Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Share

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  nemrod on Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:39 pm

    I am amazed, because I did not see this information -?- before.
    Nothing is impossible. We have two assumptions.

    1-It is a hoax. It is quite dubious that Syrian air force could down the US' state of the art fighter bomber. As several israelis air raids occured in Damascus, and in Syria, with no israeli aircraft downed. Moreover, syria's propaganda is used to broadcast this kind of false information. Syria did it in 1973, as it was during 1982. As the lie is part of the war, and a tool of war. You could easily imagine the impact of Lockheed actions in Wall Street as Raytheon in 1999. And most of the time arabs propaganda is insane as western propaganda, and chieftly israelis propaganda. They are often this kind of rumour.


    2-If it is not a hoax. Why should we believe the US version ? After all, did they acknowledge any losses du to hostile fires in the recent, and far past war? What about, when iraqi resistance downed US helicopter ? Us explanation is often : because of ...mechanical faillure. Did they recognize when 2 F-117, and one B2 were downed by the serbs during the 1999's war ? They admited once the serbs showed the wreckage of the F-117 in front of the camera of the world wide. Did serbs get S-300 to down these aircrafts ? Moreover as Pierre Sprey the F-117 was even spotted in 1991 by iraqi radar. In fact it became more and more dubious about this so called stealth'effectiveness.

    We realize all that, Pierre Sprey's assertion -not asumption- is becomming more and more evident when he said the stealth technology is a scam.
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t3035-debate-as-pierre-sprey-the-stealth-technology-is-a-scam
    As Iam far to be an expert in this complex subject, I took credit to Pierre Sprey's assertion. Stealth technology does not work, and if this aircraft was effectively downed, it was the last of a worrying series. Several months ago, Iranian downed RQ 170 sentinelle with the help of russian's technology.
    Pierre Sprey said that even an old radar built during 1942 is able to detect the F-22. In Syria do not forget that they are nearly 20.000 russians personnels. Many of them are highly competent, and qualified, and are either officers, or engineers.
    Aside, it is faire to remember that the original fleet of F-22 should be 750, after 648, ...438, ...339, ...277, ...finally to reach the 183. Hence what does it mean ? Does this aircraft really effective ? As Pierre Sprey said, this aircraft could hardly survive in combat environnement, and each hour of fly implies several douzen hours of maintenance du to its complexity. If we compare with the number built by the F-15, it reaches around 1.200. 1200 vs 183. What does it mean ?

    Iam agree with what it was sait above:

    vann7 wrote:
    No more will be done.. and the ones they made will be the total.Not even there are plans to upgraded or fix its major problems.since requires a major redesign of the plane to fix it.. simply Is a failed project and the pentagon now plans to use F-35 instead as its replacement. and there are no other plans.

    There are even more problems that those mentioned.. in the video.. like electrical power issues ,pilots
    who gets trapped inside the plane..

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:20 am

    The F-22 is pretty much primarily a fighter aircraft and it is very expensive.

    There would be very little to gain test flying it over hostile territory right now.

    More importantly think of the risk of the oxygen system failing and the aircraft crashing over Syrian territory...

    there is no obvious benefit from having them there, yet very real serious problems if it was lost... which make me think I want to see rather more evidence before I believe this story.

    It is a case of put up or shut up...

    Very much like Israel and US claims Iran is making nuclear weapons... show the evidence of STFU.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  nemrod on Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:05 am

    Concerning the F-22' effectiveness, another interresting point of view :
    http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/cdi-f-22-analysis-the-good-the-bad-and-the-surly/


    Hope Russia will not follow the same dramatic US's path, that lead US into the bankrupcy. I wanted to say, Russia will have to give up SU-PAK T-50. I doubt if SU-PAK T-50 is effecive as Mig-35, or SU-35.
    Someone told me that SU-PAK T-50 reach more than 100 million $/ aircraft, meanwhile MIG-35 reach only at best 50. Will a SU-PAK T-50 more effective than 2 MIG-35, or 2 SU-35 ? I doubt.


    http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/cdi-f-22-analysis-the-good-the-bad-and-the-surly/

    CDI: F-22 analysis: the good, the bad and the surly

    picard578 / March 23, 2014
    Today, America spends more on defense than at any time since the end of World War II, based on the Pentagon’s own official budget data. The previous high point in post-World War II defense spending was 1952 – during the Korean War – at $589 billion in today’s dollars. The Pentagon’s budget request for the current fiscal year totals $670 billion, or a substantial 14 percent above the previous high water mark.

    U.S. defense spending is now also larger than the rest of the world – combined. The CIA’s 2007 Word Fact Book estimates all other nations to spend about $400 billion on defense. That amount is for not just our potential opponents, whoever they might be; that’s the entire rest of the world.

    We are told we must worry about China and Russia and prepare against them; something we should really lose sleep over is how they can be such a major concern – to those who point them out as looming threats – with defense budgets of just $81 billion and $21 billion, respectively, according to the CIA.

    A similar basis for worrying is why the Pentagon’s budget has trended up over the decades, while its forces have been shrinking. Today, we have the smallest defense inventory since 1946. For example, with a spending level considerably higher than in 1985 when the Cold War raged and after Ronald Reagan increased the Defense Department’s budget, we have now 10 active Army divisions, not the 17 we had in 1985; less than 300 naval combatants – compared to 542 in 1985, and we have just over 12 active Air Force tactical air wings, not 25.

    A major reason is incompetence.

    According to the “scorecard” of the Office of Management and Budget on how well U.S. agencies are run, the Pentagon has ranked among the worst since the ratings began. By bad management, don’t think of just “waste, fraud, and abuse” and incompetent book-keeping – the measures OMB uses. Add to those the incessant decisions in the Pentagon and Congress that favor bureaucratic and selfish interests, rather than the needs of war. Those latter factors provide most of the explanation for why the Pentagon budget delivers less for more.

    Consider just one example; the Air Force’s F-22 fighter aircraft. It began in the early 1980s as the Air Force’s solution to maintaining air superiority over the Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, a lot of history unfolded between the “Raptor’s” conception back then and the Air Force’s announcement on December 12, 2007 that after more than two decades of development the F-22 had finally reached “full operational capability,” meaning that it was ready to go to war.

    There is, however, no war for it to go to. While there are, of course, two very real ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, the F-22 is yet to fly a single sortie over the skies of either country. Nor has the Air Force announced any intention to send the F-22 to either theater.

    The Air Force is quite right to keep the F-22 far away from those conflicts. The airplane is irrelevant to both, since its primary mission – to shoot down enemy aircraft – is useless against our opponents – al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other insurgents – who have no air force and don’t want one. Worse, if the F-22 were it to appear in those theaters, it would almost certainly harm our war efforts. It is not just that its huge logistics tail would strain our already overstretched support forces in both theaters.

    But also, the F-22 has operating limitations. While it can carry two medium sized bombs to attack ground targets, it is a capability so modest our opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan might not even notice. It would also be ungracious to compare the F-22 to the ridiculously cheap, simple A-10 close air support aircraft that is built specifically for the ground support role and that has been indispensable for supporting soldiers in combat in both wars. It would be even more bad-mannered to point out that each A-10 can deliver per day eight times, or more, the payload that an F-22 can.

    More to the point, the F-22 would be counter-productive. Data from Afghanistan indicate that U.S. and allied forces may have killed more innocent civilians than the enemy has in the past year, and from Iraq we read report after report of civilians killed as a result of US action. A major part of those “collateral” civilian casualties come from aircraft flying too fast and too high to positively identify exactly what they are guiding their munitions to. As such, the F-22 is too “thin-skinned” to endure ground fire, even from assault rifles, and it is too expensive to risk flying close enough to the ground to identify targets. In a form of conflict where winning over the civilian population is key to success, F-22 participation – along with that of other high flying, high speed aircraft – may help the enemy more than us.

    By keeping the F-22 at its US bases, the Air Force is doing our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan a great favor.

    Counter-productivity in 21st century warfare notwithstanding, the F-22′s advocates would leap to argue that in its intended role – shooting down enemy fighters – it is unsurpassed.

    Let’s pretend for the moment that there exists, or will soon, an enemy air force for which the F-22 would be relevant. How, then, could the F-22 help?

    We contend that as an individual performer in real world air-to-air combat, the F-22 is a huge disappointment. The Air Force vociferously disagrees – based on its hypothesis that air wars can be fought and won by long range, radar-controlled missiles fired at enemies you cannot see or visually – that is, reliably – identify. This “beyond-visual-range,” radar-missile hypothesis has been tested in real world combat, and it has failed repeatedly. If ever the F-22 finds itself in an air war against a serious opponent, all of us will find out who is right.

    Here, we will focus on three issues about which there can be little argument and that explain how the F-22 contributes mightily to our shrinking, less ready-to-fight forces, while bringing vastly increased cost.

    Force Size: Back in the 1980s, the U.S. Air Force planned to buy 750 F-22s to fight the Soviet air force. For development and procurement, Congress is generously providing $65.3 billion, a huge sum. However, because no stakeholder was interested in exercising discipline over the design, weight, and cost of each F-22, that $65.3 billion will only buy 184 aircraft, not enough to be a real threat to any major opposing air power.

    Moreover, given the need to maintain a training base in the US and considering the demonstrated daily sortie rate of similarly complex aircraft already in our inventory, the Air Force will be lucky to be able to fly 60 F-22 sorties per day at the start of an overseas conflict against a major opponent. That number will shrink as inevitable combat attrition and maintenance down-time take their toll. The force size that the F-22 program generates is simply too puny to register against the major air threat the F-22 advocates hypothesize.

    Pilot Skill: Unfortunately, we can expect that same tiny F-22 force to attrite all too rapidly in combat for the simple reason that the Air Force no longer adequately supports pilot training. F-22 pilots get only ten to twelve hours of flight training per month. When we provided 20 to 25 hours per month to train pilots for Vietnam, our pilots complained – rightly – it was inadequate. At the height of their prowess in the 1960s and ’70s, the Israelis gave their fighter pilots 40 to 50 hours of flight training per month.

    The history of air warfare shows all too clearly that the most important determinant of who wins and who dies in an aerial dogfight is pilot skill, not aircraft performance. Because they have raided pilot training accounts to feed increasingly voracious procurement programs (such as the F-22), Congress and the Air Force have virtually guaranteed high pilot losses for us in any hypothesized, large scale air war.

    If the advocates of more air power for the U.S. were serious about winning and saving American pilots lives, they would double, then triple, the amount of money available for pilot flight training before spending a single penny on new aircraft. Revealing its real priorities, in help pay for the pork it added to the 2008 DOD appropriations act, Congress cut air force training by $400 million.

    Unit Cost: The current plan to buy 184 F-22s for $65.3 billion calculates to $354.9 million per aircraft. The Air Force contends that such a calculation is unfair; it distributes the cost of all prior testing and development equally to every aircraft. The Air Force would rather use a calculation for prospective purchases – what it calls “flyaway” cost, which considers the development costs to have been sunk and that the only cost that should count now is the cost-to-go. Various estimates are circulating in the Pentagon to buy an additional 198 F-22s at a “flyaway” cost that varies from $176.8 million to $216.3 million per copy. (Even at the lower range, it would still make these new F-22s the most expensive fighter aircraft ever bought by any nation – except for, of course, earlier F-22s.)

    The F-22′s cost history makes it painfully obvious that we should consider the higher end of the currently advertised cost band to be a cost floor for any new purchase. At every stage, the F-22 has cost more than promised. For example, when Lockheed and the Air Force were pushing a three year contract to buy 60 aircraft now being delivered, “fact sheets” and lobbying materials widely distributed on Capitol Hill were promising a “flyaway” price of $130 million per aircraft; instead, Congress was required to actually appropriate approximately $180 million per copy. (In 1986, the Air Force originally promised a “flyaway” cost of $35 million.)

    Time has not been kind to the F-22; neither to its costs, nor to its relevance. Even in the wars the F-22 advocates postulate against a Chinese or Russian air force, the F-22 is deeply flawed, and its ultimate impact is to degrade our most important assets in the air, our pilots and their skill.

    The most prominent mission that Lockheed and the Air Force are currently pushing to buy more F-22s is demonstrated in recent newspaper articles and advertisements. Nowhere do these talk about a dangerous new air threat that explains the need for more F-22s. Instead, they focus on the 44 states that will receive corporate spending and jobs. Put another way, it is Congress’ lust for pork and the perverted thinking that jobs and profits should drive defense spending, not the threat, that is driving the campaign to buy more F-22s.

    The overall defense budget is stuffed to the gills with similar examples. Budget-inflating, war-irrelevant, dubious-performing, and pork-ridden examples in the other military services include the Navy’s DDG-1000 destroyer, the Army’s Future Combat System, and the Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. In fact, such programs are now the norm; it is the war-relevant, cost-effective ones that are scarce to the point of extinction.

    There should be no doubt how we got to where we are.

    Winslow Wheeler, Pierre Sprey, and James Stevenson


    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  nemrod on Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:06 pm

    Interresting letter from P. Sprey, and Winslow T. Wheeler about the F-22's issue.

    http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/cdi-f-22-arguments-for-stopping-the-production/

    In fact the F-22 seems to be a huge trap for US Air Force. It is quite a good news for others opponents to US imperialism.


    July 13, 2009

    “Stop the F-22 Now”

    by Winslow T. Wheeler and Pierre M. Sprey

    The Senate should debate the F-22′s fate this week . Sen. John McCain, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services committee, has pledged to lead the fight against the F-22, which the committee approved over the
    objections of McCain and Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the committee. Following is an op-ed by Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey calling for an end to a plane they argue doesn’t work nearly as well as claimed
    and is far too expensive.

    Lawmakers beholden to Lockheed are leading the charge to overturn the Secretary of Defense’s decision to stop producing the F-22. Gates and President Obama have threatened to veto the 2010 defense spending bill if it contains a single F-22 over the 187 authorized.

    Both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have already voted to overturn Gates’ decision. The House wants to make a down payment on 12 more F-22s. The Senate wants to pay up front for seven more in 2010. The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill on June 25 by a vote of 389 to 22. Clearly, Obama and Gates have a long way to go to pocket the 145 or so votes they will need in the House to sustain a veto. The Senate should debate its bill this week. Obama and Gates will suffer a huge legislative defeat if the F-22 supporters
    win.

    Instead of being such a close call, further production of F-22s ought to be laughed out of court. The F-22 is outrageously expensive. The 187 are costing just over $65 billion, about $350 million each.

    Not a single F-22 has flown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be foolish to deploy them since there is no enemy air force to fight against. To send F-22s as a bomber – at three times the operating cost of F-16s that are already bombing over there – would be just another drag on the war effort.

    Even more important is the question of whether the F-22 is a good fighter. The truth is that the F-22s weaken US air power. Study after study show that pilot skill dominates all other factors in winning or losing air battles. The F-22′s maintenance costs have the Air Force to slash in-air pilot training. In the 1970s, fighter pilots were getting
    20 to 30 hours a month of air combat training. Today, F-22 pilots get 10 to 12 hours. High tech theorists claim flying can be replaced by ground simulators. Experience teaches that simulators can be used for cockpit procedures training but, by misrepresenting in-air reality, they reinforce tactics that could get pilots killed in real combat.

    The Air Force, Lockheed, and their congressional boosters tout the F-22 as the silver bullet of air combat. The F-22′s so-called stealth may hurt more than it helps. In truth, against short wavelength radars, the F-22 is hard to detect only over a very narrow band of viewing angles. Worse, there are thousands of existing long range, long wavelength radars that can detect the F-22 from several hundred miles away at all angles. Believers in stealth’s invisibility should ask the pilots of the two – not one, as commonly believed – stealthy F-117 bombers taken out of action by old Russian radar-directed defense systems in the 1999 Kosovo air war. Moreover, a new whistleblower scandal is presenting evidence that the F-22′s stealth skin has failed to meet its stealth requirements because it has been badly fabricated and dishonestly tested.

    The vaunted invincibility of the F-22 founders on two incurable flaws: First, the plane’s so-called “low probability of intercept” radar may now be easily detected, thanks to the proliferation of spread spectrum technology in cell phones and laptops. That creates an environment where, if the F-22 pilot turns on his radar, he announces his presence over hundreds of miles. Even better for the enemy, the radar makes an unmistakable beacon for opposing missiles.

    Second, when combat forces F-22 pilots to turn off radars, they’ll find themselves forced into a close-in, maneuvering fight. Compromised by stealth and heavy radar electronics, the plane’s agility, short range missiles, and guns are nothing special – as one of us observed at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada when an F-16 “shot down” an F-22 in exercises.

    As for the plane’s advertised ability to cruise supersonically the F-22′s low fuel capacity (27% of takeoff weight, only two thirds of what’s needed for combat-useful supersonic endurance in enemy airspace) reduces this to an air show trick. Why the big fuel shortfall? To make room for stealth technologies and radar electronics.

    In summary, a vote for continuing F-22 production is a vote to decay pilots’ skills, to deny them a truly great fighter, to shrink the number of pilots and planes we can field, and to reward Congress’ unending appetite for pork. The new 2010 Defense Authorization bill should be vetoed if a single F-22 is added.

    # # #

    Winslow T. Wheeler, a former GOP congressional budget expert, is
    director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for
    Defense Information in Washington.

    Pierre M. Sprey helped bring to fruition the F-16; he also led the
    design team for the A-10.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 01, 2014 5:04 am

    Hope Russia will not follow the same dramatic US's path, that lead US into the bankrupcy. I wanted to say, Russia will have to give up SU-PAK T-50. I doubt if SU-PAK T-50 is effecive as Mig-35, or SU-35.
    Someone told me that SU-PAK T-50 reach more than 100 million $/ aircraft, meanwhile MIG-35 reach only at best 50. Will a SU-PAK T-50 more effective than 2 MIG-35, or 2 SU-35 ? I doubt.

    Don't make the mistake of thinking stealth is useless... when it is the only focus and you compromise everything else to get the best possible stealth then its advantage becomes questionable.

    Certainly Russia should not plan for a fleet of 800 PAK FAs either because that would be expensive to buy and operate... you might end up in the situation where you are using a Rolls Royce to pull a plough.

    Border patrol in peace time does not need a PAK FA... a MiG-29SMT is perfectly fine for that mission.

    For blunting a full scale attack by NATO the PAK FA would do a better job than a MiG-29SMT, though the MiG and some Flankers would be useful for use against targets that don't require an expensive 5th gen heavy fighter... like shooting down UCAVs and other drones.

    Having 4 different fighter types... PAK FA, Su-35S, MiG-31/35S is a good idea because they offer a range of performances at a range of costs and together they are complimentary.

    Using one type for everything means likely the PAK FA which would be too expensive and not offer very good coverage.

    An example would be comparing the Su-35 with the MiG-35... the Flanker can carry more weapons on more weapon pylons over twice the range... so on paper one Flanker can do the job of two Fulcrums. In reality however two Fulcrums can separate and operate further apart and cover more airspace at one time at roughly the same air speed.

    Of course over populated areas with multiple potential targets you get better coverage with MiGs, but over vast empty areas a Flanker makes more sense... or a Foxhound in terms of interception.

    We contend that as an individual performer in real world air-to-air combat, the F-22 is a huge disappointment. The Air Force vociferously disagrees – based on its hypothesis that air wars can be fought and won by long range, radar-controlled missiles fired at enemies you cannot see or visually – that is, reliably – identify. This “beyond-visual-range,” radar-missile hypothesis has been tested in real world combat, and it has failed repeatedly. If ever the F-22 finds itself in an air war against a serious opponent, all of us will find out who is right.

    The problem here is that as Soviet and Russian equipment has become more capable, particularly AAMs like the R-73 and helmet mounted targeting systems allow look and shoot capability getting in to a dogfight with a modern fighter has become suicide...

    In tests with Mig-29s flown by German pilots the high offboresight R-73 plus helmet mounted targeting systems meant while the well trained western F-16 pilot starts to manouver to get onto the MiGs tail for the best possible chance of a kill the MiG pilot has looked at the F-16 which has meant the R-73s seeker is turned and looking directly at the F-16... gotten a lock and launched his missile and is free to turn and do what he likes while the F-16 pilots is still trying to get behind the MiG and to get the Mig within about 15 degrees of where his nose is pointing so he can start his Sidewinder scanning for targets to get a lock so he can launch his weapon.

    62% of the time the lightly loaded new model F-16s got on to the tail of the MiG-29B export version MiG with a centreline fuel tank for training, but 100% of the time the MiG pilot had already fired a missile that was deemed to have been good enough for a good chance of a kill.

    This means that more than half the time the F-16 pilot managed to get into a kill shot position but was likely to have already been shot down...

    The problem then becomes how do you shoot down your opponent before he can see, lock and shoot... because after he shoots even if you kill him he has a good chance of killing you too.

    The Solution for the US was a shift away from Sidewinder and dogfighting and towards AMRAAM and BVR engagement.

    Hense a stealthy shooter that fires from high ground at max range becomes a sniper and the F-22 is a good sniper.

    the problem is that if you can sneak up on that sniper or simply overwhelm him with numbers he can be defeated at close range...

    the difference with the PAK FA is that the PAK FA is designed to be manouverable and to be a good close combat aircraft... and will fly with Su-35s supporting it which also make up numbers and make up for the lack of weapons that can be carried in a normal sized aircraft in internal bays to be stealthy.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    BlackArrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 132
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  BlackArrow on Thu May 01, 2014 3:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The problem here is that as Soviet and Russian equipment has become more capable, particularly AAMs like the R-73 and helmet mounted targeting systems allow look and shoot capability getting in to a dogfight with a modern fighter has become suicide...

    In tests with Mig-29s flown by German pilots the high offboresight R-73 plus helmet mounted targeting systems meant while the well trained western F-16 pilot starts to manouver to get onto the MiGs tail for the best possible chance of a kill the MiG pilot has looked at the F-16 which has meant the R-73s seeker is turned and looking directly at the F-16... gotten a lock and launched his missile and is free to turn and do what he likes while the F-16 pilots is still trying to get behind the MiG and to get the Mig within about 15 degrees of where his nose is pointing so he can start his Sidewinder scanning for targets to get a lock so he can launch his weapon.

    62% of the time the lightly loaded new model F-16s got on to the tail of the MiG-29B export version MiG with a centreline fuel tank for training, but 100% of the time the MiG pilot had already fired a missile that was deemed to have been good enough for a good chance of a kill.

    This means that more than half the time the F-16 pilot managed to get into a kill shot position but was likely to have already been shot down...

    Soviet and Russian built fighters might have had the advantage in short range aerial combat, technologically, in the late 1980s to early 1990s, but those days are long gone. The same goes for BVR combat as well.

    The Solution for the US was a shift away from Sidewinder and dogfighting and towards AMRAAM and BVR engagement. wrote:GarryB

    The USAF has always considered Beyond-visual-range missiles as the primary weapon system for aerial combat since the 1960s at least. The AIM-120 project dated back to the 1970s.

    gaurav
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 309
    Points : 309
    Join date : 2013-02-19
    Age : 36
    Location : Blr

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  gaurav on Fri May 02, 2014 9:55 am

    U.S Navy orders 10 virginia class subs for 17 b usd.

    This is all a  sham. The price for each sub by most exerts is in vicinity of 3 b usd.
    10 subs cannot be bought for 17.4 b usd.This is another scam on the U.S industry.

    U.S Navy orders 10 ships

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 03, 2014 12:42 pm

    Soviet and Russian built fighters might have had the advantage in short range aerial combat, technologically, in the late 1980s to early 1990s, but those days are long gone. The same goes for BVR combat as well.

    It is not about advantage... it does not matter that the R-73 uses deflection thrust vector control to allow exceptional manouver capability on launch and in the early stages of flight, nor that its high resolution two colour IR seeker is not as sophisticated as the IIR seeker of the AIM-9X... in practical terms the only way to stop an R-73M is with DIRCMs... just the same as the only practical way to stop AIM-9X is also DIRCMs... and war stocks of both missile types could have lense filters that block DICRMs lasers to make them deadly in combat when needed.

    The result is that at short range the West will not be prepared to trade modern fighter aircraft one for one, which is what would happen today.

    In the near future the Russians will likely have Morfei, which is a short range AIM_9X like weapon with anti AAM capability... which means a Su-35 with 12 weapons pylons could carry quite a few small anti AAMs plus a few medium and long range IIR guided AAMs and it could simply outgun an F-22... once the Su-35 has shot down any AMRAAMs an F-22 might fire at the flanker... it should still have plenty of missiles left to engage those F-22s...


    The USAF has always considered Beyond-visual-range missiles as the primary weapon system for aerial combat since the 1960s at least. The AIM-120 project dated back to the 1970s.

    Very true, but the realities of the hardware is that detection and accurate identification of targets at BVR, plus the actual kinematics of actually shooting down enemy aircraft mean it was not very successful. As shown during the Vietnam war... the enemy got in close and rendered the BVR missile largely ineffective.

    The AIM-120 project did indeed start in the 1970s, but was largely unfunded and ignored till Desert Storm and the end of the cold war in the early 1990s when MiG-29s were tested. the new technology was not actually new... F-14s already had IRSTs, and helmet mounted sights had already been tested, but no one had integrated a fire control system that linked IRST, Radar, helmet mounted sight, with a high off boresight AAM before.

    Note on paper the short range AAM was supposed to be ASRAAM... the US was to develop AMRAAM and Europe was to develop ASRAAM but in the end lack of funding and interest led to the US adopting the cheaper simpler AIM-9X instead of ASRAAM... at the end of the day they were mainly interested in BVR missiles.

    BTW during the Vietnam war there was success at BVR... but that was for the Navy with ship based SAMs.

    This is all a sham. The price for each sub by most exerts is in vicinity of 3 b usd.
    10 subs cannot be bought for 17.4 b usd.This is another scam on the U.S industry.

    What they order them for and what they actually pay for them are not necessarily the same thing... low price will get the order... price increases will pay for the vessels to be built.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    SU PAK FA superior to U.S. F-22 Raptor in many important ways

    Post  nemrod on Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:41 pm



    http://groundreport.com/russian-sokhoi-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-superior-to-u-s-f-22-raptor-in-many-important-ways/



    BlackArrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 132
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  BlackArrow on Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:03 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    It is not about advantage... it does not matter that the R-73 uses deflection thrust vector control to allow exceptional manouver capability on launch and in the early stages of flight, nor that its high resolution two colour IR seeker is not as sophisticated as the IIR seeker of the AIM-9X... in practical terms the only way to stop an R-73M is with DIRCMs... just the same as the only practical way to stop AIM-9X is also DIRCMs... and war stocks of both missile types could have lense filters that block DICRMs lasers to make them deadly in combat when needed.

    Are you sure that the R-73 has a 2 colour seeker I read recently it was only a single-colour seeker - still at a disadvantage to AIM-9X I'd say.

    Very true, but the realities of the hardware is that detection and accurate identification of targets at BVR, plus the actual kinematics of actually shooting down enemy aircraft mean it was not very successful. As shown during the Vietnam war... the enemy got in close and rendered the BVR missile largely ineffective.

    Is that your opinion on all BVR missiles? Is it your view on the effectiveness of R-40, or the BVR missiles of the MiG-23?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:19 am

    Are you sure that the R-73 has a 2 colour seeker I read recently it was only a single-colour seeker - still at a disadvantage to AIM-9X I'd say.

    Even the new Verba MANPAD has a three colour seeker, and Igla has had a two colour seeker since the mid 1980s in the Igla-1 version (SA-18).

    Morfei will have a QWIP based multiband seeker that is better than the staring focal array of the Sidewinder.

    Is that your opinion on all BVR missiles? Is it your view on the effectiveness of R-40, or the BVR missiles of the MiG-23?

    The upgraded R-40s were OK but not amazing... the R-40TD is still in use on MiG-31s because of its range and ability to engage very high speed targets, but its performance against an aware target of fighter size would be poor.

    The R-24 would have been comparable to late model Sparrows and therefore fairly mediocre... but a MiG-23 firing two BVR missiles at an incoming F-16 when all the F-16 had to fire back were sidewinders that were inferior to R-73s and even a 20% success rate is better than the zero success rate of the F-16 in BVR combat at the time.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Russian-chinese Radar detected,locked F-22, causes US withdrawal of F-22s from Japan

    Post  nemrod on Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:52 pm

    http://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/13723/

    Sometimes there are informations that US propaganda is not proud to show, and prefer to not talk about. This event had happenned few months ago. Since the beginining -in fact when I subscribed in this forum  Smile - I had no doubts about the ability for Russia, and China no only to detect all stealth fighters, but to destroy them. I think the Robert Gates' decision to stop the production of F-22 is linked to the fact that one of the proemient leaders of US militaro-complex is well aware about the limits of US fighters.


    PS: I allowed myself to say russian-chinese radar, and not only chinese radar. Because, as you are all aware, most of the chinese military hardware is russian origin, and I guess, if this chinese radar locked  successfully the F-22, it means russiaan were behind.
    Here is another example of russian-chinese anti-stealth radar
    http://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/chinas-mystic-radar-special-for-detecting-stealth-fighter-jets-drones/

    Giulio
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 144
    Points : 167
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  Giulio on Sat Oct 04, 2014 1:39 pm

    I will not go into the matter, but the picture above the article shows a japanese Mitsubishi F-2 fighter jet, not an F-22.
    If they tell to me the Italian source I'll be happy to check it.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sat Oct 04, 2014 8:39 pm

    Giulio wrote:I will not go into the matter, but the picture above the article shows a japanese Mitsubishi F-2 fighter jet, not an F-22.
    If they tell to me the Italian source I'll be happy to check it.
    That fact that they can detect/attack stealth aircraft really isn't worth all that much, as any low-frequency can do that job just fine...

    Airbornewolf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 338
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-02-05
    Location : netherlands

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  Airbornewolf on Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:21 pm

    "stealth" is over-rated, i think most of us remember that F-117 shot down by the Serbs that just made some basic adjustments to their "obsolete soviet" hardware. when that F-117 opened its bomb-bay it got painted and killed. the pilot ejected and survived.

    that US Pilot that ejected out of that aircraft is still friends with the serb commander that shot it down. RT aired that episode some time ago.

    but Nemrod, a lot of European weapon tech firms do sell their technology too to China. Germany delivers a lot of ship engines to the Chinese Navy, France sells Excocets ASM's and fire-control hardware. Dutch Thales also sells a lot of C&C systems too to the Chinese.

    as much as the U.S hates that fact, the E.U weapons industry does not let them be stopped by the U.S. its just economics, china is a huge client that wants E.U weapons technology. and the E.U arms industry is happily to provide.

    we all know it was the French Excocet's that put serious hurt to the Brits during the Falkland war. can you imagine whatthe Chinese will do to the U.S with E.U weapon systems in a engagement?. Chinese Forces already employ european tech in their millitary's since '93.

    everyone turns a blind eye to Chinese's modernising, or at least it goes unreported. China is making huge leaps in modernising its armed forces. that said, im not anti-chinese. im of opinion the chinese got the right to pursue their national interests as much as every sovereign nation does.


    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  Mike E on Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:05 pm

    Airbornewolf wrote:"stealth" is over-rated, i think most of us remember that F-117 shot down by the Serbs that just made some basic adjustments to their "obsolete soviet" hardware. when that F-117 opened its bomb-bay it got painted and killed. the pilot ejected and survived.

    that US Pilot that ejected out of that aircraft is still friends with the serb commander that shot it down. RT aired that episode some time ago.

    but Nemrod, a lot of European weapon tech firms do sell their technology too to China. Germany delivers a lot of ship engines to the Chinese Navy, France sells Excocets ASM's and fire-control hardware. Dutch Thales also sells a lot of C&C systems too to the Chinese.

    as much as the U.S hates that fact, the E.U weapons industry does not let them be stopped by the U.S. its just economics, china is a huge client that wants E.U weapons technology. and the E.U arms industry is happily to provide.  

    we all know it was the French Excocet's that put serious hurt to the Brits during the Falkland war. can you imagine whatthe Chinese will do to the U.S with E.U weapon systems in a engagement?. Chinese Forces already employ european tech in their millitary's since '93.

    everyone turns a blind eye to Chinese's modernising, or at least it goes unreported. China is making huge leaps in modernising its armed forces. that said, im not anti-chinese. im of opinion the chinese got the right to pursue their national interests as much as every sovereign nation does.

    +1 - Investing trillions in it doesn't make it any better... Even the most advanced "stealth fighters" will be revealed when they start firing/releasing payload, and some "special angles" (F35) isn't going to help that. Unless the "doors" are replaced with some kind of releasing system, that will always be a big issue with "stealth".

    Sure they do, but those systems aren't what I'd call their best "stuff". The Exocet is a dinosaur, and ship engines aren't really technologically advanced (more if a production thing).

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Fri Jan 02, 2015 3:34 pm

    Lockheed awarded $68M contract for F-22 work at Hill

    HILL AIR FORCE BASE — The U.S. Air Force has awarded Lockheed Martin a $67.8 million contract to help finish a year’s worth of maintenance and repair work for the F-22 Raptor at Hill Air Force Base.

    The contract calls for Lockheed to conduct preparation work, like procuring materials and services, for any F-22 aircraft heading into Air Force depots for maintenance and repair work. The Department of Defense announced the contract Monday, saying that the work will take place at a Lockheed Martin contractor site in Palmdale, Calif. as well as the Ogden Air Logistics Complex at Hill, and is set to be finished by Dec. 31, 2015.

    Hill’s Ogden ALC will perform all depot-level maintenance on the F-22, after the Air Force decided to consolidate the maintenance work being done there and at the Lockheed Palmdale facility. In September, the F-22 Program Office, the Ogden ALC, and Lockheed Martin Corp. implemented a 21-month incremental transition plan which will eventually relocate all of the F-22 maintenance work to Hill.

    An Air Force analysis determined that consolidating the work at Hill would result in a minimum cost savings of $300 million over the program's life cycle. A report from the Government Office of Accountability indicated Palmdale has higher labor rates than the Ogden ALC and has charged more labor hours than the Ogden facility when performing the same modifications to the jet.

    The report says that continuing maintenance issues with the F-22 have caused the jet to fail to meet its “availability requirement,” or the time the jet is available for military use. The last of 187 operational F-22s was built in 2011. The jet is expected to have a 30-year lifespan, but upgrades could lengthen its air time.

    The Ogden ALC typically provides depot maintenance on about 12 F-22s every year, but the additional workload will increase that number to about 24 in 2015.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Is the F-22 really superior to all other fighter aircraft

    Post  nemrod on Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:14 pm

    Old post, but it is worth to read it.

    https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012/12/01/is-the-f-22-really-superior-to-all-other-fighter-aircraft/

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  max steel on Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:11 pm

    Off Topic

      The Lockheed Martin SR-72 is a conceptualized unmanned, hypersonic aircraft intended for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance proposed by Lockheed Martin to succeed the retired SR-71 Blackbird. The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird has been overtaken by it’s successor, The SR-72, the fastest Aircraft ever built. According to Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works, the SR-72, has a twin-engine aircraft which is designed in such a way that it can fly at Mach 6. By 2018, the SR-72 could be up for demonstration showing off at the high-speed strike weapon (HSSW), a U.S. hypersonic missile program taking shape under the Air Force and Darpa.    









    Role              : Unmanned, Stealth, hypersonic, Strategic reconnaissance aircraft
    National origin : United States
    Primary users : USAF
    Manufacturer : Lockheed Martin
    First flight        :24/11/2028
    Introduction :30/12/2030
    Status        :Design proposal
    Number built :N/A
    Program cost :Unknown
    Unit cost        :Unknown
    Length        :100 ft / 30 m
    Wingspan        :55 ft / 16 m
    Height        :18 ft / 5 m
    Wing area        :Unknown
    Empty weight : Unknown
    Maximum payload : Unknown
    Maximum takeoff weight :Unknown
    Powerplant   :Two HTV-3X
    Fuel : Unknown
    Maximum speed  : Mach 6.0
    Ferry range  : 2,900 nmi (5,400 km)


    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


    US SR-72 hypersonic recon drone really for strike missions: Chinese expert


    The true purpose of the US's proposed SR-72 unmanned hypersonic strategic reconnaissance aircraft is attack rather than surveillance, says a Chinese military expert.

    Zhang Zhaozhong told the Beijing TV program Decoding Chinese Military Intelligence that he believes that the SR-72's stated purpose of reconnaissance is merely a decoy. The conceptual aircraft, proposed by Lockheed Martin, is said to have the same flight range as the SR-71 Blackbird strategic reconnaissance aircraft, but is unmanned and has an astonishing max speed of Mach 6, double that of the manned jet.

    Traveling at such high speeds will compromise targeting accuracy and the clarity of surveillance images, Zhang said, adding that there is really no need for the SR-72 to conduct reconnaissance given the existence of satellites and Northrop Grumman's RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft.

    Zhang therefore believes that claims that the SR-72 will primarily be used for surveillance are aimed at taking attention away from its true purpose, which is strike missions.

    In responding to suggestions that the development of the SR-72 is targeted at China, Zhang said all of the US's weapons development during the Cold War was aimed at the Soviets. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, the US realized that it wasted a lot of money just to one-up its rival and has learned its lesson to never develop arms based on such motives again, he added.

    Accordingly, the SR-72 is aimed at the entire world, including of course China, but to say it is only aimed at China would be overstating China's importance, Zhang said.

    Development work on the SR-72 by Skunk Works, the official alias for Lockheed Martin's Advanced Development Programs, was first published by Aviation Week & Space Technology in November 2013. A new concept image of the aircraft constructed through computer modeling was released last month in Popular Science magazine.

    http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20150626000021

    Book.
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 667
    Points : 730
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  Book. on Sat Jul 25, 2015 5:54 am

    F-22ラプターのウェポンベイ (AIM-9/GBU-32) - F-22 Raptor Weapon Bay

    Published on Jul 23, 2015
    F-22 Raptor stealth fighter Weapon Bay (arsenal)
    and the installation of air-to-air missile "AIM-9 Sidewinder", 1,000-pound bomb " Removing the GBU-32 JDAM "




    Book.
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 667
    Points : 730
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  Book. on Sat Jul 25, 2015 3:48 pm

    USA Dropped a Safe Nuclear Bomb in Nevada - F-15 Launching a Brand New B-61 Bomb
    Published on Jul 21, 2015

    READ the description please: USA have dropped (from a F-15 strike eagle) a safe ( which means no nuclear and explosive warhead inside, a dummy bomb in other words) B61-12 nuclear bomb in the Nevada test and training range (Nellis AFB) during June 29 and July 1 2015 for testing the precision of this brand new nuclear bomb.

    The nuclear bomb B61 was during two decades the most widely used nuclear weapons in the United States . It's as free-falling bomb design and was stationed in large numbers in Europe since 1968. The B61 is (with the exception of the model 7) considered as a " tactical nuclear weapon "bomb in the arsenal of the US Armed Forces .

    The new model is the B61 Mod. 12 (B61-12) for the F-35 Lightning II in development because their inboard electronics than can not communicate with the existing versions of the B61 bomb. The new modification should be in proportion to the F-35 and largely based on the B61 Mod. 4, but also include components of other versions. The B61-12 will gradually replace the otherB61 models, with the exception of Mod. 11 that can be used by all nuclear carrier aircraft of the USAF and the NATO allies. The cost of the B61-12 program in 2012 is 6 billion USD and is 50% higher than the estimation in 2011.



    C300 easy target thumbsup

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9422
    Points : 9914
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  George1 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:57 pm

    i remember an article from nemrod and i thought that times that it was a rumor!!

    F-22A in Syria



    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3360
    Points : 3403
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  JohninMK on Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:55 pm

    A bit more on the F-22's probable activities over Syria/Iraq

    At the beginning of July, U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor jets had flown only 204 sorties out of 44,000 launched by the U.S.-lead coalition against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Little more than a month ago, the multirole stealth combat planes deployed to Al Dhafra airbase in the UAE had dropped 270 bombs on targets located in 60 of the 7,900 locations hit by the other aircraft supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.

    Even though the largest number of air strikes is carried out by other assets, it looks like the role played by the (once troubled) F-22 is pivotal to ensure the safety of the other aircraft involved in the air campaign: the Raptors act as “electronic warfare enabled sensor-rich multi-role aircraft” escorting strike packages into and out of the target area while gathering details about the enemy systems and spreading intelligence to other “networked” assets supporting the mission to improve the overall situational awareness.

    “We are operating regularly in Iraq and Syria. The F-22’s advanced sensors and low-observable characteristics enable us to operate much closer to non-coalition surface-to-air missiles and fighter aircraft with little risk of detection,” said Lt. Col. J. (name withheld for security reasons) in a recent 380th Air Expeditionary Wing release. “We provide increased situational awareness for other coalition aircraft while simultaneously delivering precision air-to-ground weapons. This allows us to reduce the risk to our forces while mitigating the risk to civilian casualties, one of our highest priorities in this conflict. It is a true multirole aircraft.”

    In simple words, the F-22 pilot leverage advanced onboard sensors, as the AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar, to collect valuable details about the enemy Order of Battle, then they share the “picture” with attack planes, command and control assets, as well as Airborne Early Warning aircraft, while escorting other manned or unmanned aircraft towards the targets. As happened when they facilitated the retaliatory air strikes conducted by the Royal Jordanian Air Force F-16s after the burning alive of the pilot Maaz al-Kassasbeh captured on Dec. 24, 2014.

    Needless to say, every now and then they can also attack their own targets using Precision Guided Munitions: two 1,000-lb GBU-32 JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) or 8 GBU-39 small diameter bombs, “which have been successfully employed against key ISIL targets. [The SDB] is extremely accurate from very long distances and has the lowest collateral damage potential of any weapon in our inventory.”

    Therefore, although this may not be what the F-22 was conceived for, the U.S.’s premier air superiority fighter is excelling in a new role: making other aircraft more survivable in contested airspaces like Syria and Iraq.


    http://theaviationist.com/2015/08/15/f-22-kinetic-situational-awareness/

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2126
    Points : 2241
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Aug 18, 2015 9:38 am

    Okey so the almighty F-22 first job is bullying terrorist army who have quite crude air defense ? Cool

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:11 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:Okey so the almighty F-22 first job is bullying terrorist army who have quite crude air defense ? Cool

    Have i mist something?

    Since when does the F-22 air strike US army?

    Sponsored content

    Re: F-22 Raptor: News and Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:50 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:50 am