I was rattling your cage a bit as you were a bit of a moving target with the name, but mea culpa anyway....
F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
contedicavour
New Member
Interesting thread... but to go back to topic, why would anyone with good sense risk the most expensive air-to-air fighter ever built on air-to-ground operations ?
Good to know that given its characteristics it can also perform secondary air to ground missions, but USAF will most likely never use it in such a role. Neither will the only other air force that could eventually one day buy it (the Japanese).
Somebody will end up commenting on ASW role soon enough
cheers
?Good to know that given its characteristics it can also perform secondary air to ground missions, but USAF will most likely never use it in such a role. Neither will the only other air force that could eventually one day buy it (the Japanese).
Somebody will end up commenting on ASW role soon enough
cheers
Simple
Obviously some have more good sense than others. There is nothing secondary about the F-22's air to surface capabilities both now and, more so, into the future.
The reason is simple. It is all about achieving and maintaining the Air Power State known as 'Air Dominance'. It is the one which closes the loop on weapons' effectiveness and, by definition, is above the state known as 'Air Supremacy' which, in turn, is the state above 'Air Superiority'. After all, that is what this particular air power system was actually, in an engineering and operational sense, designed to achieve. Others that have not been designed with air dominance as their charter from the ground up are now trying to be bootstrapped into this league by the marketeers with their hype and spin.
The 'salesmen's' attempts at trying to make out their machines are 'air dominance fighters' (aka pseudo 5th Gens) is one of the reasons why Don Gaddis is copping so much flack in the Pentagon and the trade mags at the moment. Systems alone do not an air dominance fighter make!
Kicking down the door on Day 1 is not all about air-to-air kills - far from it. It is about being able to do both, at will, plus a whole lot more (eg. data hovering, etc) throughout the whole air combat continuum, while staying outside the other guys kill envelope, whether he be in the air or on the surface.
Interesting thread... but to go back to topic, why would anyone with good sense risk the most expensive air-to-air fighter ever built on air-to-ground operations
Good to know that given its characteristics it can also perform secondary air to ground missions, but USAF will most likely never use it in such a role. Neither will the only other air force that could eventually one day buy it (the Japanese).
Somebody will end up commenting on ASW role soon enough
cheers
Obviously some have more good sense than others. There is nothing secondary about the F-22's air to surface capabilities both now and, more so, into the future.
The reason is simple. It is all about achieving and maintaining the Air Power State known as 'Air Dominance'. It is the one which closes the loop on weapons' effectiveness and, by definition, is above the state known as 'Air Supremacy' which, in turn, is the state above 'Air Superiority'. After all, that is what this particular air power system was actually, in an engineering and operational sense, designed to achieve. Others that have not been designed with air dominance as their charter from the ground up are now trying to be bootstrapped into this league by the marketeers with their hype and spin.
The 'salesmen's' attempts at trying to make out their machines are 'air dominance fighters' (aka pseudo 5th Gens) is one of the reasons why Don Gaddis is copping so much flack in the Pentagon and the trade mags at the moment. Systems alone do not an air dominance fighter make!
Kicking down the door on Day 1 is not all about air-to-air kills - far from it. It is about being able to do both, at will, plus a whole lot more (eg. data hovering, etc) throughout the whole air combat continuum, while staying outside the other guys kill envelope, whether he be in the air or on the surface.
contedicavour
New Member
I guess it all comes down to the usual argument mission-specific jets versus multi-role ones. For air forces that can afford to operate and maintain more than one type, I believe it makes sense to buy pure fighters on one side and fighter-bombers on the other side.Obviously some have more good sense than others. There is nothing secondary about the F-22's air to surface capabilities both now and, more so, into the future.
The reason is simple. It is all about achieving and maintaining the Air Power State known as 'Air Dominance'. It is the one which closes the loop on weapons' effectiveness and, by definition, is above the state known as 'Air Supremacy' which, in turn, is the state above 'Air Superiority'. After all, that is what this particular air power system was actually, in an engineering and operational sense, designed to achieve. Others that have not been designed with air dominance as their charter from the ground up are now trying to be bootstrapped into this league by the marketeers with their hype and spin.
The 'salesmen's' attempts at trying to make out their machines are 'air dominance fighters' (aka pseudo 5th Gens) is one of the reasons why Don Gaddis is copping so much flack in the Pentagon and the trade mags at the moment. Systems alone do not an air dominance fighter make!
Kicking down the door on Day 1 is not all about air-to-air kills - far from it. It is about being able to do both, at will, plus a whole lot more (eg. data hovering, etc) throughout the whole air combat continuum, while staying outside the other guys kill envelope, whether he be in the air or on the surface.
Although flexibility is indispensable and you need to adapt to face whatever enemy comes along, the F22 was conceived to beat up the latest generation Flankers even when heavily outnumbered. They weren't conceived for bombing rounds on enemy ships & tanks because the jet is stealthy
since that is precisely why the F35 is being developed.In Europe at least we made a clear choice, with the Typhoon for air-to-air (even if the 2nd batch technically has multi-role capabilities and the potential 3rd batch will be fully multi-role => though this capability is mostly for export purposes) and F35 for air-to-surface role (the real heir to the Panavia Tornado IDS)
Last but not least, even the superb F22 is vulnerable to the lucky missile shot from the ground if it is flying low on bombing missions. It is however almost unbeatable in air-to-air role and since the USAF doesn't exactly have lots of them, let them use it appropriately (180 F22 vs at least 800 F35s USAF/USN).
cheers
Sorry if I missed previous comment to this effect, but with retirement of F-117, isn't F-22 the most logical choice among current operational aircraft to undertake its mission?
Considering the expense of maintaining F-117's and the capability of F-22 to do it faster, better and with lower risk of loss, it seems like a decision that would appeal to ops and bean counters.
Considering the expense of maintaining F-117's and the capability of F-22 to do it faster, better and with lower risk of loss, it seems like a decision that would appeal to ops and bean counters.
Good Points
The F-22 was conceived to beat up the latest generation Flankers - this is true. But it was also conceived to beat up the latest SAMs - both surviving in while surgically dealing with the Day 1 IADS till this is defeated and neutralised.
Also, conception is one thing but it is how this ends up being implemented that counts.
I would agree putting the F-22 into the CAS role down amongst small arms fire, MANPADS and Zsu's is not a proper or cost/risk effective use of its capabilities. However, why would you need to once the air dominance state is achieved? Far better to use assets with capabilities more suited to this environment, particularly since the F-22 will have removed the threats of attack from the air and high capability SAMs.
However, this does not preclude their use and the growing effectiveness of same in the high altitude persistent precision bombardment (eg. kill box interdiction) role, particularly with the growing stocks of small, precision weapons which also afford low collateral damage.
As for numbers, analysis of forward force structure plans (2030) suggests a force of 500+ Tier 1 air combat aircraft (F-22s and F-15E+s) and around 600 - 700 Tier 2 (F-35 et al) for the USAF. As for USN, there is much the jury needs to think about here.
Cheers,
The F-22 was conceived to beat up the latest generation Flankers - this is true. But it was also conceived to beat up the latest SAMs - both surviving in while surgically dealing with the Day 1 IADS till this is defeated and neutralised.
Also, conception is one thing but it is how this ends up being implemented that counts.
I would agree putting the F-22 into the CAS role down amongst small arms fire, MANPADS and Zsu's is not a proper or cost/risk effective use of its capabilities. However, why would you need to once the air dominance state is achieved? Far better to use assets with capabilities more suited to this environment, particularly since the F-22 will have removed the threats of attack from the air and high capability SAMs.
However, this does not preclude their use and the growing effectiveness of same in the high altitude persistent precision bombardment (eg. kill box interdiction) role, particularly with the growing stocks of small, precision weapons which also afford low collateral damage.
As for numbers, analysis of forward force structure plans (2030) suggests a force of 500+ Tier 1 air combat aircraft (F-22s and F-15E+s) and around 600 - 700 Tier 2 (F-35 et al) for the USAF. As for USN, there is much the jury needs to think about here.
Cheers,
Last edited:
Scott,
This is correct and it was announced by Defense Secretary Cohen back in cc 2001 that the F-117 role would be replaced by the F-22. Just goes to show how BS belies history and facts. The BS artists never let such things get in the way of their good "spin" stories.
I think there is a post on this with the actual 2001 report and news articles from 2001 up on the Air Power Web site. If you are interested, you might try the Media page or use the search engine.
I think still the illusion persists that air dominance will be won on the strength of the pure air to air fighter out dueling its adversary "pure ATA fighter" in beautiful duels in the clouds, reminiscent of Red Baron WW l duals.
The reality is more like the opening night of Gulf-1, with lethality and accuracy multiplied by a factor of X, when an enemy air defense network is knocked on its arse by a combined arms air offensive. The Allied pilots in Gulf-1 were starving for Iraqis to come up and fight however after the opening night of the war the Iraqi air force had already lost the war. The first shots in the air war, mind you, having been fired by Helicopters and not fighters at all.
These WVR battles are going to be mostly regulated to the past in most cases. Most certainly when High tech Western air forces are going to be involved. For instance anyone attacking Australia would first run into its superb air defense radar network, then up against its very good F-18s with their very good pilots and superb avionics, then lastly against the superb BVR ATA missilery. And eventually they will have to deal with the F-35 and JSSM.
Theres to much of this "SU can fly circles around F-whatever" when in a real war an enemy would be doing good just keeping a few from being destroyed on the ground, or, just keeping some air Generals alive.
Real War isn't going to be some air show pirouhettes at 1,200'. Real war against America is going to mean about 600 missiles heading your way, a couple hundred bombers/fighter bombers mowing in, your air defense network, air bases, command and control...ect getting smashed on opening night and never being able to recover.
The reality is more like the opening night of Gulf-1, with lethality and accuracy multiplied by a factor of X, when an enemy air defense network is knocked on its arse by a combined arms air offensive. The Allied pilots in Gulf-1 were starving for Iraqis to come up and fight however after the opening night of the war the Iraqi air force had already lost the war. The first shots in the air war, mind you, having been fired by Helicopters and not fighters at all.
These WVR battles are going to be mostly regulated to the past in most cases. Most certainly when High tech Western air forces are going to be involved. For instance anyone attacking Australia would first run into its superb air defense radar network, then up against its very good F-18s with their very good pilots and superb avionics, then lastly against the superb BVR ATA missilery. And eventually they will have to deal with the F-35 and JSSM.
Theres to much of this "SU can fly circles around F-whatever" when in a real war an enemy would be doing good just keeping a few from being destroyed on the ground, or, just keeping some air Generals alive.
Real War isn't going to be some air show pirouhettes at 1,200'. Real war against America is going to mean about 600 missiles heading your way, a couple hundred bombers/fighter bombers mowing in, your air defense network, air bases, command and control...ect getting smashed on opening night and never being able to recover.
I completely agree, but that might be a good topic for another thread.
Current situation seems more likely to involve smaller scale conflicts to take out nuclear facilities in Iran or NK. I don't think we have the polictical resolve to launch full scale invasion of either or ground forces available for Iran.
If all F-117's are retired by then, would expect F-22 to play roles in eliminating AD as well as establishing air dominance.
Is the USAF still pursuing the idea of using the F-22 in the F-117 role or are there too few F-22s approved at this stage for this to happen? I agree with you and Scott that the F-22 seems a logical choice for this mission. If more F-22s are approved for procurement what are the USAF's priorities likely to be regarding their roles?Scott,
This is correct and it was announced by Defense Secretary Cohen back in cc 2001 that the F-117 role would be replaced by the F-22. Just goes to show how BS belies history and facts. The BS artists never let such things get in the way of their good "spin" stories.
I think there is a post on this with the actual 2001 report and news articles from 2001 up on the Air Power Web site. If you are interested, you might try the Media page or use the search engine.
Cheers
It is true
The F-117s are being retired as we speak and replaced at Holloman AFB with F-22s. This has been widely reported for over a year now but clearly, like GeorgeW, the Australian Department of Defence does not read newspapers.
QDR 2006 Bomber
This has all been rolled in under the QDR 2006 guidance for a supercruising regional strike bomber of the size somewhere between the F-111 and the B-1 by 2018.
Budget is going to be the biggy, given the US Air Force are saying they need an annual supplementary of $20bn out to 2028 just to stay in the game.
:unknown
Tasman,
This has all been rolled in under the QDR 2006 guidance for a supercruising regional strike bomber of the size somewhere between the F-111 and the B-1 by 2018.
Budget is going to be the biggy, given the US Air Force are saying they need an annual supplementary of $20bn out to 2028 just to stay in the game.
:unknown
Surely you mean Gulf-2? I can't recall any strikes on Iraq on the first night of Gulf-1. The Iranians were taken by surprise. And who were their allies?
Tut-tut, Rich. A war that lasted 8 years, & you forget all about it.
Oh no. I remember it. I just dont want to turn the thread into a Iraq/Iran thing. Even tho its a fairly fascinating war to study.Surely you mean Gulf-2? I can't recall any strikes on Iraq on the first night of Gulf-1. The Iranians were taken by surprise. And who were their allies?
Tut-tut, Rich. A war that lasted 8 years, & you forget all about it.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I thought we might as well use this thread as THE F-22 thread so as to prevent duplication of such threads. Here is an interesting article on the Israeli attempt to acquire F-22A. Should be illuminating for other Countries chances of obtaining same:
In the face of Iran's race to obtain nuclear weapons, the Israel Air Force has expressed newfound interest in receiving the F-22 - a US-developed fifth generation stealth fighter jet - and has requested that the Defense Ministry present the request on its behalf to the Pentagon, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
While the sale or transfer of F-22s to Israel did not come up in talks Wednesday between Defense Minister Amir Peretz and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, defense officials told the Post that Israel would ask to receive the aircraft in order to retain its "military edge" in the Middle East.
Gates was here for talks with government officials on a range of key strategic issues including American plans - which Israel has objected to - to sell smart bombs to Saudi Arabia.
The F-22 formally entered operational service in the US Air Force in December 2005 but has not yet been sold outside the US due to a federal law which barred export sale of the aircraft.
Last March, however, Congress lifted the nine-year ban on its sale, potentially clearing the path for an Israeli purchase of what is considered the most advanced fighter jet in the world today.
The single-seater, double-engine aircraft can achieve stealth though a combination of its shape, composite materials, color and other integrated systems.
A positive US decision on the issue in the coming months could see the F-22 in Israel by the end of decade, years before the IAF is expected to begin receiving the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) - another stealth fighter under development - also known as the F-35, expected in 2014.
On Thursday, Gates tried to ease Israeli concerns about the planned American weapons sale to Saudi Arabia as well as other US Gulf allies, saying that Washington remained committed to preserving Israel's military edge over its neighbors.
Gates also said his 24-hour trip to Israel did not include any discussions on taking military action against Iran. He reiterated his belief that diplomacy was the best course of action for halting Iran's nuclear program.
Israeli officials have objected to US plans to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and other moderate Gulf states, fearing it would damage Israel's deterrent capabilities in the Middle East. The New York Times reported earlier this month that Washington had delayed the arms sale package because of the objections.
Speaking to reporters in Tel Aviv before his departure, Gates said he had urged Israeli leaders to look at the deal in terms of the "overall strategic environment" and stressed that Israel's neighbors had other alternatives for purchasing arms.
"I'm confident that the Russians would be very happy to sell weapons to countries in the region," he said. Gates said he affirmed the US would continue to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge, but did not say whether the Saudi deal would go through. Israel is particularly worried about the planned sale of advanced air systems that would vastly upgrade the striking ability of Saudi warplanes, some of which could be stationed just several hundred kilometers from Israeli airspace.
In response to Israeli concerns about the deal, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington earlier this month that Israel's qualitative military edge "is something that we are dedicated to helping Israel preserve for a number of different reasons - for their defensive needs, for the deterrent nature of that edge, as well as allowing Israel to take calculated risk in the interest of peace. So in any consideration of arms sales in the region, this is an important factor along with our good, strong, close historical relations with countries in the Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia."
But the State Department on Thursday didn't indicate that the F-22 would be available to help preserve that edge.
The F-22, a State Department official told The Jerusalem Post, "is not available for international sale. There is specific legislation to that effect since 1997."
Last year, the House appropriations committee did vote to overturn the ban on foreign sales of the F-22, but couldn't get the measure through the House.
A spokeswoman for Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), who sponsored the legislation, said that the issue "is still a high priority for her" but that the measure had not yet been reintroduced in the new Congress.
Another Granger aide pointed to several foreign countries that might be interested in buying the sophisticated fighter jet, but said that his office had not been in contact with Israel.
Later in the day, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert updated Gates on recent diplomatic developments vis- -vis the Palestinians and on the first indications of the change in the Arab world's attitude towards Israel.
The two men said that strategic changes under way in the Middle East indicated that moderate Arab countries were preparing to deal with the phenomenon of extremist Islam, the main danger to regional stability.
Olmert said that these changes had considerable influence on the desire to reach peace with Israel and on progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Regarding Syria, Olmert reiterated that Israel had no intention of attacking Syria and he made it clear that both sides needed to be wary of any miscalculation that could lead the two countries into a confrontation that neither was interested in.
Concerning Lebanon, Olmert deplored the smuggling of weapons to Hizbullah from Syria. He added that the international community must take steps to ensure that UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was implemented in full.
The two men also discussed a series of regional issues and bilateral security and strategic relations.
In her talks with Gates, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned that the countries under threat from Iran were testing the Free World and vacillation was perceived as weakness. This might create a desire to appease Iran, she said. Livni cautioned that only the determination of the international community would keep the "moderate camp" on the same side.
"We live in a neighborhood in which a projected image is very meaningful," she said. "If the impression is that the world is losing to the 'neighborhood bully,' they will want to join him." Before leaving Israel, Gates visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, accompanied by Peretz.
AP contributed to this report.
Courtesy of: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152838957&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
In the face of Iran's race to obtain nuclear weapons, the Israel Air Force has expressed newfound interest in receiving the F-22 - a US-developed fifth generation stealth fighter jet - and has requested that the Defense Ministry present the request on its behalf to the Pentagon, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
While the sale or transfer of F-22s to Israel did not come up in talks Wednesday between Defense Minister Amir Peretz and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, defense officials told the Post that Israel would ask to receive the aircraft in order to retain its "military edge" in the Middle East.
Gates was here for talks with government officials on a range of key strategic issues including American plans - which Israel has objected to - to sell smart bombs to Saudi Arabia.
The F-22 formally entered operational service in the US Air Force in December 2005 but has not yet been sold outside the US due to a federal law which barred export sale of the aircraft.
Last March, however, Congress lifted the nine-year ban on its sale, potentially clearing the path for an Israeli purchase of what is considered the most advanced fighter jet in the world today.
The single-seater, double-engine aircraft can achieve stealth though a combination of its shape, composite materials, color and other integrated systems.
A positive US decision on the issue in the coming months could see the F-22 in Israel by the end of decade, years before the IAF is expected to begin receiving the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) - another stealth fighter under development - also known as the F-35, expected in 2014.
On Thursday, Gates tried to ease Israeli concerns about the planned American weapons sale to Saudi Arabia as well as other US Gulf allies, saying that Washington remained committed to preserving Israel's military edge over its neighbors.
Gates also said his 24-hour trip to Israel did not include any discussions on taking military action against Iran. He reiterated his belief that diplomacy was the best course of action for halting Iran's nuclear program.
Israeli officials have objected to US plans to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and other moderate Gulf states, fearing it would damage Israel's deterrent capabilities in the Middle East. The New York Times reported earlier this month that Washington had delayed the arms sale package because of the objections.
Speaking to reporters in Tel Aviv before his departure, Gates said he had urged Israeli leaders to look at the deal in terms of the "overall strategic environment" and stressed that Israel's neighbors had other alternatives for purchasing arms.
"I'm confident that the Russians would be very happy to sell weapons to countries in the region," he said. Gates said he affirmed the US would continue to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge, but did not say whether the Saudi deal would go through. Israel is particularly worried about the planned sale of advanced air systems that would vastly upgrade the striking ability of Saudi warplanes, some of which could be stationed just several hundred kilometers from Israeli airspace.
In response to Israeli concerns about the deal, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington earlier this month that Israel's qualitative military edge "is something that we are dedicated to helping Israel preserve for a number of different reasons - for their defensive needs, for the deterrent nature of that edge, as well as allowing Israel to take calculated risk in the interest of peace. So in any consideration of arms sales in the region, this is an important factor along with our good, strong, close historical relations with countries in the Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia."
But the State Department on Thursday didn't indicate that the F-22 would be available to help preserve that edge.
The F-22, a State Department official told The Jerusalem Post, "is not available for international sale. There is specific legislation to that effect since 1997."
Last year, the House appropriations committee did vote to overturn the ban on foreign sales of the F-22, but couldn't get the measure through the House.
A spokeswoman for Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), who sponsored the legislation, said that the issue "is still a high priority for her" but that the measure had not yet been reintroduced in the new Congress.
Another Granger aide pointed to several foreign countries that might be interested in buying the sophisticated fighter jet, but said that his office had not been in contact with Israel.
Later in the day, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert updated Gates on recent diplomatic developments vis- -vis the Palestinians and on the first indications of the change in the Arab world's attitude towards Israel.
The two men said that strategic changes under way in the Middle East indicated that moderate Arab countries were preparing to deal with the phenomenon of extremist Islam, the main danger to regional stability.
Olmert said that these changes had considerable influence on the desire to reach peace with Israel and on progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Regarding Syria, Olmert reiterated that Israel had no intention of attacking Syria and he made it clear that both sides needed to be wary of any miscalculation that could lead the two countries into a confrontation that neither was interested in.
Concerning Lebanon, Olmert deplored the smuggling of weapons to Hizbullah from Syria. He added that the international community must take steps to ensure that UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was implemented in full.
The two men also discussed a series of regional issues and bilateral security and strategic relations.
In her talks with Gates, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned that the countries under threat from Iran were testing the Free World and vacillation was perceived as weakness. This might create a desire to appease Iran, she said. Livni cautioned that only the determination of the international community would keep the "moderate camp" on the same side.
"We live in a neighborhood in which a projected image is very meaningful," she said. "If the impression is that the world is losing to the 'neighborhood bully,' they will want to join him." Before leaving Israel, Gates visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, accompanied by Peretz.
AP contributed to this report.
Courtesy of: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152838957&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
The Strike Raptor?
Back in 2002, when there was significant opposition in Congress to award production contracts for the F-22, the USAF began beefing up the multimission capability of the fighter. They even renamed it the F/A-22.
--- from the USAF factsheet:
The program received approval to enter low rate initial production in 2001. Initial operational and test evaluation by the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center was successfully completed in 2004. Based on maturity of design and other factors the program received approval for full rate production in 2005. Air Education and Training Command and Air Combat Command are the primary Air Force organizations flying the F-22A . The aircraft designation was the F/A-22 for a short time before being renamed F-22A in December 2005.
From wikipedia:
In September 2002, Air Force leaders changed the Raptor’s designation to F/A-22. The new designation, which mimicked that of the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet, was intended to highlight plans to give the Raptor a ground-attack capability amid intense debate over the relevance of the expensive air-superiority jet. This was later changed back to simply F-22 on December 12, 2005. On December 15, 2005, the F-22A entered service.
While the USAF did remove the silly "F/A" designation, they have continued with air-to-ground weapons integration.
Again, from the USAF Factsheet:
The F-22A has a significant capability to attack surface targets. In the air-to-ground configuration the aircraft can carry two 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally and will use on-board avionics for navigation and weapons delivery support. In the future air-to-ground capability will be enhanced with the addition of an upgraded radar and up to eight small diameter bombs. The Raptor will also carry two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s in the air-to-ground configuration.
I'm not saying its a good idea, or that they actually plan on using the Raptor to attack ground targets. But, they were forced to add enough ground attack capability to keep funding.
Back in 2002, when there was significant opposition in Congress to award production contracts for the F-22, the USAF began beefing up the multimission capability of the fighter. They even renamed it the F/A-22.
--- from the USAF factsheet:
The program received approval to enter low rate initial production in 2001. Initial operational and test evaluation by the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center was successfully completed in 2004. Based on maturity of design and other factors the program received approval for full rate production in 2005. Air Education and Training Command and Air Combat Command are the primary Air Force organizations flying the F-22A . The aircraft designation was the F/A-22 for a short time before being renamed F-22A in December 2005.
From wikipedia:
In September 2002, Air Force leaders changed the Raptor’s designation to F/A-22. The new designation, which mimicked that of the Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet, was intended to highlight plans to give the Raptor a ground-attack capability amid intense debate over the relevance of the expensive air-superiority jet. This was later changed back to simply F-22 on December 12, 2005. On December 15, 2005, the F-22A entered service.
While the USAF did remove the silly "F/A" designation, they have continued with air-to-ground weapons integration.
Again, from the USAF Factsheet:
The F-22A has a significant capability to attack surface targets. In the air-to-ground configuration the aircraft can carry two 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions internally and will use on-board avionics for navigation and weapons delivery support. In the future air-to-ground capability will be enhanced with the addition of an upgraded radar and up to eight small diameter bombs. The Raptor will also carry two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s in the air-to-ground configuration.
I'm not saying its a good idea, or that they actually plan on using the Raptor to attack ground targets. But, they were forced to add enough ground attack capability to keep funding.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Given the overall differences with strike weapons in the modern era it has comparatively the same strike capability as the F-15A had in it's time.
Raptor MIGHT be upgraded to a Strike Raptor configuration, but the Block upgrades to achieve this were cancelled as a funding control measure...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Regarding Mr. Cohen, he was SecDef until Jan. 20, 2001, so if he announced that the F-117 would be replaced by the F-22, it would almost certainly have to have been before that, but not before Jan. 24, 1997 when he was sworn in as SecDef.Scott,
This is correct and it was announced by Defense Secretary Cohen back in cc 2001 that the F-117 role would be replaced by the F-22. Just goes to show how BS belies history and facts. The BS artists never let such things get in the way of their good "spin" stories.
I think there is a post on this with the actual 2001 report and news articles from 2001 up on the Air Power Web site. If you are interested, you might try the Media page or use the search engine.
As for the 2nd part, is there a link that can be provided? I've searched the Au Air Power site and not come up with one. Looking elsewhere, the announcement I've found indicates that the decision was made as part of the 2006 QDR, which is about 5 years after the date suggested. I'm interested to see what other materials are out there.
-Cheers