The F-117 was supossedly to be invulnerable but it is not and the thing that shows it was more of a publicity rather than a real military threat is the fact that a 1960`s SAM that was used in 1973 to kill F-4s, killed a 1980`s supposedly more modern Stealth fighter, it was not even the modern S-400 but a very early SAM that was supported by an air force of only 14 MiG-29s and a small nation of a few million people in the middle of a civil war, it was not a military superpower like Russia or China or a powerful regional power like India

There is no point in us arguing over this because I have never considered the F-117 invulnerable, myself. The USAF, for their part, never explicitly claimed invulnerability, and they never hid the fact that it only flew at night (that’s funny, they even flew the 1960s F-4s during the day). If you’re suggesting that many people (not anyone I’ve seen in my short time here) believed that it was invulnerable anyway, then obviously a shoot-down–under any circumstances whatsoever–proved them wrong. Well, there’s no arguing with that logic, either, but when stated repeatedly to those who have always known better, it seriously begins to look like a “strawman” argument. The potential implication that stealth technology failed to achieve its alleged (falsely so) goal of invulnerability and is therefore a failure in general is equally misleading. And for all the talk about the S-125 being a 1960s system, as I’ve already pointed out the F-117 is just as crude an example of its own technology as the S-125 (probably even more so).

Now, if you’ve been trying to say, indirectly for some reason, that the F-117 was retired because it was no longer useful as a USAF propaganda tool for self-deluding people, then I’d accept that as a possible factor that made the decision for retirement easier, although the other reasons I’ve given still stand.

Why to retire the F-117 if it was really stealthy?

Despite being a primitive early example of the technology (isn’t it obvious?), the F-117 still is really stealthy–we just seem to have different conceptions of what this means. To me it means that radar detection and tracking ranges are reduced to a small fraction of what they would normally be for an aircraft.

I’ve already explained why the F-117 was retired. In a nutshell, it is a crude aircraft that provided a single unique capability that is no longer unique now in the USAF inventory. Additionally, the airframes are old for an aircraft of its size and class, there is no reason to build more of them with the F-22 and eventually the F-35 to take its place, and its stealth is more costly and time-consuming to maintain. The last part is significant, as the USAF retired their fleet of EF-111A Ravens so that they didn’t have to keep a small number of a unique type flying, despite still having a major requirement for their capabilities; this was fulfilled by sharing EA-6B Prowlers with the US Navy, but it nonetheless shows their strong desire to reduce the number of individual aircraft types in their inventory whenever possible. For the record, the USAF actually considers both the F-15 and F-16 obsolete because of their lack of stealth, but they are numerous and ultimately every air force needs numbers. If it were up to the USAF, they would eventually replace every F-15 with F-22s and every F-16 with F-35s.

well simple modern SAM can even hit F-22s according to Russian statements,

And if for some crazy reason an F-22 flew at medium altitude right over an S-125 site, then it could potentially be shot down, too–you wouldn’t need an S-400 to do that. Likewise, you could kill somebody just as dead with a Springfield M1903 from the year 1903, shooting right through a modern “bulletproof” vest using the latest Spectra materials.

As for “Russian statements,” well, Russian government officials have also claimed that the Su-30 and Su-35 are stealthier than the F-22, which is ludicrous. Any SAM system could shoot down the F-22 depending on the circumstances, so while the oversimplified statement here is literally true, it is devoid of any real information. It tries to imply that modern SAMs (Russian, I presume) can detect and shoot down F-22s from the same range and with the same effectiveness as they do other fighters. The only appropriate response is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

and once you have a good radar to deal with F-22s that still radiate and bounce energy back to its source well, then fighters like the Eurofighter or Su-35BM can become handy,

F-22s do in fact bounce energy back to its source, but nothing like these other fighters do–not even close. In the vast majority of cases, they will be tracked, targeted, and shot down first by F-22s. If you can think of tactics that could be used to effectively counter the F-22, I’d like to read them.

Actually the Germans got the idea by observing the RAF Mosquitoes which would barely show in the radar, or would only do so at decreased ranges. Plus with the speed of the Mosquitoes, these light bombers were difficult to intercept. Even at that time, it was understood that wood does not reflect radar very well.

I’m sure that it wasn’t long until RAM was developed, either, probably to use on parts of radar systems themselves at first. Almost nothing we talk about today regarding stealth wasn’t thought of decades before the F-117–it’s the application of scientific knowledge and ideas that takes a while to catch up. It should be noted, however, that even a primarily wooden aircraft would not be considered very “stealthy” in the modern sense, due to uncontrolled reflections from metal parts, both external and internal.

Wood as you know, is a natural composite.

I know what you’re saying, but pedantically speaking ;), “composite” simply means a material that combines two or more base materials in a manner that combines their differing properties while keeping the base materials distinct. There are composites that contain metal and therefore probably reflect radar very well. However, wood is a natural organic polymer, and the plywood that they undoubtedly used is considered a type of composite. Sorry, I’m just trying to be accurate. 😮

So the Germans wanted their own Mosquito. It was a twin engined zerstorer/night fighter/schnell bomber that went by the name Ta-144, as it was Focke Wulf’s Kurt Tank who worked on that. However, the plane had problems staying glued together.

Interesting…I’ll have to look that up sometime.

The Horten wing would have been a horrible plane to fly. The Northrop YB-49 also demonstrated that these things are just horrible to fly, leading to their cancellation. FBW was the major breakthrough that enabled flying wings to be flight manageable.

I wonder (and hope) that the thought that these aircraft may be somewhat unstable would have at least crossed their minds. Perhaps they believed that human pilots could react quickly enough to fly them safely…I guess they couldn’t. 🙂

The way I see it, a desperately outdated SAM system with constant maintenance and spares shortages managed to take down a dedicated stealth attacker.

While this is true, just to make things clear for everybody, even the crudest radar can track a VLO aircraft if it is close enough, and the F-117 itself is a very basic machine that relies almost entirely on its stealth for survival (that’s why they only cost $45 million each despite the new technology and limited production run). It does not have a jammer (the S-125 is more vulnerable to ECM than modern SAM systems), nor does it even have chaff and flare dispensers (as far as I’m aware). It was always intended as a special-purpose tactical bomber produced under a limited program while more advanced designs were being worked on. And although it may be “dedicated” to stealth, that’s only because stealth is its only defense–between the two, the F-22 actually has superior stealth characteristics against radar, for example.

For me this is a huge achievement.

It is a very impressive tactical feat achieved by the SAM crew, but it’s not because of any special qualities of the S-125. It probably took a fair amount of luck, too, although most everything people do requires at least some.

Keep in mind, that at the time the S-125 was designed, the word ‘stealth’ was not even in Cassell’s.

Neither the terminology nor the technology matters if you can get close enough. In this case, unless my sources are inaccurate, it appears that the S-125 crew had managed to momentarily detect F-117s at some unknown distance using low-frequency search radar, which is not surprising (it’s just physics). They discovered a regular pattern or repetition in the flight paths of the F-117s over a period of time, and moved their S-125s close to where they believed the aircraft would fly next; the crew also placed spotters along the flight path to visually (or aurally) detect the aircraft and warn the SAM operators ahead of time. Then when one F-117 predictably flew too close to the S-125, the targeting radar finally managed to lock or track it well enough to shoot it down with a missile.

From the point of view of the F-117 pilot, there wasn’t much he could have done, really. The air campaign planners should have varied the routes more, but it’s possible that they were either overconfident in the F-117’s stealth capability or they had no idea that SAMs were operating in that area. In general, it’s always possible for an F-117 to fly too close to a SAM site just by pure chance, but in this case, it was the enemy doing an excellent job of concealing themselves (SAM stealth!) and exploiting any weaknesses they could.

So does this shoot-down mean that the F-117’s stealth was worthless? Absolutely not–it was still a very difficult plane to shoot down in general, despite having no other defenses. But the poor mission planning on the part of the USAF, good luck, and smarts all worked in the favor of the SAM crew that day. The natural question to ask is: what does this incident imply for current VLO fighters? Humans can be clever creatures at times, so as far as developing and using new tactics goes, that remains to be seen, but this case shows that it still wasn’t easy to target a VLO aircraft, and that’s how it will likely remain for some time.

However, I can say that if an F-22, for example, was involved in this incident, things probably would have been different. Early on, the F-22’s ALR-94 would have quickly located the search radar, whereupon a Wild Weasel team could have been dispatched to seek out and destroy the SAM site. Even if we hypothetically skip this part and assume that the F-22 somehow unwittingly got too close to the S-125 (which is also less likely due to its superior stealth), then it probably would have survived anyway because of its cruising altitude of 50000 feet (normal for the F-22, which “likes” altitude), its countermeasures, as well as its agility (the most agile, mobile American fighter as opposed to the hobbled F-117). A more modern, sophisticated SAM may be able to hit the F-22 under such conditions, but probably not the S-125.

It should be clear now why the F-117 was slated to be retired soon after it became apparent that the F-22 would achieve operational capability. Although its stealth, per se, was still effective and it was an excellent precision bomber, the F-117 couldn’t do anything else. It was defenseless against other fighters and SAMs that happened to be fortunate enough (or had crews clever enough) to detect it, it had no sensors other than FLIR to give better situational awareness in order to maximize its capabilities, its growth potential was limited, and it was too old to be worth upgrading much anyway.

As for the main subject of this thread, man what a can of worms! 😮 I’d have to agree with most of flex297’s answers, actually, because far too much depends on circumstances and timing for anybody to make sweeping generalizations about the relative merits of aircraft produced and used by different countries. While there’s no denying that aircraft of Western design are more proven in combat, this too is at least in part a matter of circumstance. It means that the designs are good enough to succeed when used properly, but does not necessarily mean that Russian designs are not good; the exact same principle applies to SAM systems if we switch the two sides, also a result of circumstances.

Of the SA-3 and the F-117 one is soon to be withdrawn from service… and it isn’t a SAM.

Well, if both the F-22 and F-35 programs had been cancelled, then the USAF would likely have decided to keep the F-117s going indefinitely. Everyone should know by now (or from the beginning, really) that F-117s are incomplete fighters and have special vulnerabilities, which is why they generally only fly into combat at night. That said, they would still be the only attack aircraft that the USAF would risk sending into a dense SAM environment early during a war, even if it’s possible, however unlikely, that they would be shot down. The F-117 was not sent into retirement by a single shoot-down, it was superseded by a more capable aircraft.

Answer to Dork Matter
You are almost completely right in the most in your excellent description of two formidabel aircrafts and I am very impressed you say that in reality the F-22 and F-35 have a radar operating for you. If so – why don’t procure unmanned planes?

Answering your question in earnest (although I assume it is rhetorical), I strongly believe that a human still needs to be in the loop, and that he (or she) needs to be in the cockpit rather than relying on datalinks that could be compromised.

Despite your fine answers I think you and many enthusiasts for that plane have forgot new workload in modern aircraft

While aircraft crews do have some new things to worry about, it is offset by not having to worry about the engine flaming out by advancing the throttle too quickly, or navigating by dead reckoning–these tasks are handled by computers now, and at these kinds of tasks, they’ve generally become better than humans. Yet back in the days of WWII, fighters typically had a crew of one, as they’ve almost always had since then, and he had to worry about all those things. Some of the most successful dive-bombers back then had a crew of two, but the second guy was primarily a rear gunner that tried to keep attacking fighters at bay in order to buy some time. Some fighter-sized bombers had a crew of three that included a separate navigator/munitions officer, but that did not make them any more successful.

but mostly the cost and that it already is too old, expensive, irrelevant and counterproductive for the 21th combat environment.

I don’t see why they are irrelevant and counterproductive. While aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 have not been needed for the most recent conflicts, the USAF must be prepared for any potential conflict against far more powerful adversaries that have more sophisticated and more numerous equipment. The goal is to be able to overcome any adversary decisively, not fight a long and bloody air war against even major powers or take heavy losses from ground fire against smaller militaries, which becomes increasingly more likely as improved SAM systems become available.

I think instead there is a better need to “jump” directly to create the next- sixth generation platform.

That’s exactly what former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said while he was trying to kill off the F-22. The problem is that it is difficult and risky to look far enough ahead, not only in projecting the threat environment but in predicting how far certain technologies could be advanced to meet those challenges. In my opinion, the USAF has a near-immediate need for better, more survivable fighters.

Best suited for that is, at least as gap-fillers, use a mix of one/two-seat equipped either F/A-18E/F, F-15E Strike Eagle, Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen or perhaps even(?) the Su-27 family and MiG-35, longer than expected because the risk for a recenssion or for worst case situations the world can be hit just now.

As periodic recessions are part of the normal business cycle, I would be somewhat reluctant to preemptively cancel programs on which tens of billions of dollars have been invested, as well as settle for a force of gap-filling fighters, just in case a large number of American consumers finally decide to pay down some of their credit card debt. 😉

You almost pointed exactly into the political eyes when you described “three or more peoples” in a combat aircraft. That is very funny but I will “ironically” add it to four; each from the air force, army, marines and Navy, that to do all force services satisfied.

Your photomontage would make a great political cartoon! 😎 By the way, that’s how many crew members are normally on board the EA-6B Prowler, and these days they do fly with mixed crews from the USN and USAF. 🙂

I can’t ever understand why not generals from different services don’t build bridges and can cooperate more in all useable combat aircraft and work operative in same sensor pipeline? There must be something wrong in modern strategic and tactically planning when every general, in their own services, are working for their own system and grandmothers. Too many people don’t work enough integrated today – 2008. There are for example big fights between services in the military force about whom going to command all UAV/UCAV instead use them together by operators in two-seat aircrafts for all forces (CAS).

I don’t understand, either, but that’s the nature of bureaucracies, which are mainly under the influence of control freaks. That said, ultimately just about everything is about control–even those who literally fight for their freedom are fighting for control over their own lives and destinies. But I digress.

They are the best to link the best picture to the pilot and all users on the battlefield. You don’t need to earmark him as an air force operator except in the air safety role. He can be a commander from – example, an army battalion, a SIGINT system, or “why not(?)” the coast guard or the police services.

That’s exactly what they’re trying to do, but there are major investments involved in making the sharing of all of this information as automatic, reliable, and secure as possible in a “messy” combat environment, which is the only way to overcome the reluctance of some of the leadership.

The back seat must be suited for the best use in the right environment in the right future!

I don’t think that anyone would dispute that having a second seat, per se, would be better than just having one, but it’s not free in terms of both training and retaining qualified crews, as well as making compromises to the aircraft. Actually, I’m in agreement with you that it would be prudent to at least have this provision available just in case, but what I’m arguing is that the current situation is not nearly as bad as you think it is.

There is also more need to communicate over the radio-frequency spectrum because all operation demands that. Only the pilot is not enough, I am sure. Think how much you private are using your handheld telephone and all the need you use in the cyber (internet) world.

On the other hand, too much of this kind of communication can drive people crazy, as well. 🙂 I don’t think it necessarily makes me more productive, and I always found a way to get things done in the past.

Anyway, even so, during Red Flag this is how F-22 pilots–in their lonesome little cockpits–coordinated with AWACS to provide the entire “blue” force with accurate identification and targeting information from the F-22’s sensors, resulting in an unprecedented level of success (for the blue force F-15s as well). It would have been easier, however, and more quiet if a Link 16 transmit capability were integrated into the F-22 (it can currently only receive). In any case, a WSO might have helped, especially without Link 16, but the pilots seemed to handle this unanticipated level of radio communication just fine.

This is a extensive work even in one-seat equipped fighter as F-35A and F-22A. A pilot don´t like internet protocolls during hard g´turning.

If an F-22 or F-35 pilot finds himself in a dogfight, then it probably means that his primary tactics have failed, at which point he must focus on ACM rather than things like internet protocols. Under such circumstances, while a second pair of eyes in the back could come in handy at times, it’s really up to the pilot to fight for survival; the people with which he must coordinate would be his wingman and other elements of his group.

I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to belittle the role of WSOs, here. In some aircraft (mostly larger ones) and under certain circumstances (e.g. an F-15E hugging the terrain at night), they are essential personnel. It all depends on the roles assigned to aircraft, the capabilities of the aircraft, and the tactics used.

I want to stress – pilot workload in too modern fighters are more related to political economical demands to save money than to do a force better in an operation safer with two.

Yeah, there’s always that, and there’s no avoiding it, either.

The fight between own force services is dangerous instead choose a common combat plane suitable for all force services.

Well, sometimes just a single force needs more than one type, so it’s reasonable for them to want different variants of the same basic system.

If you go to F-35A or F-22A first, it’s going to be a long time to get the sixth generation aircraft faster. Future combat planes perhaps are unmanned and have a capability as doing F-35A superfluous already when they enter their service.

I’m not willing to look that far ahead regarding required capabilities and technological possibilities.

That’s why I am most critical and because I am looking at new thinkings when AESA will be equipped in –for example, the new generation of Gripen which is going to be roll-out in April this year but even other equaling combat aircrafts.

You can put an AESA on any fighter if you wanted to (some F-15Cs have them and more will in the future), but you can’t make them VLO, which more than anything else is the raison d’être of fifth-generation fighters.

To control unmanned aircraft you have to use them inside the combat area or from a carrier battle group closer to the targets – not only from Creek Air Force Base in U.S but even from your backseater. I should have want to describe that better but primary it is an absolutely need to reduce pilots workload in the future even if most of the tasks are automatic, as you described, in the F-35A and F-22A.

OK, although this will depend on how sophisticated we can make the UCAVs and the kinds of workarounds we can come up with for any limitations, I see what you mean about the potential of having a second seat. But that’s only one vision, and I suppose it would be possible to add a second seat if that becomes necessary, if not to existing airframes then to new ones; F-35s in particular will be built and acquired over a period of time. It’s probable, however, that the USAF would prefer to use larger aircraft for such a purpose because it lets more people work more closely together when necessary.

With today’s very advanced air defences, it doesn’t matter if you’re piloting F/A-18E/F or F-35A, because you dare not to fly into a heavy threat environment without electronic warfare protection a.s.o.

Such protection should be much more effective when used in conjunction with stealth, however. I suspect that even lowly chaff is going to make a big comeback among countermeasures (assuming that the F-22 or F-35 actually get targeted at some point). 🙂

Shooting down enemy aircraft – has perhaps no meaning in 21st-century warfare. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have no air force, nor do they coming to.

Except for airlines….

The threat are today merely the Russian or China but you can´t do anything else than discover them with your AESA and shoot your Meteor – the best man discover the foe more quickly by a skilfully operator and he is a senior operator with the “right eyes”.

Not all AESAs are equal, and not all “stealthy” targets are, either. Fighting F-22s and F-35s is not going to be like hunting cruise missiles at all, I can tell you that. It’s not going to be a fair fight–Raptors and Lightnings hide in the shadows and play dirty. This is not arrogance or nationalism speaking, it’s simply what these fighters were physically designed to do, and it’s presumably one of the reasons that they cost so much.

You can look inside off a microwave offen (mesh) but no microwave is transmitted outside.

This is basically how the F-117’s engines are hidden from view, with the intake area behaving as just another facet; while this method is ideal for stealth, it affects engine performance substantially, of course.

Is the distance between the baffels smaller as the wavelengt than block this the HF to travel inside of the duct. The first compressor stage is than invesible for a RADAR.

The B-1B’s system evidently affects engine performance at high speeds but not as much at lower speeds and thrust settings, and the same could probably be said for most other inline blockers.

However, it just occurred to me that with the exception of the F-117’s system, polarization may play some part in the effectiveness of radar blockers. The B-1B’s blockers are arranged in a single linear orientation, while more recent blockers mounted on aircraft such as the Super Hornet (mounted inside the intake near the engine–see the bottom-left attached image) and X-32 (mounted on the engine itself–see the bottom-right attached image) have a radial arrangement, but putting aside the specific configurations for the moment, they would all seem to allow some measurable amount of radiation to pass through, depending on the degree to which they behave as polarizers.

Because the vanes have to be somewhat narrow at the wavefront in order to allow sufficient airflow, the blockers probably do behave as polarizers, albeit poor ones that fortunately reflect more than half of the energy coming in (ideal polarizers would be thinner and transmit half of the energy). There is also a large portion of the area in question that can be blocked (and reflected onto RAM inside the intake duct) by rotating the vanes, which trades off between RCS and airflow. This tradeoff is fixed in the Super Hornet, and appears to be quite aggressive, actually. In contrast, the X-32’s vanes were movable, closing down as much as they could during cruise in order to minimize RCS, and opening up when higher thrust was required, which increased RCS. I don’t know how fully they could have blocked the engine’s face during cruise, but in theory you could get complete blockage with very wide-chord vanes at the cost of engine efficiency. Comments from those who have real knowledge about things like polarization are welcome. 🙂

This critical look at intake radar blockers brings us back to the question of the YF-23–with the engines removed from an otherwise intact airframe, you could see clear out the back of the airplane through the intake from some frontal angles, to which I first made reference in the following post:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1212122&postcount=305

Granted, the YF-23 was merely a demonstrator, but if the production F-23 was going to use internal radar blockers or a different intake design in order to hide the faces of its engines from radar, this would rightfully call into question its high-speed and supercruise capabilities vis-à-vis those that the YF-23 demonstrated, in my opinion. I don’t know whether this drawing I have of the F-23 (see the top-left attached image) is accurate, but it does show a different intake design.

Relating this side-discussion back to the main subject of the thread, although I don’t have the data to do the necessary calculations to get the real (at least theoretical) answers, I don’t think I like the idea of using radar blockers in VLO aircraft because I’ll always wonder whether flying fast or accelerating hard would significantly increase its vulnerability to powerful, sophisticated radars like the Irbis. However, this is a moot point because the F-22 and F-35 (not sure about the B-2) don’t need or use intake radar blockers, as far as I’m aware. The complete line-of-sight blockage in the F-35 is so obvious that no example is required, and the attached image (top-right) of an F-22’s intake and S-duct is rather conclusive, as well–if you visualize the location of the engine way in the back, there is no way that it would even be close to visible at any angle unless you crawled halfway up the duct. 🙂

Please tell me what kind of bombs more than the developed “small diametric bombs” planning for the F-22A and F-35A?

first, i get the impression you aren’t impressed with SDBs. If so, you are sadly mistaken. These are the future of CAS. Obviously there will be situations that call for other weapons, but the SDB is very formidable.

It is formidable indeed. One of the most common types of munitions used these days is the 500-lb GBU, and the vast majority of those targets could be taken out by a much smaller bomb at this level of precision, while reducing the probability of collateral damage. Additionally, the SDB can penetrate much like a 2000-lb BLU-109, it has fold-out wings that extend its range to more than 60 miles (even longer when launched at high altitude and speed from an F-22), and it can incorporate a thermal seeker for mobile targets (GBU-40).

F-22 – 1000 lb JDAM, WCMD

With regard to 1000-lb JDAMs, the F-22 can use both the GBU-32 (Mk 83 warhead) and the GBU-35 (BLU-110 warhead). In addition, its four wing hardpoints–all of which are capable of carrying heavy loads–are wired for smart munitions. Although there are no current plans to clear the carriage and launch of external air-to-ground weapons (just additional AMRAAMs along with fuel tanks for now), the potential is there for it to be developed into a very capable strike platform with only minimal modifications.

You can´t only look at the stealth capability as your insurance which only is functional in the frontal aspect
Irtusk: F-22 has all aspect stealth
Roffe: Are you quite sure?

yes

it’s not equally effective from all angles, but it’s still ‘stealth’ from most angles

Due to planform alignment, the F-22 has four major lobes (in roughly the shape of an “X”) that result in potential radar “glints”; these are mitigated as much as possible using RAM and RAS, I’m sure, but this is the major weakness in its stealth capability. However, these glints are narrow enough that even momentary detection by enemy radar would be very seldom, as well as largely avoidable since the situational awareness picture presented to the pilot shows him intuitively all he needs to know in order to remain undetected. The F-22’s stealth is best at the front, but from all other aspects, aside from the glints, it’s nearly as good. And even if the RCS of the side and rear aspects is several times that of the front, this translates to maybe a ~30% increase in detection range, which is still probably at the WVR level for typical fighter radars–most likely you’ll see the F-22 before your radar does.

To sum up all questions in some cases is a matter of taste if your Defence Force has an unlimited quantity of money – but to send a $265 Billion aircraft in a warzone piloted by only one pilot without possibility to equip the aircraft with an operator don´t feel me satisfactory, especially when there already are cheaper and fully competent multi role aircrafts on the market as more are suited for strike roles.

The world is in a constant state of change, and combat is no exception. Newer SAM systems have made even the best non-stealth fighters too vulnerable, and some of these otherwise highly capable fighters are available to just about anyone. In recent decades, the USAF has not had to face the best that the rest of the world has to offer in combat, so they can’t afford to be complacent and expect that they will always have the same level of success.

Regarding the cost of the F-22 specifically, I see different numbers quoted by different people for different purposes at different times. All I know is that while it is relatively expensive, the more the USAF buys, the cheaper each unit will get due to economies of scale that have not yet been realized in this case. They believe that it’s worthwhile, and so do I.

Anyhow four eyes are always better than two even if your plane is automatic superintended by a skilfully crew via data link at the other side of the globe.

Aren’t six eyes better than four, though? Why do you settle for just two crewmembers when three can accomplish more work or constantly scan more of the sky?

Every second you can’t be commanded from a another place when a threat is going on but of course there are many situations I suppose a pilot workload better can be solved with a support. Despite that a pilot eye is better used together with an operator using his AESA, IRST, NCW.info, internet protocols a.s.o.

You’re always so concerned about operating sensors like the AESA radar, but in reality the F-22 and F-35 operate the radar for you. For the most part, you just choose which displays you want up and set the EMCON level, and the avionics will give you a coherent picture of the combat zone. Pilots don’t have to worry about how it’s actually done or which sensors are being used, and can focus on the more important tasks that require his attention.

To avoid close dog fight an operator is the best assurance for a survive, I am sure.

I’m not sure what you mean. The pilot still needs to have a visual sense of where he needs to fly in order to avoid dogfights. That’s what his tactical screens will show him quite intuitively at a glance, with no manual operation of the sensors necessary. It’s different from previous generations of fighters.

F-22A and F-35A are stealth in some angles in the front aspect

As pointed out above, the F-22 has all-aspect stealth. I assume that the F-35 is similar but do not yet have confirmation, so I can’t comment on that right now; it’s probably a safe bet that it does have all-aspect stealth to a high degree, though.

but to fly such an expensive aircraft and only trying to point at your foe seems for me funny like those times when a pilot was searching up headings for Doppler-Zero to avoid to be hit by this age missiles during the 80th.

No, all you have to do is avoid the engagement envelopes of enemy systems, and maneuver into favorable positions for attacking them. All of the necessary information is presented graphically on a single display. You don’t have to look at a strange (aren’t they all?) RWR display and mentally interpret and integrate that information along with data from various sensors in order to formulate your tactics. Just imagining having to go through this process during the heat of combat almost makes me feel anxious, but it’s a lot easier in the F-22 (and I would think the F-35).

According to the small diametric bombs – how effective are they as bunker-bombs?

They can penetrate 6 feet of steel-reinforced concrete, and even more deeply into softer material. The explosive effects are limited, obviously, but it doesn’t usually take much in such an enclosed volume once the penetration has occurred. And its fuse has a number of different modes for different classes of target, of course.

If F-35 A2G can carry six 200lb bombs – why use them on a so expensive aircraft? You can’t be stealth in close air support or in dog fight!

They shouldn’t have to dogfight once the F-22s take care of enemy air defenses and fighters. If, however, the situation is less than ideal, then they’ll have to carry fewer large bombs internally and/or SDBs, but at least they are far more survivable in this mode of operation. Stealth gives you options, not limitations.

A look with your eyes in the HMD and a press on the button for an IR missile is sufficient and you can do it from a well IRST equipped F-86 Sabre or likely.

Why should anyone buy Gripens, then, when a much cheaper F-86 would do?

Having a 2nd person in the cockpit comparing having a pair with only one pilot each in the sky – what do you prefer?

I’d prefer three or more, but in the big picture, it’s not worthwhile, and with the automation that can be done today, two is no longer worthwhile, either, for most missions.

Why not use two-seaters but use the second with only one pilot (the second place empty)? You can in any case handle free after the threat and you always are able to use the best. With F-35A you always have the best but without an operator – do you understand my point to procure two seat aircrafts?

I get your point, but then the aircraft would have to sacrifice something, such as range.

Papa Bush and Junior Bush are not Conservatives.

I’m not into hardcore politics, but aren’t these guys generally considered “Neoconservatives” like Reagan? This ideology appears to be a good fit, and many would indeed argue that Neoconservatives are not true Conservatives.