F-22 Awesomeness

[BusyLittleShop]

Although the F35 is the best VTOL ever... its no match for a dedicated
scrapper like the Raptor... the F22 would still dominate in a dog
fight... the only way you'll see an F22 caught in a F35s gun sight is
if it's runway is bomb crater...

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by Astro14


What you see at the airshow is proof of the incredible airframe/engine performance,


As you know, that's all most of us get to see. Even so, I truly look forward to watching the F22 perform. All that noise warms my heart!

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
As for the posts about dogfighting not being meaningful, that's what they said before Vietnam.

When they said it then, it was an expectation based on early scenarios and testing.

When they say it now, it's an observation based on decades of experience.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
As for the posts about dogfighting not being meaningful, that's what they said before Vietnam.

When they said it then, it was an expectation based on early scenarios and testing.

When they say it now, it's an observation based on decades of experience.


I disagree.

Don't know who "they" are, but "they" are wrong to make the argument that dogfighting is no longer meaningful.

We haven't seen a dogfight (which I'm going to call BFM, or visual engagement with basic fighter maneuvers) in decades, because, frankly, we haven't faced a credible air force. Afghanistan didn't have one. Iraq didn't have one (they used to, but we took care of that in 1991).

But our lack of recent combat BFM does not mean that it's an irrelevant capability. War of the future may not go the way we think. BFM remains an important capability. Yes, in 1959, the air to air missile eliminated the need for a gun, because there would be no more dogfighting... but real combat with a determined enemy changed our outlook.

Long range missile shots presumes that the enemy will show up on your scope at long range, or that they will show up at all (stealth changes that). The fighter pilot of the future may well find themselves in a short-range, pure maneuvering fight.

Now, granted, current all-aspect, high off-boresight missiles, have changed the nature of a close range fight, but countermeasures to sensors, and enemy tactics, took away the long range fight in Vietnam. Not at all hard to imagine a future scenario in which a combination of adversary technology and tactics precludes the long range fight, and pilots are, once again, in a short range, BFM fight.

If you find yourself in a BFM fight, it sure would be nice to have an airplane that is good at it.

The F-35 is good at it. The F-22 is simply awesome at it.

 

[bubbatime]

Honestly, the future is drones. We should be building thousands of predator style drones. The Chinese will figure this out and they wont care about us having an F22. If they sent 1000 drones towards Los Angeles, we wont be able to stop that. We might be able to shoot down 300 of them, but 700 will still get through. Drones can be mass produced on a massive scale, and flown by smart 18-20 year old Chinese kids that are good at video games back in China.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by bubbatime
Honestly, the future is drones. We should be building thousands of predator style drones. The Chinese will figure this out and they wont care about us having an F22. If they sent 1000 drones towards Los Angeles, we wont be able to stop that. We might be able to shoot down 300 of them, but 700 will still get through. Drones can be mass produced on a massive scale, and flown by smart 18-20 year old Chinese kids that are good at video games back in China.


Drones are great for strike - give it a target and it will go kill it. If it's stealthy - so much the better.

By the way, we've been doing that for decades - it's called a "missile". Works great. You can shoot down a Predator even easier than a missile - they're slower, bigger, and less maneuverable. Killing them in waves would simply be an ammo problem. Not a targeting problem. Not an engagement problem.

But if you think a drone can handle the information flow, and make decisions, in real time (often split seconds), in the cockpit, like a fighter pilot, I think we are several generations of computing power, and sensors, away from that.

A driverless car can't handle a city street - why would a driverless airplane be able to handle the complexities of air combat? It's several orders of magnitude more difficult.

If you're suggesting that a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV), which is what the Predator is, can handle air combat, I would love to be the guy that takes on that drone. Data-links and displays have latency, up to several seconds. Give me a drone that has to wait several seconds to react, and it's like running a football play against a team that can't move for several seconds after the snap....or a wrestler that can't move until seconds after his opponent moves... taking on an RPV in air to air combat would be like clubbing baby seals.

Our current RPVs are remotely piloted for missions, but they operate in a benign environment, no threat, and that latency means that they cannot be landed by the remote pilot. They must auto-land or be landed by a pilot on site. If an RPV can't handle a landing, it sure can't handle BFM.

A 1000 drones remotely piloted? Sure...what's the data link? I simply have to jam/deny/hack that and poof...no more drones getting to their target... No need for a kinetic kill at all... I like the hacking better - send them all back to their point of launch with our compliments...

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi
As for the posts about dogfighting not being meaningful, that's what they said before Vietnam.

When they said it then, it was an expectation based on early scenarios and testing.

When they say it now, it's an observation based on decades of experience.


I disagree.

Don't know who "they" are, but "they" are wrong to make the argument that dogfighting is no longer meaningful.

We haven't seen a dogfight (which I'm going to call BFM, or visual engagement with basic fighter maneuvers) in decades, because, frankly, we haven't faced a credible air force. Afghanistan didn't have one. Iraq didn't have one (they used to, but we took care of that in 1991).

But our lack of recent combat BFM does not mean that it's an irrelevant capability. War of the future may not go the way we think. BFM remains an important capability. Yes, in 1959, the air to air missile eliminated the need for a gun, because there would be no more dogfighting... but real combat with a determined enemy changed our outlook.

Long range missile shots presumes that the enemy will show up on your scope at long range, or that they will show up at all (stealth changes that). The fighter pilot of the future may well find themselves in a short-range, pure maneuvering fight.

Now, granted, current all-aspect, high off-boresight missiles, have changed the nature of a close range fight, but countermeasures to sensors, and enemy tactics, took away the long range fight in Vietnam. Not at all hard to imagine a future scenario in which a combination of adversary technology and tactics precludes the long range fight, and pilots are, once again, in a short range, BFM fight.

If you find yourself in a BFM fight, it sure would be nice to have an airplane that is good at it.

The F-35 is good at it. The F-22 is simply awesome at it.

Always appreciate your posts, Astro14.

I don't think "not meaningful" was meant literally. There was a bit of whisper-down-the-lane here, but I'm pretty sure the original sentiment was simple hyperbole in response to the implication that if a plane is useless if it can't dominate every single dogfight. Pretty sure we all understand dogfighting is important.

Or maybe I'm just projecting my own thinking on others...

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

I think the consideration is, if your fighter has a weakness, a credible opponent will find a way to exploit it. If you build a fighter that can't dogfight well, your enemy will do whatever is necessary to force you into dogfights.
We went into Vietnam with fighters employing early generation long range radar missiles that weren't effective because of of a number of reasons. Over complicated systems that often failed, rules of engagement that required visual identification of the target to prevent fratricide, an enemy that stayed in ground clutter until he popped up on your 6 in heat missile range, etc. We ended up in a lot of dogfights we weren't prepared for. A fighter that can't dogfight is a target.

There is one big problem with the F-22. Not enough of them. IMO, the mistakes we have made include not buying enough of the throughly tested F-22s (the marginal cost of additional aircraft when the production line was open wasn't much more than current F-35s), and contracting large numbers of F-35s before they were tested.

Not really my ricebowl, but I really wonder how stealth will be maintained in a harsh environment with funding constraints like the Marine Corps faces. The F-35 does not seem to be a cost effective way to meet their requirements. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

 

[cjcride]

Just saw the F-22 last weekend at Toronto CNE Airshow. Very impressed.
F-16 Thunderbirds were the icing on the cake, last time they were here was 15 years ago.

 

[Brigadier]

Originally Posted by bubbatime
We should have like 30 of these in the inventory. Long loiter times, great for ground troop support, cheap to own and maintain compared to everything else we have. We have had complete air superiority in almost every conflict in the past 20 years, so these things would be fine for most of the engagements we find ourselves in.

A29 Super Turcano

Why do we need those when we have the A-10?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
I think the consideration is, if your fighter has a weakness, a credible opponent will find a way to exploit it. If you build a fighter that can't dogfight well, your enemy will do whatever is necessary to force you into dogfights.

Of course. That doesn't mean they'll be successful, let alone successful enough to offset your advantages.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Astro14
But our lack of recent combat BFM does not mean that it's an irrelevant capability. War of the future may not go the way we think. BFM remains an important capability. Yes, in 1959, the air to air missile eliminated the need for a gun, because there would be no more dogfighting... but real combat with a determined enemy changed our outlook.

Long range missile shots presumes that the enemy will show up on your scope at long range, or that they will show up at all (stealth changes that). The fighter pilot of the future may well find themselves in a short-range, pure maneuvering fight.

The F-35 is good at it. The F-22 is simply awesome at it.


The F-22 has a 20 mm 6-barrel rotary cannon with 480 rounds.
The F-35 has a 25 mm 4-barrel rotary cannon with 180 rounds.

These fighters still employ guns, probably for the very reasons you state ... in case they do get into a very close quarters dog fight. Then maneuverability, speed, pilot skill and a gun is all you have.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted by Astro14
.. taking on an RPV in air to air combat would be like clubbing baby seals.


Ouch.

Originally Posted by Astro14
Our current RPVs are remotely piloted for missions, .... they cannot be landed by the remote pilot. They must auto-land or be landed by a pilot on site.


Our local ANG guys allegedly traded off their A-10's for Predators. I say allegedly because while it is clear the A-10's are gone, I have never seen a UAV in the air around here. Wherever the airframes are, it's not here. And I see the local airport a lot since my warehouse of junk borders it, and I live in the pattern ....

I was mowing it Saturday, and got a rear quartering view of an airplane at about 150' AGL departing; one I hadn't seen before. It took a second or so for me to realize it was an F-22 or F-35. I think it was the former. Guess he had stopped for gas, or just shot a touch and go. He didn't stay in the pattern, just went straight out to the east ..... fast.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by camrydriver111
Canada was going to purchase them but we were put off by the price and it became a big political fight.

As I mentioned before, I swear we still have helicopters in our military where Sikorsky himself probably dropped a wrench, not to mention the Sopwith Camels we still have on order.

 

[turtlevette]

What's Canada's defense budget?

I think these things are too pricy for us. How many children can 250 million feed?


I'm not convinced they can't be taken out with low tech methods like a barrage of cheap missiles.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by turtlevette
What's Canada's defense budget?

Low enough that we haven't replaced helicopters that should have been replaced decades ago. The real problem here is the procurement process just gets politicized, and without getting into the politics of it, every government cancels what someone else tries to implement out of spite, and then the net result is nothing gets done. A "deal" happens, someone else revises/cancels it, someone else changes things again, next people go back to where it started....

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by turtlevette
I'm not convinced they can't be taken out with low tech methods like a barrage of cheap missiles.


What's the difference between a missile that can't lock on and twenty missiles that can't lock on?

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by turtlevette
I'm not convinced they can't be taken out with low tech methods like a barrage of cheap missiles.


What's the difference between a missile that can't lock on and twenty missiles that can't lock on?


Statistics.

The f22 is so finicky we can't keep them in the air. Let's buy more stuff that doesn't work.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by turtlevette
I'm not convinced they can't be taken out with low tech methods like a barrage of cheap missiles.


What's the difference between a missile that can't lock on and twenty missiles that can't lock on?


The math teacher resident in me says "nineteen".

By barrage fire of cheap missiles, do you mean ballistic (unguided) missiles? If so, that would not have a very high probability of kill. Barrage fire of a large number of anti aircraft guns (also ballistic projectiles) was employed by Vietnam and Iraq with very limited success against low and medium altitude aircraft. Most stealth aircraft are employed above that threat envelope when it is present.

And as mentioned, a guided missile that can't lock on won't be effective no matter how many are launched.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

Originally Posted by turtlevette


The f22 is so finicky we can't keep them in the air. Let's buy more stuff that doesn't work.



There is no question that stealth aircraft take more maintenance than conventional aircraft, but Raptor operational readiness rates are down, like almost every other aircraft in the Air Force inventory, because they are being flown at a high rate in combat conditions and spare parts have been underfunded for years. With the current budget, that will improve.