploy an unproven system just for the sake of "seeing" what happens when you have proven systems that are more than capable and even overmatched is just wrong. It goes against every risk management principle there is!

Could you imagine if that F-15E that had a mechanical failure and crashed would have been some F-22 deployed on a "let's see" mission? The PR nightmare of losing one of America's premier fighters on a "limited" operation that isnt remotely a national security priority would be a scandal.

Murphy moves in mysterious ways. I told you earlier about the risk of mechanical issues if you recall...

-DA

I agree. Murphy is a menace! If we're indirectly trying to find a situation that might help the USAF acquire more Raptors (which I think many here support), I think it would be better to not use the Raptor and need it than to have it out there and not need it.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Raptors for the No-Fly Zone?