Jessmo , you are still talking about detection and firing a missile .
Good to you but the problem lies elsewhere , as I said in my last post .

Will the missile hit is the real question .

Cheers .

The missile hit in the exercise :diablo:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14033.html

AF-1 and AF-2 in formation.

I disagree.

-All these articles and the previous report in journalists blogs shoz that this is taken seriously. I could ad AFM as well.

-The F22 is inferior to most other aircrafts when it comes to versatility, flexibility or costs.
For cold war games and to beat other aircrafts in BVR in a pure pissing contest (as they will probably never be opposed in a real situation) then yes it is better.

-To fight real wars in the real world (iraq, astan, kosovo) an F15+, a SH, an F35 a rafale or an advnced F16 is superior.

No more F22 have been ordered for the reason above. Their was no urgent need to justify the cost of such a system when the F35 will be fielded to resume the stealth role

ART i disagree with these statements and here is why:

1. If a Raptor can go up against 6-8 times the odds and win isn’t it worth every penny?

2. The raptor in its current form is a MUCH better striker than the Rafale

3. Yes it is expensive and it will be sought after in a major conflict. why risk it being hit by small arms fire down low when you need it!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

On 5 January 2001, Raptor 4005 flew with the Block 3.0 software, which was the first combat-capable avionics version.[68] In June 2009, Increment 3.1 was tested at Edwards Air Force Base. This provided the F-22 a basic ground attack capability through Synthetic Aperture Radar mapping, Electronic Attack and the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb. The F-22 Raptor Increment 3.1 Modification Team with the 412th Test Wing received the Chief of Staff Team Excellence Award for upgrading 149 Raptors.[69] However the software for the upgrade will not be completed before 2010.[70] And it will not be operationally tested on the F-22A aircraft until late 2010.[71

JDAM http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-weapons.htm

The F-22 can carry the 1,000-pound class JDAM weapon. For the F-22, the JDAM tail guidance kit fits on the Mk. 83 1,000-pound-class conventional bomb. Weight of the Mk. 83 bomb and tail guidance kit is approximately 1,015 pounds The combination of the stealthy F-22 and the precision capability of the GBU-32 allows the F-22 pilot to drop the weapon from altitudes of approximately 40,000 feet to a range of approximately 15 miles.

The GBU-32 is only carried in the F-22’s main weapons bay. A typical combat load consists of two GBU-32. One GBU-32 is carried inboard in each side of the main weapons bay. When loaded with GBU-32, there is still sufficient room in the F-22’s main weapons bay to carry two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles (one in each side of the bay, in addition to the two AIM-9 Sidewinders in the side weapons bays), which means that even on a mission to attack ground targets, the F-22 retains significant air-to-air combat capability.

Each 1,000-pound-class GBU-32 will be loaded from the opposite side of the F-22 (the JDAM in the left side of the weapons bay is loaded from the right and visa versa), in order to clear the open main weapons bay doors. The current MJ-1 load vehicle (called a jammer) is used to load the GBU-32 into the F-22. The GBU-32 is carried on the Air Force’s standard BRU-46/A bomb rack (which is built by EDO). The weapon is carried on the inboard side of the bay with an adjacent AIM-120C missile staggered on the outboard side. This is so tail fins on the bomb and the missile’s wings do not interfere with each other when the weapons are either released or launched.

The GBU-32 gets target information from the aircraft prior to release via a Miltary Standard (Mil Std) 1760 data bus. JDAM can be dropped by an aircraft from up to 15 miles from the target. In addition to its own inertial guidance system, the weapon receives in-flight position updates from the 24-satellite GPS satellite constellation which help guide the bomb to the target. The GPS constellation provides 24-hour navigation information to military and civilian users. The GBU-32’s autonomous operation allows the carrying aircraft to release the weapon and leave the area, thus avoiding an enemy’s integrated air defense (surface-to-air missiles, antiaircraft artillery (“triple A”), and radars) system, but still delivering the weapon to the target.

SBD http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-weapons.htm

GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb

The F-22A has the capability to carry a variety of conventional and Long Range Stand-Off Weapons (LRSOW) for air-to-ground ordnance delivery. When performing air-to-ground missions, the F-22A can internally carry two Global Positioning System-aided 250-pound GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb in place of two AIM-120s and two AIM-9 missiles. The Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) (Guided Bomb Unit [GBU]-39/B) is designed to provide the F-22A with multiple targeting capabilities. Langley munitions crews loaded the new GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb onto an operational F-22A Raptor 15 July 2006. The fit test, conducted by members of the 27th Aircraft Maintenance Unit and observed by experts from Lockheed, Boeing, Edwards AFB, Calif., and Eglin AFB, Fla., was the first time the new weapon had been loaded into a combat-ready Raptor.

Weighing in at 250 pounds and a diameter of only six inches, the advantage of the GBU-39 is the amount that can be loaded into an F-22. It increases the target capabilities of the F-22 by 400 percent. Instead of two JDAMs, it will carry eight SDBs internally.

The Air Combat Command commander declared initial operational capability for the Guided Bomb Unit-39/B Small Diameter Bomb 02 October 2006 and the weapon made its combat debut just three days later. Boeing, the GBU-39B manufacturer, describes the bomb as “the next generation of low-cost and low-collateral damage precision strike weapons for … employment from fighters, bombers and unmanned aerial vehicles.” The F-15E Strike Eagle was initially the only aircraft equipped to carry the SDB. However, future potential platforms include the F-16 Fighting Falcon, B-1 Lancer, B-2 Spirit, F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. The SDB have high precision capabilities. They are lightweight and small which means increased aircraft payload. The bomb, a mere 250 pounds, has a smaller lethality radius, but its advanced technology makes the small blast a benefit, not a liability.

Its small size enables aircraft to carry more weapons, allowing commanders “to service more targets on a single pass.” Its mounting carriage, the BRU-61/A, fits four bombs on one weapon pylon. It is also a versatile weapon. The SDB range is more than 50 nautical miles when launched at 40,000 feet at Mach .95. This enables an aircraft to launch SDBs to multiple targets, while beyond the range of many anti-aircraft systems. Additionally, it is an all-weather weapon, effective day or night and can be fired at targets in front of, to the sides, and behind the employing aircraft. It is effective on stationary targets within 1.2 meters. Typical targets include hardened aircraft bunkers, early-warning radar, stationary SCUD missile launchers, stationary artillery and more,

Once again the F-22 launches the in excess of 60+ miles Using the Raptors speed and Altitude it can hit more targets from farther away than a RAfale.

http://www.strategypage.com/military_videos/military_photos_20080907224345.aspx

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/aviation-week-suspends-bill-sw.html

Aviation Week suspends Bill Sweetman from F-35 story
By Stephen Trimble on May 10, 2010 3:35 PM

Bill Sweetman notified me this morning that he has been temporarily ordered off the F-35 story by Aviation Week management.

Aviation Week editor Tony Velocci initially told me “no comment”, but added: “It was supposed to be an internal personnel matter but I’m really sorry to hear that he’s spreading it around.”

Sweetman is the editor of Defense Technology International, a monthly magazine published by the Aviation Week Group.

It’s not clear what immediately precipitated the decision. But Sweetman is well-known as arguably one of the most outspoken — and, it should be said, well-spoken — critics of the F-35 program.

Lockheed Martin denies having any role in Sweetman’s removal from the F-35 beat. “I can tell you Lockheed was not behind this,” a spokesman says.

Sweetman recently visited Lockheed’s F-35 factory in Fort Worth, Texas, along with Velocci and Aviation Week staff writer Amy Butler. On the eve of his visit, Sweetman on 26 April posted a typically droll comment on his private Facebook page:

“Gentlemen, your target for tonight is Fort Worth. Flacks are predicted to be numerous and persistent on the run-in and over the target, and bull**** is expected to be dense throughout the mission. Synchronize watches and good luck.”

Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane’s. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds.

But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop. That position is always going to create a tension with his traditional role as journalist.

Update: Lockheed Martin has released a full statement:

“Lockheed Martin has not asked Aviation Week to take disciplinary action against Bill Sweetman nor have we asked that he be removed from reporting on the F-35 program or any other Lockheed Martin program. In fact on April 27 Bill and other members of the Aviation Week staff visited Lockheed Martin facilities in Fort Worth for briefings on the F-35 program. We have a longstanding professional relationship with the entire Aviation Week editorial staff, including Bill Sweetman, and we continue to work openly with them on all programs, including F-35.”

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14019.html

I would like to remind our readers that we have had instances in the past where an allied ship was mistaken for a enemy vessel and nearly sunk with casualties.The debate on if the incident was intentional or not still rages to this day. In a negative political environment, and with one state not being sure of the other states intentions things can get ugly. I can count numerous incidents where NATO members faced attack either intentional or not and we didn’t see the entire NATO command jump in. Greece,Britain the U.S. and other members
Have had skirmishes in the past.

Yes but the Harriers engine had a Hot spot at the vector nozzles. With this design you get about 18k pounds of thrust from the cool air fan. That should make a big difference in heat signature.

The 1st link was from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Air_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Air_Force

is that good enough?