USAF Plans to sell F22's to "trusted allies" very soon
- Thread starter Sea Dog
- Start date
Apperantly you haven't been keeping up with FCS development. If you had you would know fire support won't be a problem.norinco89 said:
As opposing militaries 4th gen aircraft reach current levels of US 4th gen then it will be a fair fight. The US doesn't like fair fights.:nono
abramsteve
New Member
Actually I think it proves that someone has there head screwed on the right way. Just because you can get by with what you have doesnt mean you shouldnt try for something better, and in war having that better weapon may mean you save the lives of your pilots.norinco89 said:
The F-22 has come a long way since I remember reading articles about it being a 'pure' fighter, most of these articles coming from round the late 80s and early 90s
The F-22's cost a fraction when it comes to logistical support.
The F-22's can take over the role of a dozen different aircraft it doesn't require escorts and inflight refueling and AWAC requirements are reduced dramatically.
This works out to being a HUGE cost saving.
An example i heard was that regarding Gulf War One. Two squadrons of F-22's single handedly with no support could have hit all the targets and shot down the same amount of fighters that the 500+ aircraft did in the gulf.
Thats a huge statistic, even though its really only an educated guess by whoever made it up.
Then looking at the JSF i suppose that it would also be able to do similar roles of most aircraft in the theatre, however its ability to strike targets deep in baghdad would be no where near as strong as the F-117 or the F-22 for that matter. Its slower speed and performance surely it would have needed double or tripple the number of aircraft compared to the F-22. We then have alot more pilots lives at risk.
The F-22's can take over the role of a dozen different aircraft it doesn't require escorts and inflight refueling and AWAC requirements are reduced dramatically.
This works out to being a HUGE cost saving.
An example i heard was that regarding Gulf War One. Two squadrons of F-22's single handedly with no support could have hit all the targets and shot down the same amount of fighters that the 500+ aircraft did in the gulf.
Thats a huge statistic, even though its really only an educated guess by whoever made it up.
Then looking at the JSF i suppose that it would also be able to do similar roles of most aircraft in the theatre, however its ability to strike targets deep in baghdad would be no where near as strong as the F-117 or the F-22 for that matter. Its slower speed and performance surely it would have needed double or tripple the number of aircraft compared to the F-22. We then have alot more pilots lives at risk.
Whats so funny? I think its a very realistic estimate.Big-E said:
During the Gulf war a small number of F-117's hit 43% of the strategic targets. All of their missions were at night time, no dusk, dawn or day missions. This shows how a very small number of aircraft can take out alot of targets.
Two Squadrons of F-22's however could fly around the clock not restriced to night time operations. I'd say they could fly tripple times the number of sorties compared to the F-117's, with multiple pilots per aircraft.
3 times 43% would allow the two squadrons of F-22's to hit all strategic targets during the war with time to spare for lower priority targets. Thats not even including the use of small diameter bombs that would allow a single aircraft to hit multiple targets per sortie.
The F-22's could provide air defence and close air support during their strike missions as their would always be atleast a handfull of F-22's over iraq air space at any given moment.
All the different capabilities provided by the aircraft in the gulf, the F-22's could do each of these aircrafts roles just fine, or that role would be made redudant if the F-22's were used. E.g no need for Electronic jamming aircraft as the F-22 dont require them.
Obviously this doesn't include airlift, helicopters or tankers. Just combat fighter/bomber aircraft.
This is true which explains why the US Airforces new "future strike package" consists of only F-22 and B-2 bombers.
Gee i sound like the im a fanboy of the F-22...
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It is also a matter of assigning appropriate munitions for appropriate targets. If you need a 2000lb PGM or a bunker buster for a particular target then the 250lb SDM or 1000lb JDAM may not be able to do the job. And many strategic targets would fall into that category.
The SDM is a very promising weapon, but there is also limitations.
The abilty to carry ground attack ordnance of the F-22A seems to me to be a "First Day of War" capability to provide volume and to strike particularily difficult targets.
The SDM is a very promising weapon, but there is also limitations.
The abilty to carry ground attack ordnance of the F-22A seems to me to be a "First Day of War" capability to provide volume and to strike particularily difficult targets.
contedicavour
New Member
Sorry, but I don't get the point : given its cost, why risk a F-22 in anything else than pure air-to-air combat against the most advanced Sukhoi ? That's its reason to believe, as we say in marketingGrand Danois said:
:contedicavour
New Member
Agree, why not. However I wouldn't take the least risk with a 150+ -million-dollar jet. Why expose it to a Stinger or an anti-aircraft gun such as the Russian 23-mm sold to most countries who belonged to the former soviet block ? Even the stealthiest of jets can be seen when flying low altitude...Big-E said:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
That's also what I think it should do. But it can do niche targets as well.contedicavour said:
Neither would I. Western AF try to get out of the range of those weapons, lest they want a "Desert Storm Tornado Experience. I guess the F-22 would do the same.contedicavour said:
contedicavour
New Member
Exactly what I had in mind : in 1991 in Iraq we lost a Tornado IDS flying over an enemy air base at 30 metre altitude... it had evaded SAMs but got hit by 23mm flak guns...
Your missing the point. No stealth plane will fly at low altitude.contedicavour said:
With the current technology of GPS guided bombs an F-22 could provide close air support without even going low altitude. Aircraft no longer have to go in visual range.
With SAR radar the F-22 can search for targets from afar such as tanks, it can find targets from 50 miles anyway, and then loft a small diameter bomb from 40,000ft a few miles away from the target.
The same thing can be applied for targets of oppurtunity, ground forces can supply the aircraft with exact GPS co-ordinates. The F-22's can cover alot of ground quickly to take out the target, providing excellent air support.
Close air support no longer requires the aircraft to come close to ground forces. The A-10's have to stay low altitude because thats the only way they can find targets due to their lack of high technology.
Ah yes, I see your using my argument against CAS. I didn't intend for them to use dumb bombs so they could get within range of said short range AA systems. I meant for them to carry stand off weapons like high altitude JDAM and LGB drops and HARM or SLAM missile strikes.contedicavour said:
contedicavour
New Member
This implies however that your enemy has no anti-air capability left and no AEW planes of its own. Air superiority is no guarantee. If you are planning on attacking a column of tanks with standoff weapons from say 4 miles altitude and 50 miles away, enemy AEW assets can spot you while launching. You would still be the target of SU-30s and improved versions of the S-300 anti-air missiles. So unless you own the skies completely, it would still be a good idea to send dedicated CAS planes attack the target while fighters do their job of fighters.rjmaz1 said:
Besides, since most targets today are cells of a dozen guerrillas/terrorists rapidly moving around urban centers, standoff missiles and so on will be useless and you'll still need the good old CAS planes.
I am becoming very doubtful of all these arguments implying technology solves everything and that all that you have to do is punch a button 50 miles away
In such a scenario I guess you better understand my point : keep those wonderful F22 far away and let them do the job they've been built to do... and keep enough A10s but also F16s and eventually JSFs to do their job.
I said the F-22 CAN provide close air support from High altitude, however obviously it would be benificial to use the aircraft in other area's. No other aircraft currently in service can find and kill small targets such as tanks from high altitude. So if you have to stay at low altitude you may as well use A-10's.Waylander said:
The F-15E is probably the only aircraft that can search and track however the small diameter bombs that would be used for this mission aren't out yet so the A-10's are the only option.
Also its not cost effectivice to spend 50 billion dollars to replace the A-10's with F-22s, when the A-10's do the job. The airforce dont even want to buy enough F-22 for air to air missions let alone ground attack, so definitely the A-10's have to be kept.
If the US could afford 1000 F-22's They could retire the majority of the combat aircraft and replace them with just F-22's.
Thats why they should buy less JSF's and more F-22's.
On a different note... the whole reason the F-16 was conceived was to counter the threat of the US being out numbered by small/cheap Mig-21's. However enemy airforces are now buying advanced aircraft in fewer numbers so the USAF doesn't need the Hi-Lo mix of aircraft which the JSF is meant to provide. They should just buy high level F-22 aircraft, and cut the JSF order by half.
That is why the F-22 is great, it can sit on Mach 2 and destory these terrorist cells where as the F-16, A-10 and JSF will get there too late.contedicavour said:
The F-16 would have to use full afterburner and inflight refuel just to reach the target
Last edited:
Based on current budgetary figures, if the JSF orders were cut by half, the US DoD could afford to buy over 1,000 Raptors. Based on recent rumblings that the JSF Program Budget is likely to bust through the US$300bn figure by September this year (if not sooner), this figure would move closer to 1,300+ Raptors.