Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Well the fact the USAF were not confident enough to fly it with coalition forces speaks volumes on the issue. I'll leave it at that.

F-16.net Sponsor

It had nothing to do with confidence and EVERYTHING to do with it was not needed vs the fact of it's limited lifetime / airframe availability.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better about it. By the same Token Typhoon and Rafale weren't needed either, yet we all know they were. I'm sure it'll be fixed up ready in time for the next war.

They threw Typhoon and Rafale into the mix primarily due to the India competition and were taking (rightfully so) a leadership role in prosecuting the mission. The US however, did not want to be the #1 guy in charge and was trying to minimize it's presence in leadership and troops.

If they REALLY wanted it there, it would have shown up. Besides, they could have brought a BACN along to handle all the data links needed if it would have been critical.

Remember that the F-22 as it is flying today has VERY limited A2G capabilities which is what was needed in Libya, not an Air Dominance Fighter. Tell me again how many F-15C fighters were flying escort?

fat_cat wrote:

When you've got an F-22 moving at Mach 1 plus toward an unknown who could be under a hundred miles away to go through the ropes of deconfliction using AWACS and voice comms is a disaster waiting to happen. One has to remember that controlled exercises in sterile environments don't take annoying little details like that into account. The USAF is fully aware of this hence the no show in Libya.

The F-22 doesn't have an issue with IFF. It's issue is sharing information from its sensors, with other aircraft, since they don't use the same datalink.

fat_cat wrote:

Thats right, and therefore the other fighter could fire upon the F-22 because he can't tell if the raptor is a hostile or a friendly. And then we get a blue on blue disaster.

What friendly fighter is going to even see the Raptor? By the time it's close enough to see, it'll be pretty obvious that it's a Raptor.

wrightwing wrote:

fat_cat wrote:

Thats right, and therefore the other fighter could fire upon the F-22 because he can't tell if the raptor is a hostile or a friendly. And then we get a blue on blue disaster.

What friendly fighter is going to even see the Raptor? By the time it's close enough to see, it'll be pretty obvious that it's a Raptor.

Yeah, the Raptor has the best IFF transponder there is. If you can get a lock on it before you die, or even see it BVR, you know it's not a Raptor. Very Happy

river_otter wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

fat_cat wrote:

Thats right, and therefore the other fighter could fire upon the F-22 because he can't tell if the raptor is a hostile or a friendly. And then we get a blue on blue disaster.

What friendly fighter is going to even see the Raptor? By the time it's close enough to see, it'll be pretty obvious that it's a Raptor.

Yeah, the Raptor has the best IFF transponder there is. If you can get a lock on it before you die, or even see it BVR, you know it's not a Raptor. Very Happy

From what we know thus far, I think it would be appropriate to speculate it's a Raptorski with those criteria Wink

BDF wrote:

A new AFA article that shines some light on some details for increment 3.3.

What’s most interesting is this:

Quote:

The content of future "3.3" Raptor upgrades is still being hashed out. Among the leading candidates are side-mounted active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and helmet-mounted cueing systems. Much will depend on out-years funding and the results of the should-cost review, which is ongoing.

Very interesting in that they are actually wanting to bring back in the side looking AESAs into the program. A HMCS is also a good choice but as it’s described in an article I read recently it only gave the Raptor access to the 9X’s “outer fringe of the envelope” which is why the HMCS hasn’t been high on the JROC’s list for Raptor upgrades. It also looks like they’re going back to the drawing board as far as data links but it’s still viewed as a pretty pressing requirement. There’s no mention of the addition of inclusion of an open architecture or an OA overlay as has been reported recently by Flight Global’s Majumbar so hopefully that’s still being explored. What isn’t very clear if increment 3.2 and latter are available for all Blk 30/35 jets, as it is alluded to in this article, or just the Blk 35 jets.

Keep in mind that AFA has historically been very much a "cheerleader" organization when evaluating their position, just like the Navy League has been for the USN.

HMCS gives a plane a lot more than just the "outer edge" of the AIM-9X's envelope, depending on what is meant by "outer edge". Also, it can be used for systems other than AIM-9X. I would suspect that one of the reasons it's not that high a priority is that it would be hideously expensive to put in on Raptor.

There are a few reasons for this. First, given the F-22's architecture, it's expensive to do anything on it. That's the flip side of having the very capable electronic architecture it has. Second, the Raptor has problems integrating JHMCS because of cockpit mapping problems. The system used in the F-35 is so tightly integrated with that specific aircraft that you're essentially talking about redesigning the entire architecture to put it in Raptor. Third, because we're crazy, there are going to be only ~150 combat coded Raptors. that's going to make the per-unit cost of a unique system stratospheric. It's understandable that given limited funding USAF expects they'd put that lower down.

The restoration of the side arrays will eliminate the off-boresight limitation that comes with AESA benefiting both A2A and A2G roles So far, the only a/c that is addressing this is Gripen NG and maybe Typhoon. Sadly, even with 3.3 there seems to be no plans to add powered a/g weapons or even GBU-53, which will enhance the ability to hit moving targets. Interestingly enough, automated target tracking seems to be part of the Increment, though.

Relying on cutting-edge Korean War technology to pass data to non-F22s remains a big issue. Hopefully 3.3, once defined,will rectify that.

Of course, first you've got to get the money. Don't forget, unless something changes, the part of the Budget that represents 20% is going to have to absorb 50% of the cuts for the entire Budget.

A couple of thoughts:
1. Upgrading the F-22's MLD to provide A2A EODAS functionality would likely be easier than integrating HMCS.

2. Spending the money to integrate UAI would be a much larger benefit than spending the money on individual weapon integration projects.

SpudmanWP wrote:

A couple of things to consider:
Blue force will know that F-22s are in the area.
F-22s will still respond to IFF requests.
How is the other fighter going to see the F-22?
When the other fighter starts to light up the F-22 with a radar, the F-22 can go on the radio and tell him to "knock it off".

Spud, Of course there is a heavy risk going into a dense combat area without having ability to communicate with your friendly forces. Like Fat Cat is saying this was probably a big factor in the decision not to use the F-22 in Libya. Your solution to just call "knock it off" seem a bit risky with an asset like this, don't you think? Shocked

if, and I mean IF, an blue force plane picked up an F-22, don't you think seeing 1350knt and FL650 for the "target" info on your scope would be an indicator that it's a raptor?

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

if, and I mean IF, an blue force plane picked up an F-22, don't you think seeing 1350knt and FL650 for the "target" info on your scope would be an indicator that it's a raptor?

Well one thing is to believe, another thing is to know. I don't know how useful it would have been to have a Raptor flying supersonic over Libya at FL 650 like you envision. Another scenario maybe? In a reconnaissance/bombing role over Libya, working with FAC's etc, I suppose it would be nice to have the ability to communicate with your own forces. I may be wrong, but isn't this where the problem lays?

"Knock it off" was a last resort item.

To rely on it you would have to assume that you were close enough to lock on it in radar yet IFF did not work.

btw, Were you aware that the Harrier AV-8Bs in the area did not have Link-16 and nobody shot them down.

SpudmanWP wrote:

"Knock it off" was a last resort item.

To rely on it you would have to assume that you were close enough to lock on it in radar yet IFF did not work.

btw, Were you aware that the Harrier AV-8Bs in the area did not have Link-16 and nobody shot them down.

I was thinking more in terms of usefulness & benefit vs. a risk of endangering a U.S national asset. Not being able to communicate verbally sets the Harrier example apart from the F-22 situation.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Some increment 3.3 news