F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[ThunderBolt]

but it still doesn't make sence from a training point of view to allways "war game" from a point of overwhelming advantage. It could even be considered reckless. The Falklands is a great example of a war that didn't fit expected peramiters. You would think it would be positive to train on even terms, or even at a dissadvantage from time to time. I mean if you are purely simulating an expected conflict with a particular enemy, and the enemy was at a massive dissadvantage, then it makes sence to use expected tactics against expected threats with all your capabilities, including the F 22. But to allwas insist on an advantage, and never meet a unit of comperable size, and always without arty and AA is irresponsable. What happens when an individual unit does meet a similar sized unit with Arty and AA who knows how to handle thierself? A real nasty shock i'd say.

I agree with you 100%. I mean if not exersice with disadvantage, atleast train fairly. And oh by the way, how US forces did in Fallujah, they used the same unfair advantage. M1A2's, Bradleys, F-18's and what not. There is a video somewhere on the net, where the US forces start to take sniper fire from a building, and they call in an airstrike to neutralize the threat, which I think is totally fair because if you got the resources than might as well use them, but look at it this way, what if they were fighting against a different enemy with much more capablities, all of a sudden you just can't call in airstrikes to eliminate the sniper threat. lol, I have braced my self for a backlash, we Canadians are allies with the US, so please don't sack me for what i just said.

Any ways back to the F-22 topic. They way the F-22 is to be used is somewhat like this. Since F-22 are expensive to maintain, US would only use them when absolutly required. At a begining of a confilict, F-22's go in shoot long range missilies destroy as many opfor aircrafts, and turn back once they are out of ammo. And do this for a couple of days, and bam they have total airsuppiriorty with minimal allied loses. And now F-22 are not need, F-16, F15, F18's can handle the rest.

 

[rabs]

Since F-22 are expensive to maintain, US would only use them when absolutly required

I thought one of the main missions of the F-22 was to be easier to maintain than the F-15?

you just can't call in air strikes to eliminate the sniper threat. lol, I have braced my self for a backlash, we Canadians are allies with the US, so please don't sack me for what i just said.

Your correct the US is not prepared to fight a war were it doesn't have dominance every aspect of the war. Thats why you see so much effort in the US to maintain that edge. With programs like the raptor and lighting 2, and the 600+ billion dollar defense budget.

 

[DarthAmerica]

They way the F-22 is to be used is somewhat like this. Since F-22 are expensive to maintain, US would only use them when absolutly required. At a begining of a confilict, F-22's go in shoot long range missilies destroy as many opfor aircrafts, and turn back once they are out of ammo. And do this for a couple of days, and bam they have total airsuppiriorty with minimal allied loses. And now F-22 are not need, F-16, F15, F18's can handle the rest.

F-22's are not that expensive to maintain and would be available at the descression of the COMCOMs anywhere around the world. The F-22 would go in with initial bombardment either before or just after and using their stealth and energy advantage would sweep Enemy fighter CAPs out of the way of incoming strike packages. The F-22 would also engage enemy SAMs and EW radars. During this period they would also benefit from EW support. As the enemy begins respond the F-22 SA would be used to provide cuing for legacy fighters performing strike and fighter missions. Roaming around at > 60k ft the F-22 would be able to survey large areas of the battlespace out of range of most threats and likely undetected.

The enemy would certainly know he was under attack. But by H+1 his view of the situation would be severely degraded and his ability to coordinate his defense degraded as well. Where threat aircraft managed to scramble F-22's, F-15's and F/A-18E/F would swarm and overwhelm them. It wouldn't necessarily be a matter of numerical superiority. It's more related to information superiority. Because the USAF/USN will know in real time what the enemy is doing and where. Assets can be massed at those locations to destroy the enemy. The F-22's altitude advantage and battle management capability puts real time responsive ISR in enemy airspace. The F-22 is not done fighting simply because it is out of missiles.

One or two squadrons of F-22's(40 aircraft) attached to a COMCOM would be enough to handle any conceivable opponent.


DA


Reference:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2007/0207raptor.html

 

[ThunderBolt]

F-22's are not that expensive to maintain and would be available at the descression of the COMCOMs anywhere around the world. The F-22 would go in with initial bombardment either before or just after and using their stealth and energy advantage would sweep Enemy fighter CAPs out of the way of incoming strike packages. The F-22 would also engage enemy SAMs and EW radars. During this period they would also benefit from EW support. As the enemy begins respond the F-22 SA would be used to provide cuing for legacy fighters performing strike and fighter missions. Roaming around at > 60k ft the F-22 would be able to survey large areas of the battlespace out of range of most threats and likely undetected.

The enemy would certainly know he was under attack. But by H+1 his view of the situation would be severely degraded and his ability to coordinate his defense degraded as well. Where threat aircraft managed to scramble F-22's, F-15's and F/A-18E/F would swarm and overwhelm them. It wouldn't necessarily be a matter of numerical superiority. It's more related to information superiority. Because the USAF/USN will know in real time what the enemy is doing and where. Assets can be massed at those locations to destroy the enemy. The F-22's altitude advantage and battle management capability puts real time responsive ISR in enemy airspace. The F-22 is not done fighting simply because it is out of missiles.

One or two squadrons of F-22's(40 aircraft) attached to a COMCOM would be enough to handle any conceivable opponent.


DA


Reference:

http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2007/0207raptor.html

F-22 is not compelety stealthy, so the longer it stays in the air the larger the chance of loosing such an expensive weapon. Okay I might be wrong about the maintenece but its still way, and I mean way more expencive than most other aircrafts.

You are right about the fact that its not done for the F-22 once its out of ammo, by the way, for stealth purposes the missiles are housed inside the planes body, a trap door opens to let the missiles out, how many missilies can this jet hold inside its body.

 

[DarthAmerica]

F-22 is not compelety stealthy, so the longer it stays in the air the larger the chance of loosing such an expensive weapon. Okay I might be wrong about the maintenece but its still way, and I mean way more expencive than most other aircrafts.

You are right about the fact that its not done for the F-22 once its out of ammo, by the way, for stealth purposes the missiles are housed inside the planes body, a trap door opens to let the missiles out, how many missilies can this jet hold inside its body.

What do you mean that the F-22 is not completely stealthy. That was a critical design requirement. The F-22 is not invisible at all but threat radars and IR sensors would have to get well within lethal engagement ranges(a.k.a. visual range) to even have a chance to detect it in most cases. It employs wideband all aspect RF/IR LO features and LPI sensors and communications. How long it's in the air has nothing to do with the probability of its loss and the procurement cost of additional attrition replacement F-22s is under 100 million dollars. The USAF can and is prepared to take combat losses of its F-22s if that necessary to accomplish the mission. Always remember, whats expensive to you may not be to me. Rich people who crash Ferrari's usually don't have a problem replacing them compared to Middle Class people who crash Hondas.


DA


http://www.ausairpower.net/F_A-22A_weapons_load.png

 

[steve33]

I think the Raptors missile bay holds 8 missiles.

 

[rabs]

6 in the under carriage.

2 sidewinders in the side bays.

 

[ThunderBolt]

What do you mean that the F-22 is not completely stealthy. That was a critical design requirement. The F-22 is not invisible at all but threat radars and IR sensors would have to get well within lethal engagement ranges(a.k.a. visual range) to even have a chance to detect it in most cases. It employs wideband all aspect RF/IR LO features and LPI sensors and communications. How long it's in the air has nothing to do with the probability of its loss and the procurement cost of additional attrition replacement F-22s is under 100 million dollars. The USAF can and is prepared to take combat losses of its F-22s if that necessary to accomplish the mission. Always remember, whats expensive to you may not be to me. Rich people who crash Ferrari's usually don't have a problem replacing them compared to Middle Class people who crash Hondas.


DA


http://www.ausairpower.net/F_A-22A_weapons_load.png

What I meant was that, when the F-22 is using afterburners, there will deffinatly be a bigger heat signature. No plane in the world even the F117 is 100% stealthy, even that has a a very small signature, close to that of a big bird, so in most cases it goes ignored. The body structure and the material used cannot absorb or deflect the waves away from returning (that is all of them), so no matter what it still sends some, although very small like I said close to that of a bird, back to the radar. So in F-22's case when its bay doors are open, although they are also made so they reflect the least amount of waves back to the radar, would still increase the waves sent back.

Plus it would be a shame if we loose F-22's in a fight, to me I think its the safest jet made so far. Further more, unlike F117 I don't think F-22 has an intercoolling system that cools the exaust airs before they leave the jet, to further decrease detection by IR.

Oh by the way, how many hard points does it have.

 

[Tasman]

Plus it would be a shame if we loose F-22's in a fight, to me I think its the safest jet made so far.

It would be certainly be a shame to lose an F-22 in a fight but you're not suggesting that it shouldn't be deployed in any situation where losses are possible are you ThunderBolt?

I think one of the certainties of an effective weapon system is that we will lose some in war if we use it to maximum effect. A military that is not prepared for losses (even their shiniest, safest, best looking aircraft) is, IMO, unlikely to be victorious.

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

What I meant was that, when the F-22 is using afterburners, there will deffinatly be a bigger heat signature. No plane in the world even the F117 is 100% stealthy, even that has a a very small signature, close to that of a big bird, so in most cases it goes ignored. The body structure and the material used cannot absorb or deflect the waves away from returning (that is all of them), so no matter what it still sends some, although very small like I said close to that of a bird, back to the radar. So in F-22's case when its bay doors are open, although they are also made so they reflect the least amount of waves back to the radar, would still increase the waves sent back.

Plus it would be a shame if we loose F-22's in a fight, to me I think its the safest jet made so far. Further more, unlike F117 I don't think F-22 has an intercoolling system that cools the exaust airs before they leave the jet, to further decrease detection by IR.

Oh by the way, how many hard points does it have.

What are you basing these conclusions on? The F-22 is an extremely difficult IR target. "Wideband" stealth includes IR. More aircraft have been lost to IR weapons than RF weapons. It's one of the greatest threat. Also the F-22 bay doors aren't going to be open long enough for tracking or weapons guidance uplinks to threat missiles.

It seems that people look for the slightest reasons to invalidate the stealthiness of this jet without regard to the fact that stealth aircraft have been in combat for 20 to 30 years with only one combat loss that had nothing to do with signature management. No other platform has demonstrated that level of survivability.

Another thing is that it has to be remembered that stealth is 90% tactics, 10% technology. An F-22 isn't going to position itself in the FOV of a threat radar then open the bay unless absolutely necessary. It will use it's stealthiness to position itself on the flank or rear of an opponent where its outside the FOV of the threat sensors and at higher altitude. The threat aircraft will probably never even know the bay doors have been open until just prior to AMRAAM impact.



DA



Source:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/events/apr_01/apr01_events10.html

 

[ThunderBolt]

What are you basing these conclusions on? The F-22 is an extremely difficult IR target. "Wideband" stealth includes IR. More aircraft have been lost to IR weapons than RF weapons. It's one of the greatest threat. Also the F-22 bay doors aren't going to be open long enough for tracking or weapons guidance uplinks to threat missiles.

It seems that people look for the slightest reasons to invalidate the stealthiness of this jet without regard to the fact that stealth aircraft have been in combat for 20 to 30 years with only one combat loss that had nothing to do with signature management. No other platform has demonstrated that level of survivability.

Another thing is that it has to be remembered that stealth is 90% tactics, 10% technology. An F-22 isn't going to position itself in the FOV of a threat radar then open the bay unless absolutely necessary. It will use it's stealthiness to position itself on the flank or rear of an opponent where its outside the FOV of the threat sensors and at higher altitude. The threat aircraft will probably never even know the bay doors have been open until just prior to AMRAAM impact.



DA



Source:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/events/apr_01/apr01_events10.html

You do know that the enemy aircraft will know that the F-22 has a lock on it, so I really don't think they won't know that they are possibly hot. I mean come on, they enemy planes got chaf, and so it won't be bay doors open, bam! I do although agree on the fact that its more to tactics than technology perhaps not so much as 90:10, but with this type of training (the unfair advantage) we are never going to get anywhere.

 

[ThunderBolt]

It would be certainly be a shame to lose an F-22 in a fight but you're not suggesting that it shouldn't be deployed in any situation where losses are possible are you ThunderBolt?

I think one of the certainties of an effective weapon system is that we will lose some in war if we use it to maximum effect. A military that is not prepared for losses (even their shiniest, safest, best looking aircraft) is, IMO, unlikely to be victorious.

Cheers

No I am deffinatly not suggesting that, but what I really meant to say was that we have spent so much money and time on this project... well it better pay off, you know what I mean. Sure we would have to sacrifice, but the type of training during Red Flag, that just smell really bad, think about it, I mean sure its okay to send in sqaudrons of fighters, but atleast better prepared, not with a squadron who trained with an "unfair advantage".

 

[gf0012-aust]

You do know that the enemy aircraft will know that the F-22 has a lock on it,

?? The whole advantage lies in the fact that long range passive sensors mean that the enemy is locked and probably hit before they wake up.

Its the sensor systems and stealth in combination that mek the difference. You are using contemp processes inapprop.

 

[DarthAmerica]

You do know that the enemy aircraft will know that the F-22 has a lock on it, so I really don't think they won't know that they are possibly hot. I mean come on, they enemy planes got chaf, and so it won't be bay doors open, bam! I do although agree on the fact that its more to tactics than technology perhaps not so much as 90:10, but with this type of training (the unfair advantage) we are never going to get anywhere.

The F-22 uses the AN/APG-77 which is an LPI radar. LPI(Low Probability of Intercept). Essentially a stealthy radar. Conventional fighter RWR/ESM suites will not detect it. Also, the F-22 can launch AMRAAM from data provided by off board sensors such as AWACS or other F-22's. The only warning the threat gets is the Seeker of the AMRAAM going active a few seconds before impact.

As to the issue of unfair advantages. Haji wheres flip flops and robes, I wear an IBA and Bellvelle Boots. Do you think it does me any good to train in flip flops? The F-22's need to train the way they will fight so the tactical employment and doctrine can be worked out. We are getting tons of benefits from it.


Sources:

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/brochures/AESA_DFOISR_Edited_06_May_2003.pdf

http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2007/0207raptor.html

There is no supporting evidence AFAIK for your conclusions that we will not get anything out of this training. However, there is plenty to the contrary.


DA

 

[ThunderBolt]

?? The whole advantage lies in the fact that long range passive sensors mean that the enemy is locked and probably hit before they wake up.

Its the sensor systems and stealth in combination that mek the difference. You are using contemp processes inapprop.

Thnx man, that gives me a little bit clearer forecast.

 

[ThunderBolt]

As to the issue of unfair advantages. Haji wheres flip flops and robes, I wear an IBA and Bellvelle Boots. Do you think it does me any good to train in flip flops?


DA

Okay man, your post makes alot of sense, but you see what I am trying to say is that sure "Haji" (some people might find this insulting, because not all Arabs, Muslims, etc are Haji's, infact Haji's are those who are the ones who have made a pillgirmage to Meca and have done Haj, so they are the good people, you are just sterotyping muslims as terrorists!, and please don't go into yapping about me, I am not a "Haji" just pointing it out to you... anyways)wear flip flops and robes, but what do you do if they start wearing IBA and Bellvelle Boots!

 

[DarthAmerica]

Okay man, your post makes alot of sense, but you see what I am trying to say is that sure "Haji" (some people might find this insulting, because not all Arabs, Muslims, etc are Haji's, infact Haji's are those who are the ones who have made a pillgirmage to Meca and have done Haj, so they are the good people, you are just sterotyping muslims as terrorists!, and please don't go into yapping about me, I am not a "Haji" just pointing it out to you... anyways)wear flip flops and robes, but what do you do if they start wearing IBA and Bellvelle Boots!

Haji is meant as a colloquial term for Iraqi insurgents. No offense intended but its how we refer to them in theater. It is possible for them to use boots and armor of course and sometimes they do. But it's impractical for them to do this on a scale that would require regular training. They aren't logistically set up for it. Similarly with the F-22, threat nations may be able to pull a surprise or two. But generally they are unable to produce or procure competitive aircraft to the F-22. So training deals with the situations that are most likely to occur for similar logistical concerns. Training resources and time are finite.


DA

 

[Magoo]

Another thing is that it has to be remembered that stealth is 90% tactics, 10% technology.

One of the smartest things that has been said on this message board for a long, LONG time!!!

Good job DA. :cool2

Magoo

 

[ThunderBolt]

You know, I guess it really comes down to the swereness of the "unfair advantage", which I really don't know. Can someone tell me how bad is this advantage. What I mean to say is that, what exactly do they mean by this "unfair advantage", if its just the fact that the enemy doesn't have AWACS than thats just fair to not give AWACS to the red forces, but if its the fact about being outnumbered heavily, than the blue forces sounds like wussies.

What if some other country, other than and more capable than lets say Iran was to end up fighting against the US. How about (no-offence here) lets say Britain, or France or Germany. What do you do than, please don't tell me that its not going happen, there is a possiblity of everything. So what do you do than, cause USAF only trained with the "unfair advantage". And Darth, I thought that you could afford ferraries, what happened to the infinite resources and why are we talking about less resources now. I think it only makes sense to train with atleast the same game, fair play, if not actually being at disadvantage. I mean surely these exerscies would be great moral boosters, but when the shit really hits the fan...

 

[rabs]

US forces fight in excersises were their advantages are neutered
(see cope India)

Admin: Please avoid the use of one liner comments. Please ensure that your comments are also coherent as possible. The above is not a good example of either