Thanks for the info XN923! I assume this is something that comes up here fairly reguarly but does anybody have any pictures of the Fairey Delta-3, th one that was selected? I have only ever seen artists renderings with 3 engines rather than 2?:confused:

Ollie, photos would be most welcome if you do not mind!;)

Which is fine, really, since it wasn’t intended to have to perform as a mud mover. Had a multi-role platform been the goal, things would be different. But it wasn’t, so the Raptor remains the gold standard in air to air combat aircraft, while being an interested participant in the field of strike aircraft, which if you ask me is a field currently dominated by the Su-34.

Which is exactly my point, for a country operating the B-2, B-52, B-1B, F-15E, F-18E/F, along with ship and submarine launched Tomahawks, as well as having strategic UCAV’s and the F-35 in its not too distant future, the Raptors comparatively limited A2G capability is not an issue. As I said in the opening post the Raptor is without doubt the outstanding A2A aircraft of its generation.

Of course it does all raise the question of how effective the F-23 (with its bigger weapons bays) fitted with something like EOTS would be in A2G arena?

Consensus? Maybe, but you’re misrepresenting it, if so.

Optical targeting? As has been explained to you, the F-22 has 1) access to information from other platforms, & 2) optical systems are fair weather only, & easily defeated. Radar with MTI, passive electro-magnetic sensors, bombs with their own sensors for the final leg . . . . the F-22 has all these.

There seems to be a general loss of interest in ARMs these days. Germany suspended development of Armiger, France has retired them. The trend is to use other sensors to locate radars, & lob a relatively cheap GPS-guided bomb at the location. Multi-mode seekers are being developed so that other missiles (i.e. not specialised ARMs – e.g. AAMs) can attack radars.

The F-22 has less need of an ARM than other types which might be used for SEAD, due to its low RCS, high speed, & high cruising altitude. It can approach closer before being detected, & can launch bombs (e.g. SDB) from greater ranges. This seems to be its intended modus operandi in the SEAD role.

You seem to be fixated on old-fashioned ways of doing things.

See above posts about the ability of the F-22 to get to a sufficient point to release its PGM’s, SOC initially raised the issue and he is one of the most informed posters here and I am inclined to agree with him.

Maybe you could explain why the F-35 has the EOTS if its old fashioned?

While the F-22 has some nice strike features and is going to officialy replace the F-117, it cannot do everything the Nighthawk does. 2000lb LGBs are the weapon of choice for hardened targets. The Raptor can neither carry nor self-designate those.
F-35 will be the real F-117 replacement.

Jackonicko, the Globalsecurity stuff you posted looks vastly outdated…

That is exactly what I have been saying about the F-22 in comparison to the F-117.

No optical system and no penetrator munitions and only 1000lb bombs as opposed to 2000lb for the F-117 and JSF. The difference between the internal carriage of the JSF and the F-22 is quite stark, the Raptor can not carry 2000lb class weapons, and it cannot carry the JSOW.

Could you tell me which parts of the global security stuff are outdated, I am sure that I have read that the side looking radar arrays have been cancelled, and I have not heard or seen anything about stealthy weapons pods for some time?

There seems to be a general consensus.

The lack of any penetrator munitions makes it pretty much useless at hitting hardened targets, I think its probably fair to say that once North Korea and Iran start to deploy their big missiles they will use hardened Silo’s. of course China and Russia already do.

The lack of any optical targeting equipment, seems to make anything with wheels or tracks extremely difficult.

The lack of an ARM, certainly does not help with the SEAD role, I also have to agree with SOC on the S-400 issue, it seems to early to suggest that the F-22 is S-400 proof. That actually leads me to another point, it is sometimes said that the Raptor has the RCS of a bird, I have also read that the Sampson radar on the RN type-45 can detect a pigeon at 100+Km under the right conditions. Whilst the raptor may have an RCS smaller than a pigeon it does suggest that while Stealth is a big advantage those systems currently pushing the technology edge may be able to degrade the advantage to some extent.

The ability of the F-22 to penetrate airspace is not under dispute, however the question remains, what is it going to do when it gets there. Mobile targets seem to be out and so do hardened targets. Fixed targets, with pre-known locations that are not hardened seem to be the Raptors only A2G niche. Somebody else has mentioned in this thread that although the Raptor is the official F-117 replacement it certainly is not a true replacement- in fact the F-35 seems better for this.

Obviously for the USAF with its strategic UCAV’s coming in the near future, B-2’s, F-15E’s, F-35, B-52, B-1B, as well as the USN’s Tomahawks this is not realy an issue. However for a country looking for a real versatile strike platform, the F-22 in its current form, looks like the last aircraft anyone would look at.

Obviously the Raptor has a reasonable strike capability but it has nothing like the versatility of other types in production, such as the F-35, F-15E/K/T, F-18E/F, Rafale, Mig-35, Su-34 etc.