wrightwingI really have difficulty imagining a scenario where 2 x F-22s go up against SAMs using only their 20mm cannon having expended their bombs.. strange indeed.:confused:
I’m gonna have to raise the BS flag on this one. F-22s aren’t going to be strafing a ship. The notion that there’d be an exercise where a Dutch Frigate and an F-22 went up against each other sounds pretty far fetched too.
wrightwingdo they really use this in training? i doubt that..
Yes, they really use that. Especially when operating on joint missions.
wrightwingI’ve been wondering why the USAF first ordered more than 400 Raptors (or was it 600?), and now they decreased it dramatically to 187?
The JSF on the other hand will be mass produced like h3ll!
From what I’ve read and heard the past year-year and a half, the F-22 completely out classes the F-35 in almost every aspect…So my question is pretty simple… Why decrease the number of orders on the F-22 so dramatically and increase the orders of the JSF dramatically?
Is there a huge flaw in the Raptor we don’t know about?
Or is it the other way around, that the raptor is so good that they think 187 will be more than enough?
Does the USA have another project running which will replace the F-22? Unlikely since designing, building, testing and producing a new plane will take decades.This really confuses me, The F-35 is almost as expensive as the F-22 but not as good, why not just bulk up on Raptors instead of JSF’s?
I really hope to get some real neutral answers…
Cheers,
IT–
First of all, they have different missions. The Raptor’s primary mission is air supremacy, with some secondary A2G roles(i.e. SEAD/DEAD and things of that nature). The F-35 was always going to be bought in larger numbers as it was to replace the F-16s, F-18s, Harriers, etc… in the US Military, along with a wide variety of planes in other air forces, etc…
The F-35 is superior A2G aircraft though, as it’s more optimized in terms of internal(and external) weapons carriage, IR sensors, ground attack modes.
wrightwingAnd you don’t think BAE doesn’t have the details? Given that they have to build a significant proportion of the airframe and will have to construct it form the same extra top secret LM eyes only material as the rest of the plane?
You think it’s just a case of reading the instructions on assembly, and that a massively complicated produciton line with full quality assurance might actually have to know the materials side of things so that they can test for faults?
or that when they are actually manipulating the materials they might have to know how those materials will react under all known conditions of construction and assembly, and be able to rectify faults, even a few hitherto unknown faults that perhaps LM or Northrop haven’t seen?
BAE isn’t just flat pack assembling this stuff, the only reason they were allowed into the F-35 program was because they were able to prove a proficiency in RAM construction and assembly, thus, it’s reasonable to assume form this, and the degree of assembly that BAE got, that they are in fact fairly competent in the theory and practice of RAMs.
One thing that you need to take into consideration is that BAE isn’t a monolithic entity per se. It has divisions, and you can be assured that the division working on certain projects have non-disclosure agreements. As a result, it’s not necessarily the case that certain techniques/procedures are common knowledge at the company as a whole.
wrightwingSo . . . nobody in Europe can make RAM. Dassault import it for Rafale & their UCAV prototypes, BAe, EADS & Alenia import it for their aircraft, Thales imports it for missiles. Ditto for all the European ships that use it, whether built in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, or Italy. It all comes from the USA. Ditto all the composites used in European aircraft, of course. Only Americans know how to make it. When BAE, EADS/DASA, & all those other European firms advertise that they design & make the stuff, they must be lying, & all their customers are very stupid people who are fooled by the lies.
Glad we’ve got that clear.
It’s not that nobody in Europe(or elsewhere) can make RAM, but like any other technology, there are different generations. There is a learning curve for having the latest/newest in design concepts. Additionally, there’s a big learning curve in terms of LO/VLO platform maintenance.
wrightwingRather disingenuous. You bring it up, & keep banging on about it, without qualifying your arguments in any way which would indicate that you might not think it an appropriate role, then say that just because you did not say “this is a proper role for the F-22”, your arguments were not meant to support the view that it is.
Pull the other one, mate.
You may want to refer to posts 138 and 154. It’s one thing to say something is possible, but quite another to say that it’s desirable to do so.
wrightwingdjcross, wrightwing & SpudmanWP – on this thread.
And I agree, it would be a waste of the F-22s abilities.
None of us suggested that it was a proper mission for the F-22.
wrightwingUsing what weapon? SDB II isn’t in service yet.
The weapon was a 1000lb JDAM, released at M1.5 from 50k feet. The SDB II also has moving target capabilities, and will have a much longer range.
wrightwingI thought this that this was something todays F-22 could not do, only a future block that not all could be upgraded to?
But the question is also how much range GBU-40 would achieve against a moving target as it would bleed quite some speed when adjusting its course. One could also wonder about its efficiency against a ships air defences compared to a maneuvering sea skimming anti ship missile. I also wonder with its tiny warhead how big ships it really has a chance of sinking.
F-22s have already hit moving targets.
wrightwingWon’t bother to go explaining a missile trajectory again and obviously you introduce S300 into argument without reading specs in the first place, so I’m going to just skip that part.
However, this is something new…F35 may launch a SDB at M1.5, with top speed of M1.6 and F15/16 apparently can’t…interesting…
Then a word about maintaining SC in SAM zone.
180° turn at M1.5 at 4g at 40k ft, lasts about 35+ seconds. What are you talking about?
The F-35’s top speed isn’t M1.6, in spite of what Dare2 says.:rolleyes:
wrightwingOk, if they become non-LO then you have been jacka$$ and bought crappy planes that don’t do what they’re supposed to do and you need ECM platforms, indeed…
I’m referring strictly to the legacy platforms which will be operating with the new planes.
wrightwingAre you ok?? Those are U.S.A.F. operational tables (once classified).
On the other hand, you choose to believe hear-say of some F22(?) pilots??
LOL, wrightwing, you better get some facts straight before answering this…
I wasn’t quoting F-22 pilots.
All. Tankers don’t need to enter S300/400 engagement zone at all.
If an F-15 is in range to drop an SDB, it is in range of an S-300/400. The reason the F-22 can use this weapon is that it can get within SDB range without being seen. The F-15 can’t. Once the F-15 has taken the time/fuel to get to M2.2, it’s going to need a top off pretty soon, as it’s still in max A/B while accelerating from M.85 to M2.2. The tanker will likely be within the range of air defenses.
All this text, all those conclusions, etc, etc, and nothing…In the end you come to the conclusion that “even if f15 can…”, it doesn’t mean anything??
LOL, discussing with you is like punching a boxing bag. It always comes back, no matter what…
But ok, let’s see why does the assumption that F15 can’t do more than 10mins on full AB is irrelevant.
Because the second F15 reaches M2.2, it releases it’s SDBs and can immediately slow down, turn and head for home. It doesn’t need to fly more than 30 or so seconds at that speed, depending how many SDBs is scheduled to launch.
SDB’s targets are preprogramed or received via network, in advance.
The pilot doesn’t accelerate to M2.2 and then starts looking for targets, as you apparently think.
Any more bright ideas?
The F-22 can supercruise in and out, AND look for targets. That’s much more tactically relevant than attacking a known coordinate, and briefly accelerating(and then having to decelerate to have enough fuel to get home, but hoping not to get engaged by defense in a low speed/fuel state).
And if you check this link, you’ll see that first supersonic weapon release was done a little over a year ago, very carefully with a lot of prior subsonic releases.
Further, this article puts GBU-39 launched at M0.95 in a 50+nm range class. So, the 80nm range has probably been done at low supersonic speeds (maybe M1.3 or so) and that’s the speed pretty much any USAF’s fighter can do, including F35 (I hope ), so no need for a multimillion F22 to loft SDBs.
The launch speed was M1.5+ and from >50k feet. The F-35 might do that, but I have serious doubts about any other US fighter doing it. Furthermore, it’s not just about launch speed. It’s about being able to maintain that speed out of the kill zone, to minimize exposure to enemy defenses. Other planes might could accelerate to that speed, but they couldn’t remain at that speed and altitude.
wrightwingWrightwing, the point of LO aircraft is in sudden attacks, without prior warning, as Obligatory previously pointed out.
This is what USAF aerial warfare doctrine uses them for and this is what they have been created for in the first place and this is why billions of dollars have been spent on them.
Once you start using LO aircraft in nonLO manner, you just tossed those billions out of the window.
So yes, ECM platforms can be used to force multiply LO aircraft, flying in nonLO regime, but then there’s hardly a point in buying LO aircraft in the first place, isn’t it??
Like I said, even the USAF will have F-15s, F-16s, A-10s flying along with F-22s and F-35s, until 2025 or later. It’s not a matter of using LO in a non LO manner. It’s that part of your force at some point in time will be non LO, during the assault. The tactics will be mission dependent.
wrightwingEmitting Growlers would alert immediately that a strike package is incoming.
The whole point with “stealth” is to reduce reaction time.
Only if the entire package are stealth aircraft. If however you conduct a series of feints prior to an actual attack to get your foe to emit, so you can get his electronic order of battle, you could take an opportunity to slip some VLO aircraft through during the confusion. During the first Gulf War, the USAF did a number of missions where they flew right up to the border of Iraq prior to the actual attack. On the night of the actual attack, they did the same thing, but this time F-117s went on in, along with the Apaches that were dealing with some of the air defense nodes.
wrightwingYou got it all wrong again, as usual.
Dedicated ECM platforms are force multipliers, but for nonLO aircraft, not LO as you suggest.
This is because one can deploy smaller number of less LO (heavier weapons load) aircraft in the same space, where he would otherwise need a larger numbers of less armed LO aircraft to do the same job.
They’re force multipliers for LO, and non LO aircraft. Australia will also be operating Super Hornets along with the F-35s. Obviously there are times where you would operate without that sort of support, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t scenarios where mixed types operating together could both benefit.
The LO birds would be even harder to spot, much less track, and the benefits to non LO birds are obvious. Even the USAF will have legacy types in service for quite some type, operating along side the F-22s and F-35s.
Sign In
