• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

F-22 Utilized in First Combat Mission

Hopeful Hoya

Hopeful Hoya

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
I was reading an article about the strikes that occurred in Syria last night, and one of the more interesting things that I read (tucked in a small paragraph at the end of the article) was that F-22s were used for the first time in combat to drop PGMs on a IS command and control center.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-syria-raids-aimed-thwarting-attack-plot-pentagon-085855998.html

I was curious why they would have used the F-22s in such a role, especially when it appears that the US had many options available (F-18s, B-1Bs, other AF jets, unmanned systems, Tomahawks, etc.) Were they using it because of it's stealth characteristics and they were concerned about Syria's air defenses possibly retaliating?
 
The Chief

The Chief

Retired
Contributor
Given the vast inventory of advanced, state-of-the-art air defense systems that the ISIS possessed, coupled with the world class ELINT capabilities ISIS had, a void existed in the Navy’s arsenal being used combating that highly trained adversary. That and in view of the constant exposure in press coverage with that damned Air Craft Carrier was receiving, the Air Force stepped in and saved the day with the Raptor. Money well spent on the F-22.
Will come in handy come budget hearings.
Cynic? Me?
 
707guy

707guy

"You can't make this shit up..."
AF's "premier air superiority" fighter drops a bomb on its first real world mission - chuckling heartily about that... Somewhere Robin Olds just spun in his grave.
 
jmcquate

jmcquate

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Lighten up one our brethren in blue everyone.................remember, the Navy's last "premier air superiority" fighter, the F-14, eventually got bombs strapped onto it. When air superiority is achieved in a battle space by simply going feet dry, well then you drop bombs.
 
Flash

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
sodajones said:
To provide legitimacy to its existence while they discard the A-10.
Click to expand...

Really? A-10's would not have been utilized for the type of mission being done in Syria now anyways.

To be frank the A-10 is an aged platform that doesn't have the capability that other more modern aircraft have nowadays. In lower intensity conflicts any other aircraft in service can do the job and it isn't very survivable in more modern air defense systems. And it's raison d'être, tank killing, isn't anywhere near as much of a threat as it used to be when the Russkies were ready to roll through the Fulda Gap.

Aircraft eventually have to be retired and unless they have very unique capabilities like the B-52 or U-2 it isn't worth it to keep them way beyond their normal lifespan. The pining for the A-10 reminds me a bit of the pining for the F-14, there are still people out there that think we shouldn't have retired it. Sentiment shouldn't be a factor in keeping weapon systems operational.
 
Last edited:
lowflier03

lowflier03

So no $hit there I was
pilot
Flash said:
Really? A-10's would not have been utilized for the type of mission being done in Syria now anyways.

To be frank the A-10 is an aged platform that doesn't have the capability that other more modern aircraft have nowadays. In lower intensity conflicts any other aircraft in service can do the job and it isn't very survivable in more modern air defense systems. And it's raison d'être, tank killing, isn't anywhere near as much of a threat as it used to be when the Russkies were ready to roll through the Fulda Gap.

Aircraft eventually have to be retired and unless they have very unique capabilities like the B-52 or U-2 it isn't worth it to keep them way beyond their normal lifespan. The pining for the A-10 reminds me a bit of the pining for the F-14, there are still people out there that think we shouldn't have retired it. Sentiment shouldn't be a factor In keeping weapon systems operational.
Click to expand...
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-10-slated-for-scrap-heap-is-now-fighting-isis-2014-9

Except we are deploying the A-10 to the middle east to fight ISIS. I'm pretty sure it is good at more than just killing tanks. Maybe if we actually procured and used a viable replacement we could retire it.
 
Flash

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
jmcquate

jmcquate

Well-Known Member
Contributor
xj220 said:
Remember, the last air to air kill by a Naval aircraft was a P-3 (EP-3 to be more specific). Sometimes you get called up, don't fuck it up when you do.
Click to expand...
Not sure if a mid-air is a kill. A couple of Bugs swacked some MiGs over Iraq over 20 years ago. Those are the last Navy air to air I can think of.
 
sodajones

sodajones

Combat Engineer
Flash said:
Really? A-10's would not have been utilized for the type of mission being done in Syria now anyways.

To be frank the A-10 is an aged platform that doesn't have the capability that other more modern aircraft have nowadays. In lower intensity conflicts any other aircraft in service can do the job and it isn't very survivable in more modern air defense systems. And it's raison d'être, tank killing, isn't anywhere near as much of a threat as it used to be when the Russkies were ready to roll through the Fulda Gap.

Aircraft eventually have to be retired and unless they have very unique capabilities like the B-52 or U-2 it isn't worth it to keep them way beyond their normal lifespan. The pining for the A-10 reminds me a bit of the pining for the F-14, there are still people out there that think we shouldn't have retired it. Sentiment shouldn't be a factor In keeping weapon systems operational.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, Sir, the A-10 is old news. However, it's hard for me to imagine that its role has been properly replaced by the 18 or the 35 or anything else the Air Force has. I coming at this from the point of view of someone who's on the ground. Nothing so significantly changed the battle space in Afghanistan like when the A-10 arrived on scene. We don't have anything that can come in low, slow, and hard (that's what she said) like the A-10 does. I really can't overstate the effect on both friendly and enemy morale, when a dedicated platform like this goes to town. I just don't buy into the multirole idea as a replacement for attack. I'm not married to the A-10, but I am to the idea of dedicated attack aircraft like the A-1 and A-10. Obviously, you know your business better than I ever will. I'm just a dude on the ground giving his $0.02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top