The total is supposed to be 61

13 ordered in 1994 (10 M, 2 B, 1 C)

48 in 1999 (15 M, 21 B, 12 C)

The 1994 aircraft are the 13 F1s.
B301 and B302, C101, and M1-M10

The 1999 aircraft are the 48 F2s.

Except that it no longer adds up to 48.

6 Cs (102-107), 25 Bs (303-327) and 15 Ms (11-25) = 46 aircraft

Speaking of the F3s, is it still 13 Ms? And how many will be Bs and how many will be Cs?

Can anyone refresh my memory as to the original planned number of Cs versus Bs, and the number planned now?

Does that mean that there will be just eight C F2s, instead of 12, and 25 Bs instead of 21?

Or is 326 an F3?

SOC,

You’re being a tad picky, Sean!

But I’d stand by most of what you challenge.

The F-22 is better able to penetrate most real world adversary defences than the B-2. It has a smaller RCS, a smaller IR signature, and can supercruise.

It’s certainly better able to penetrate than the F-117 and F-35.

JDAM-class weapons are all that F-22 will have until SDB, and I was talking about the baseline aircraft.

“No need to penetrate” was a brainf.art, I’m afraid. I meant that there is no need to penetrate ‘forewarned’ defences. In any case, the point is that a Stealthy attacker doesn’t need ARMs, and Brimstone et al are irrelevant for the role.

The F-22 will certainly be replacing F-117A. I suspect that a suitable hardened weapon is already available, or is being developed under some Black programme.

You don’t necessarily need LGBs for precision attack, and the F-22’s limitations do not rule out the carriage of LGBs – only self designating them.

I am staggered to see such ignorance about the F-22 as was expressed in the original post.

It’s not that long ago that General John Jumper was explaining how the F-22 could replace the F-117 to anyone who would listen, after all.

So to conclude that

“With the exception of its ECM gear and stealth it (the F-22) looks like the weakest strike bird in production today…… less than suitable for the A2G role.”

Is pretty astonishing.

You have quite some exceptions, there, Einstein.

Apart from ECM and Stealth….?

Apart from being better able to penetrate enemy airspace than any other platform, you mean?

Apart from being a better penetrating strike platform than the F-117 AND the F-35, you mean?

The only weakness is the limitation of having just two JDAM class weapons. The same weakness that has so constrained F-117 ops, and that is clearly viewed as such a disadvantage for JSF……

But with Raptor you don’t need ARMs (doh!) nor do you need to penetrate, so you don’t need stand off weapons like Storm Shadow, and it isn’t designed for CAS, so the lack of Brimstone/Hellfire class weapons is not significant.

You’re looking at replacing F-117A and high end F-15E mission capabilities, not A-10/F-16 CAS capabilities. And in those missions it’s as ‘suitable’ as the F-117 ever was (more so, because you have GPS weapons capabilities from the off) and as the F-35 is in “Day One of the War” fit.

And that’s before the Raptor development programme adds further capabilities with successive blocks, such as high resolution (and still LPI!) SAR modes, and perhaps even a Stealthy external weapons pod.

Sounds just like an aircraft that is: “less than suitable for the A2G role”, and that is “the weakest strike bird in production today.” :rolleyes:

Global Security outlines the key steps:

“The Raptor also has an inherent air-to-ground capability.”

“The F-22 will also bring a precision ground attack capability to the battlefield.”

“The Block 10 Initial Operational Capability configuration, to be fielded this year, will be multirole, with the option of four AMRAAMs being replaced by GBU-32 JDAMs. This provides an analogous deep-strike capability to the F-117A, but is more survivable.”

“The Block 20 configuration is the baseline for the Global Strike Task Force (GSTF) fleet, and will include JSF common radar modules, a dedicated high-speed radar processor, and COTS technology CIP processors. The GBU-39/40 Small Diameter Bomb is introduced in the Block 20 aircraft by 2007, together with high resolution SAR radar modes, improved radar ECCM, two way voice and data MIDS/Link-16 capability, improved crew station software, and improved electronic countermeasures.”

“The Block 30 configuration, planned for 2008-2011, extends the growth seen in the Block 20. Side-looking radar arrays provide a significant ISR capability in the aircraft along with enhancements to provide full Wild Weasel air defence suppression and time-critical target engagement capabilities. A Satcom terminal will provide continuous network connectivity during deep-strike profiles.”

“The post-2011 Block 40 aircraft is intended to be the definitive Global Strike configuration, with incremental enhancements to Block 30 additions providing full sensor networking, range enhancements, integrated ISR capabilities, and a Helmet Mounted Display similar to the JSF.”

“Longer term planning for a Block 50 envisages an Electronic Attack variant, replacing the lost EF-111A Raven. A stealthy stores pod for JDAM and SDB is under development to enable carriage on external pylons. As a strike aircraft the F/A-22A will have similar internal payloads to the JSF, but will be vastly more survivable due to better stealth.”

The F-22 represents a very expensive and inflexible strike asset (though it does have the ability to carry other warloads externally when Stealth isn’t required). But it does perform the long range precision attack mission against high value, heavily-defended targets better than anything else out there. There are other ways of skinning the cat – using TLAM or some form of stand off ASM/ALCM, or mounting massive efforts heavily defended by fighters, SEAD, EW/ECM/SOJ. Many air forces may not need such a capability, and may be happy with a more modest capability. But if you do, and if you can afford it, the F-22 is compelling, and probably more compelling in the A-G role than in the A-A.

The point is that Typhoon’s chances will not be compromised because of any weakness in its A-A capabilities, but because of the potential lack of specific A-G capabilities in the required timescale.

Only by understanding the reality of the requirement is it possible to grasp why the Super Hornet is in the running.

It’s also a stark pointer to just how big a mistake Dassault may have made in staying out of this one – which increasingly looks like a contest that Rafale could have won in.

“The reality is that there are no indications that Japan is looking to create a genuinely credible long range attack capability.”

1) It already has a pretty credible capability, and is looking to enhance it.

2) Just because you haven’t read about it doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening. The breadth of your ignorance is pretty astonishing. You were entirely unaware of how far Japan’s evaluation of Typhoon had got.

As is your want, you ignore what people who disagree with you actually say, and react as though they had said something quite different. You misquote and misrepresent, as before.

You accuse others of trolling and sarcasm, when you make stupid remarks about Swerve and I suggesting that Japan might want to invade North Korea.

You accuse me of trolling, which is a convenient excuse for you not to answer the substantive points.

1) You cite consideration of the F-22 as evidence that no such “long range land attack capability” was considered.

Consideration of the F-22 (arguably the most capable penetrating precision attack aircraft available in the period, and considered by the USAF itself as a means of replacing the F-117) does not indicate a narrow air-to-air focus, and does not provide evidence to support your case.

2) You imply that those you are arguing with have suggested that Japan intends to “procure a specific long range land attack capability”, and that we have said that this will be the “primary concern for the F-4 replacement programme.”

No-one has suggested that A-G is the primary focus of the Japanese requirement. I specifically said that there was a: “really significant (secondary, but pivotally important) A-G requirement within this overall requirement.” I know exactly who Swerve is, and he knows me. I suspect that between us we’ve visited rather more frontline JASDF bases, and have spoken to rather more senior JASDF officers and members of the bid teams than you have, and have more of an idea of what is in the requirement.

3) You suggest that the Japanese Constitution would forbid such a procurement.

Swerve (who is married to a Japanese woman, and who knows Japan) can cite the relevant article, and explain how such a procurement is entirely within the law.

We both pointed out that what is the case, and what appears to be the case, are often very different in Japan.

“It is important to remember that many within the Japanese military establishment and government, have harboured ideas of procuring ‘offensive’ weapons for years. However the prucurement of such a capability, aside from being potentially unconstitutional- ie illegal, woul be hugely unpopular within Japan.”

It has always been the case. The JASDF circumvents this public distaste by describing aircraft and their roles in misleading terms (thus the F-1s were for use against landing craft, and thus were ‘defensive’) or by acquiring aircraft for one role, but equipping them for others.

The JASDF don’t believe that the Korean missile threat can be countered adequately by ABM defences only, and the ability to hit them pre-launch is an important capability for whatever aircraft ends up being selected.

The F-4 replacement will be an A-A fighter, but they will not select one that does not have a really robust A-G capability.