Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Interestingly, the current issue (March 7/14) of Aviation Week has an article in it regarding use of the F-22 over Libya.

It's noted that carriers are moving to the Western Mediterranean. But a senior USAF official notes that they are badly needed supporting Afghanistan (remember we have a lot fewer carriers than just a few years ago), so they may not be able to hang around that long. Not to worry, that official says the USAF can do anything.

The talk is using F-2s and F-16CJs (if something on the ground needs to be hit). They'd hope that they could base the shorter range assets in Egypt at Cairo West, but nothing's been agreed to. For others, they would hope they could operate from Italy. The speculation is that Italy has a vested interest in their need for Libyan oil and might cooperate.

The article and the official don't go into great detail about what teh aircraft would do or why use the F-22 except that there's no need for it in Afghanistan and some references to electronic warfare. Frankly, there might be another, non-operational reason: After all this time and money and criticism, it might be felt necessary to actually show the unbelievers the Raptor doing something.

F-16.net Sponsor

Perhaps the F-22 is deemed the best tactical aircraft for spotting Gaddafi's helicopter gunships as I hear they're the real problem to the rebels according to an interview with a rebal guy on t.v yesterday. They're also harder to pick out of the ground clutter than fast jets and so with its very powerful AESA the F-22 could well be ideally suited to hunting and killing them.
The AN/ALR-94 could well be a better bit of kit than the Harm Targeting Pod carried by the F-16CJ for locating SAMs too. I'd be quite suprised if it wasn't considering how capable it is said to be what with the past omparisons of it to Rivet Joint capabilities. F-16's should certainly be able to base in Egypt and i'd think F-22's would be safe to aswell.

There's the article aaam mentioned for those interested
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... amp;next=0

Of course with the tortoise like pace the so called international community is moving at you can probably expect all the rebals to be dead and buried by the time any such no fly zone is enforced.

The only thing that The F-22 can do better than what we have now is A2A and long range A2G shots against predefined SAM sites.

Neither of those exist in Libya to the extent required to risk the F-22 in an urban no-fly mission.[/quote]

The F-22 is faster and higher flier than any other alternative. It is also stealthier than ' 117 (or '35) and probably even in the IR spectrum when not in AB (if radar blocker are employed on the exhaust, than they may have some degree of ir suppression too, but we don't really know).

SpudmanWP wrote:

The F-117 got shot down due to bad planning and I see this as inviting the same thing. All it will take is some ADA commander to hide a few missile units in built-up areas and wait for an F-22 to fly by. If he uses IR bases targeting then the F-22 will not even get a warning till the missiles launch.

Just like any other including F-35..

Quote:

That's why I said a smart ADA commander would hide it in the urban areas where it would be hard to find. The F-22 has no way (no FLIR) of positively identifying a suspicious target so according to the ROE it is not able to attack.

As long as a hostile force is being forced into 'hiding' away from SAR/FLIR and other geolocation means, then you have at least partially achieved the main objective of SEAD - to suppress their effectiveness. But if operating in Urban settings, then of course, those would surely more challenging missions for any platform to deal with. The precise methods and tactics employed to counter that contingency wouldn't be public info of course.

But again, consider Increment 3.1 a/c into the equation here and its ability to self-target. One can conjecture a properly cued-SAR picture can visually identify certain ground activities in question too. This increment indeed takes the upgraded block 35 platforms thus far, well beyond simple 'predefined' A2G capabilities.

For urban settings wheel in some Marine Cobra's, they don't seem to have any issues taking out urban targets even when they're hiding in palm groves and underneath underpasses.

Guess I best stick a 'graphic' warning on this link so you've been warned

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 436776156#

Some thoughts FWIW:

F-14 had no problem 20 years ago picking out helos in the air unless they were traveling < 40 knots (which made them vulnerable to ground fire), in which case you used some finesse with the modes and detected them anyway. F-15Cs can certainly detect them.

With the thrust vectoring, we can see right up the exhaust of the F-22, (as opposed to the F-117 and B-2), so there's not a lot of IR suppression going on there. In any case, if the F-22 is supercruising, he's probably quite visible to IR, especially against the cold sky, if you've got the right IR equipment. That's not to say that Libya has said equipment. Besides, their S-220s/SA-5s, which are the ones that shoot against the high stuff (assuming the F-22 stays up at altitude) use radar to guide.

Increment 3.1 brings a lot of capability to the Raptor, but is it operationally deployed yet? "The best they have isn't as good as what we haven't got"---I love that phrase.

The Raptor is an exceptional machine. Still, I wonder if part of this talk is to refute the critics who over the years have pointed to its lack of use as "proof" that it's a Cold War relic that no longer has a place in the current environment.

Hello All,

Been a while since I've participated. Anyway my view is this.

Libya is not a strategic existential threat. F-22s are a strategic asset. If we lost a single F-22 due to Murphy, let say a bird strike for instance, it would not be worth it. So my view is no, do not use F-22s or any other US military assets there. We are already entangled in two major wars in SWA/ME that are very costly. When we got into those wars the assumptions were that we would get in quickly, take care of business and get out. The reality was quite different. Let's recall that we imposed 12 years worth of no fly zones on Saddam and back various opposition groups to get him out. That effort failed. It ended up taking hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground and a sustained presence where men with guns had to drag him out of a hole in the ground before he was removed. Even after that we are still there with a yet to be determined outcome. If you understand US geopolitical imperatives then you know we came out on top however you cannot deny the cost was far above the expectation. Similar for Afghanistan. Considering that, I can't see how it would be smart to open up a North African theater!

Now for sake of argument let's assume that there was a valid reason for doing something in Libya. Never mind F-22s, I think that if the goal is to eliminate the Libyan air force as a threat to the rebels that a no fly zone is just simply a very inefficient way to do it. It's a very labor intensive and expensive proposition WITH A LOT OF RISK. Downing a Libyan fighter seems simple enough except that there is more to it then that. How do you know the fighter you are about to engage isn't a defector similar to the Mirages in the early stages of this conflict? Or what if a downed MIG crashes into a civilian neighborhood or Mosque? What if a US pilot is downed and captured? What if the F-22s down each and every single last MIG and Hind but the more organized Qaddafi forces still win? All of this has to be considered FIRST. What we don't want is to do things on the fly and with bad assumptions like we did in Iraq after the conventional Iraqi military was destroyed.

Let me go back to no fly zone for a minute. What is the purpose of it? Just to do it in order to make a point or take out the Libyan air force? Because if so then I think a no fly zone is to logistically costly, exposes the USA to risk too long and not creative enough considering the capabilities we have. For instance, the USN could use TLAMs from SSNs or even one of the SSGNs to destroy the fighters and helos during the night while they are on the ground. Problem(LAF) solved! Except that the Libyan Air Force is only a symptom and not the cause. So for those reasons I think a no fly zone just isn't worth it with any US military fighter.

In fact I'd argue that this is a EUROPEAN and ARAB/AFRICAN matter and THEY should bear the burden of any overt military action. It's the French who are interested in establishing a Mediteranean Union as a counter balance to the EU and increasing German clout. They have the military assets to stop the Libyan Air Force if they wanted to take that risk. We could offer logistical and intelligence support is needed and maybe even let them fly Rafales off of the decks of USN carriers if their CdG is in dry dock as usual!

Let's sum up. I could go on forever and there are 100 different ways to stop the Libyans from using aircraft against the rebels but the real question is why? Until we see the answer to that then it is probably a bad idea to use a strategic asset such as the F-22 to address a non existential threat.

Best Regards,
DA

Good post DA and welcome back.

Right off the bat however, the comment and argument which caught my eye was that Libya is not a strategic threat therefore not requiring a strategic asset such as F-22. Well, true, she's not a strategic threat but wouldn't any such hypothetical (equivalent) mission itself be a strategic operation in nature to the extent that at least part of the mission (intel or other support, or as required) could require most modern and capable asset available? I'm not saying that I necessarily support a full blown no-fly mission specific to Libya's case as it is today, I'm just arguing that perhaps a particular foreign failed state or rogue military force etc, etc, while not itself being a strategic threat, could in fact potentially become a deemed necessary, strategic mission to accomplish - two slightly different things.

And I'd concur with you btw, in wishing more coordinated Arab resolve (and capability) in dealing with such a mission as this one. But contingencies are contingencies... and as such it appears a US participation in potential future coordinated roles/missions will still be required and/or requested. (whether one agrees or disagrees relative to the actual mission in question) imho. Respects.

Geo,

I'm taking a holistic view and then applying the principle of "economy of force". In that context Libya could only become "strategic" the same way Iraq did. If so then we made a big mistake!

-DA

The Arab League is calling for a UN imposed no-fly zone. Isn't there a reason we sold so many of those member nations F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s? Wasn't it for regional security? The UN needs to stay out of this and so does America. The Arab League needs to step up and do something for once. If France really wants to step in, let them. Let them mess with the Libyan air defense network and fighter aircraft. If they are able to stop the Libyan air force dead in its tracks, great. If not and Rafales and Mirages start getting knocked out of the sky, fine. That'll only help the US sell more Super Hornets and late block Vipers.

Quote:

The Arab League is calling for a UN imposed no-fly zone. Isn't there a reason we sold so many of those member nations F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s?

This pretty well sums it up. Not only might the various Arab forces do something, Europe might also do something. The US is not the world's military.

Libya doesn't require F-22s. It doesn't even require 4th generation jets. Any competent 1970s air force could handle this mission. (depressingly enough many 1970s era European air forces would be more capable than that same state's 21st century force.)

For once I would like to see regional players step up and do their part without the US having to do the heavy lifting.

Whilst I agree with what you're saying Hobo I do doubt the Europeans are actually capable of doing anything without US support. Remember these are the very same people who couldn't even sort out the ethnic cleansing going on in their own backyard in the mid nineties when America had to step in and do most of the work for them. To call them useless would be too kind, they were beyond useless and I really don't think anything has changed.

As for the Arabs doing it, I seriously doubt they could organise a p**s up in a brewery.

Shep,

Libya is just within the European logistical limit of advance and the more substantial EU nations could challenge the Libyan Air Force. It's more an issue of being beyond the political limit of advance. If there was an achievable objective, this would be an excellent opportunity for France to assert itself in the Med as they consider it in their sphere of influence. From a business standpoint what better way to demonstrate to the Brazilians and other buyers the capabilities of the Rafales. The problem of course is that a no fly zone is only a part of what would be needed. Stopping Qaddafi means killing or capturing Qaddafi and that greatly expands the scope of the operation. Something that Europe is almost certainly not interested in.

-DA

NATO..and the arab league (wow they actually voted unanimously for the No-fly) will not budge unless the US takes the lead....or particpates.. as far as Europe being useless... I can recall during Allied Force seeing multiple strike packages of different European aircraft...even German Tornados got into the fray.

Yeah, I think everyone is waiting for the US to take the lead. Overall, I do think the Arab League and most of the European nations are pretty much useless without US support. Could Allied Force really have happened without the United States spearheading the operation? I don't think so. For once, I want to see the US keep to itself.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Raptors for the No-Fly Zone?