-
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
F22's
- Thread starter GVSURob
- Start date
- Status
kevin
Registered User
46driver, obviously you know your stuff. i'd only point out that when you are talking about Security Environment and what the threats are, well that's part of the problem....it's virtually impossible to predict. Had we thought 10-15 years ago that the major threat in 10-15 years would be middle eastern terrorists we wouldnt have cut cia funding by 25% and basically gotten rid of human intelligence (thanks bill and hillary). so maybe in 10 years it will be the same story, or maybe in 10 years china will be trying to annex the u.s.
"Personally I'm curious how a JSF fares against a next gen threat fighter...whether it's a Su-47, MiG 1.44, or even a Rafale(hey it's the FRENCH-of course they'll sell). I mean OK it's a single engine but it IS stealth right?"
vegita i dont work at lockheed martin, but from everything ive read on the jsf from experts other than lockheed martin sales personel, the jsf is a jack of all trades and master of none. it was designed to be effective in multiple areas but have f22's in the neighborhood...translation....in air to air combat it's not much. test pilots have described it as great for personal comforts, ease of maintenaince, and effective weapons systems.....poor in things that matter in air to air, like accel, speed and handling. but again, that's what i've read. one thing is for certain...whoever the guy that designed didnt care about aesthetics. i'd rather import a russian design team.
"Personally I'm curious how a JSF fares against a next gen threat fighter...whether it's a Su-47, MiG 1.44, or even a Rafale(hey it's the FRENCH-of course they'll sell). I mean OK it's a single engine but it IS stealth right?"
vegita i dont work at lockheed martin, but from everything ive read on the jsf from experts other than lockheed martin sales personel, the jsf is a jack of all trades and master of none. it was designed to be effective in multiple areas but have f22's in the neighborhood...translation....in air to air combat it's not much. test pilots have described it as great for personal comforts, ease of maintenaince, and effective weapons systems.....poor in things that matter in air to air, like accel, speed and handling. but again, that's what i've read. one thing is for certain...whoever the guy that designed didnt care about aesthetics. i'd rather import a russian design team.
vegita1220
User
kevin said:
Right, but if it's stealthy enough that a Russian bird can't get a lock on, it's inferior performance almost doesn't matter in BVR combat. It should be more agile than the Super Hornet too, so it's dogfighting abilities should be pretty decent too, right?
There was an article entitled, "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation” that was published in the October 1989 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette and the Army’s Military Review. It detailed the next generation of warfare in which there were no "fronts" - that terrorist cells would hide within nations. Nobody really paid attention until after one random Tuesday in September 2001. (I first read about it in the John Boyd book that NeoCortex mentioned earlier)
The three cornerstones of the JSF program are listed as "affordability, survivability, lethality" If you have to worry about cost - it follows that you have to give up some of the gizmos you would like but aren't really necessary for the mission. The requirements for the JSF never meant for it to compete with the F-22.
The three cornerstones of the JSF program are listed as "affordability, survivability, lethality" If you have to worry about cost - it follows that you have to give up some of the gizmos you would like but aren't really necessary for the mission. The requirements for the JSF never meant for it to compete with the F-22.
Those here that work in the beltway can relate to this: Some aspects of the JSF were intentionally left lacking. That is, in a cost-effectiveness evaluation it would have probably made more sense to add some things that weren’t added. This was directive based, though, not designer based.
“Why?” you ask?
Politics, my good friend, politics.
If the JSF could deliver even comparable Air to Air performance to the F-22 at a significantly lower cost as well as the dedicated attack role, where does that leave the F-22? Hmm…
And as for those congress folks not wanting any more jobs cut from their districts, take a look at where the part break-up is for the F-22. There are parts made in just about every state. That is no accident, either, as the contractors were full aware that the more districts that had a vested interest in the F-22 the less likely congress would be to cut it (Note: this is also a small part of the reason the cost is sooooo high for the aircraft).
Even the contractors played the game like a pro. They set themselves in a position where it is in Congress's interest to see it through.
So far the JSF hasn’t been as political as the F-22, but who knows how much that will change. Like I already mentioned, some of its capability objectives were politically motivated.
Personally, I just want to see naval aviation updated a little more. Lord knows those guys do their share of the air-campaign. As I recall, they had a few airfields floating in theatre as the AF was negotiating overflight rights with the Turks. I am not doubting the AF at all, don’t get me wrong. They do one hell of a job. But if you look at who has more opportunity for new systems, the AF wins, and I don’t think that is always a good thing. As far as acquisition goes the Navy is often at second fiddle. The F/A-18 comes to mind…
It seems like the most important thing is keeping the AF and NAVAIR/Marine Air current and deployable. If that is possible with the current againg platforms, that is great. But if we wait too long to get a replacement we might not have one when we really need it.
As far as actual performance, a Lt. Col I talked to about the F-22 basically said it is insane, and that he would never want to see one in his viper. BVR or not, it is a predator. I am not sure about the JSF, although rumor is that is isn’t too far ahead of our current platforms. Needless to say the avionics suite is much better.
But even if one or both programs are cut, a lot of the tech from them will be used in current fighters (like the avionics, for example), so it isn’t a total loss.
- D
“Why?” you ask?
Politics, my good friend, politics.
If the JSF could deliver even comparable Air to Air performance to the F-22 at a significantly lower cost as well as the dedicated attack role, where does that leave the F-22? Hmm…
And as for those congress folks not wanting any more jobs cut from their districts, take a look at where the part break-up is for the F-22. There are parts made in just about every state. That is no accident, either, as the contractors were full aware that the more districts that had a vested interest in the F-22 the less likely congress would be to cut it (Note: this is also a small part of the reason the cost is sooooo high for the aircraft).
Even the contractors played the game like a pro. They set themselves in a position where it is in Congress's interest to see it through.
So far the JSF hasn’t been as political as the F-22, but who knows how much that will change. Like I already mentioned, some of its capability objectives were politically motivated.
Personally, I just want to see naval aviation updated a little more. Lord knows those guys do their share of the air-campaign. As I recall, they had a few airfields floating in theatre as the AF was negotiating overflight rights with the Turks. I am not doubting the AF at all, don’t get me wrong. They do one hell of a job. But if you look at who has more opportunity for new systems, the AF wins, and I don’t think that is always a good thing. As far as acquisition goes the Navy is often at second fiddle. The F/A-18 comes to mind…
It seems like the most important thing is keeping the AF and NAVAIR/Marine Air current and deployable. If that is possible with the current againg platforms, that is great. But if we wait too long to get a replacement we might not have one when we really need it.
As far as actual performance, a Lt. Col I talked to about the F-22 basically said it is insane, and that he would never want to see one in his viper. BVR or not, it is a predator. I am not sure about the JSF, although rumor is that is isn’t too far ahead of our current platforms. Needless to say the avionics suite is much better.
But even if one or both programs are cut, a lot of the tech from them will be used in current fighters (like the avionics, for example), so it isn’t a total loss.
- D
First, I think the Russians get too much credit. They always seem to make 1 or 2 copies of a superweapon, and never seem to put them in the field themselves, or even sell all that many. It's easy to make a few prototypes for airshows, but much harder to mass produce them, and even harder to train sufficient numbers of competent pilots and the maintenance to keep them flying.
Second, while it is correct that unexpected threats come up, you can't prepare for EVERYTHING, lest you end up spead so thin you're ready for nothing. Our current air-to-air arsenal exceeds any other nation's. Our primary threat is not going to be nation-states for the foreseeable future. It will be "fourth generation" warfare, fighting non-government forces. By the time we're fighting a peer competitor in a conventional conflict, the F22 will be obsolete anyway.
Second, while it is correct that unexpected threats come up, you can't prepare for EVERYTHING, lest you end up spead so thin you're ready for nothing. Our current air-to-air arsenal exceeds any other nation's. Our primary threat is not going to be nation-states for the foreseeable future. It will be "fourth generation" warfare, fighting non-government forces. By the time we're fighting a peer competitor in a conventional conflict, the F22 will be obsolete anyway.
kevin
Registered User
true but i dont think the russians design these planes with the intention of fielding large quantities themselves. they have always been exporters...so regardless of who gets the aircraft- the russians or the swahilis- they are still phenomenal aircraft.
if a viper pilot is describing the f22 as insane, wonder what the su37 would be like. that makes the f22's handling pale in comparison. and vegita, i obviously dont know for sure, but i doubt the jsf has better flight characteristics than the super hornet. it is based on stealth and avionics, nothing more. and once again i'll point out that stealth is irrelevant when you have to visually i.d. a target.
if a viper pilot is describing the f22 as insane, wonder what the su37 would be like. that makes the f22's handling pale in comparison. and vegita, i obviously dont know for sure, but i doubt the jsf has better flight characteristics than the super hornet. it is based on stealth and avionics, nothing more. and once again i'll point out that stealth is irrelevant when you have to visually i.d. a target.
I am not quite sure why everyone holds the Su-37 up so high. In reality it has some neat gizmo’s and can do outstanding demos, but when it comes to ACM it isn’t untouchable by any stretch of the imagination. Even in close range ther F-22 can do some really amazing things. It acceleration is pretty phenomenal, and I have it on good authority that spool time in general has been cut significantly.
I don’t know any Russians of other pilots who have flown a thrust vectored Su-27, but I have a very hard time believing it is anywhere near as easy to use effectively as the F-22’s system.
Admittedly, the F-22 only augmentable on one plane instead of the Su’s 2 planes, but controlling a system like that is pretty hard. There were experiments with F-16 and F/A-18 thrust vectoring programs. Test pilots (who were working with computer assistance) confirmed that it was good for performing maneuvers when you knew they were coming, but difficult to take advantage of in simulated combat. And this was their main focus during the flight.
The maneuverability given under the right circumstances was pretty spectacular, though. But the training required to extract that performance was not something the AF or NAVAIR wanted a part of at that point. They felt that it worked pretty for a test pilot who was trained specifically for this and was extremely familiar with it (i.e. had focused on thrust vectoring exclusively for a period of tim) but would require too much training that would interfere with the rest of the mission—like delivering ordinance to target—of US military aviation to justify the limited advantage it offered in one tiny piece of ACM.
The F-22, on the other hand, uses thrust vectoring seamlessly. It is fully integrated into the flight system and fully computer controlled. There are few things that you can do with multidimensional TV that can’t be done with vertical TV.
I don’t know any Russians of other pilots who have flown a thrust vectored Su-27, but I have a very hard time believing it is anywhere near as easy to use effectively as the F-22’s system.
Admittedly, the F-22 only augmentable on one plane instead of the Su’s 2 planes, but controlling a system like that is pretty hard. There were experiments with F-16 and F/A-18 thrust vectoring programs. Test pilots (who were working with computer assistance) confirmed that it was good for performing maneuvers when you knew they were coming, but difficult to take advantage of in simulated combat. And this was their main focus during the flight.
The maneuverability given under the right circumstances was pretty spectacular, though. But the training required to extract that performance was not something the AF or NAVAIR wanted a part of at that point. They felt that it worked pretty for a test pilot who was trained specifically for this and was extremely familiar with it (i.e. had focused on thrust vectoring exclusively for a period of tim) but would require too much training that would interfere with the rest of the mission—like delivering ordinance to target—of US military aviation to justify the limited advantage it offered in one tiny piece of ACM.
The F-22, on the other hand, uses thrust vectoring seamlessly. It is fully integrated into the flight system and fully computer controlled. There are few things that you can do with multidimensional TV that can’t be done with vertical TV.
Dirty Underwear Gang
Registered User
The JSF test aircraft that everybody in this thread is talking about must be similiar to Wonder Woman's invisible plane because I have never seen them and neither has anybody else. They don't exist. The only JSF that Lockheed has is a demonstrator, not a production model, and it hasn't been flown in 2 years. Right now they are in the design phase and the engineers are trying to reduce its weight (it's 2000 lbs overweight). Until they solve that, there is no engineering baseline in which to start building anything. Sure, there are simulators, but what performance information can be gained from them when what they are simulating only exists on paper?
Stealth irrelevent? Visual id? Since when? If you get close enough to the bad guys to visually id him, you screwed up. Our tactics now, and even more so in the future, are based on using superior information flowing in real time to the warfighter which will allow him or her to engage and destroy the enemy before the enemy knows they are there. We get there by using stealth, advanced avionics, and superior C4ISR, for example.
Stealth irrelevent? Visual id? Since when? If you get close enough to the bad guys to visually id him, you screwed up. Our tactics now, and even more so in the future, are based on using superior information flowing in real time to the warfighter which will allow him or her to engage and destroy the enemy before the enemy knows they are there. We get there by using stealth, advanced avionics, and superior C4ISR, for example.
The Russian jets will never be a threat due to economics. The Russian government is not in the position to fund any superplane program. Russian jets are traditionally exported to 3rd world nations, and no Third world nation is going to be able to order enough of them to make it worthwhile to build the superplanes. So, we'll probably never see the day when squadrons of combat ready Su-37s and MiG 1.44s facing off against F-22s.
Active Air Force may not even see them. It has been mentioned, that they may go straight to a reserve or guard unit while the air force waits for the JSF. Basically the sam kind of thing that happened with the B-1B
The active duty AF will be the first to get the F/A-22, the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB I think are the first regular unit (not training or test) that is suppose to get them. The Virginia Air National Guard is trying to move from Richmond to Langley to become part of the wing so that they can fly the 22. It is actually a pretty good decision for several reasons, most importantly ensures their survival as a unit when the AF is thinking about getting rid of or converting a lot of Guard fighter units in the long term. This will probably be the trend in the furure, it makes more sense.
The B-1B unit you are referring to was only stood up in the 90's as a B-1 unit. It was a political decision and they only had around 9 or 10 of the total force of 98. The unit converted to the E-8 after they got rid of the B-1's.
They said that the new aggressors were going to be the F22's. I think the Navy was going to order 6 or so of them.
Uhhh, no. The Navy is not going to pay $1billion dollars for a few aggressors.
I don’t know any Russians of other pilots who have flown a thrust vectored Su-27
If this meant that no else other than Russians have flown thrust vectored Su-27's, it is incorrect. The Indians have operational thrust vectored Su-30MKI Flankers (2 seat strike versions). That does not mean they are the be all to end all. While their weapon systems have improved dramatically, the Indian Flankers have HOTAS and some French avionics, what goes on outside the fighter is becoming more important. No one else can command, control and survey a battlespace even remotely close to the degree the US can. All those unglamorous systems that we really don't concern ourselves about (AWACS, JSTARS, datalinks, drones, etc.) gives the US a power unmatched by anyone else. We make fun of the guy flying the Predator (they are still all experienced pilots and a few Navs) but he holds the keys to the future (though they can't get Air Medals now, thankfully).
The active duty AF will be the first to get the F/A-22, the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB I think are the first regular unit (not training or test) that is suppose to get them. The Virginia Air National Guard is trying to move from Richmond to Langley to become part of the wing so that they can fly the 22. It is actually a pretty good decision for several reasons, most importantly ensures their survival as a unit when the AF is thinking about getting rid of or converting a lot of Guard fighter units in the long term. This will probably be the trend in the furure, it makes more sense.
The B-1B unit you are referring to was only stood up in the 90's as a B-1 unit. It was a political decision and they only had around 9 or 10 of the total force of 98. The unit converted to the E-8 after they got rid of the B-1's.
They said that the new aggressors were going to be the F22's. I think the Navy was going to order 6 or so of them.
Uhhh, no. The Navy is not going to pay $1billion dollars for a few aggressors.
I don’t know any Russians of other pilots who have flown a thrust vectored Su-27
If this meant that no else other than Russians have flown thrust vectored Su-27's, it is incorrect. The Indians have operational thrust vectored Su-30MKI Flankers (2 seat strike versions). That does not mean they are the be all to end all. While their weapon systems have improved dramatically, the Indian Flankers have HOTAS and some French avionics, what goes on outside the fighter is becoming more important. No one else can command, control and survey a battlespace even remotely close to the degree the US can. All those unglamorous systems that we really don't concern ourselves about (AWACS, JSTARS, datalinks, drones, etc.) gives the US a power unmatched by anyone else. We make fun of the guy flying the Predator (they are still all experienced pilots and a few Navs) but he holds the keys to the future (though they can't get Air Medals now, thankfully).
Pags said:
Wrong.
Foreign exports by the Former Soviet Union are a very real problem. Is the FSU going to be able to afford mass-production of any new Sukhoi variants? Certainly not in the short term, but quite possibly (and this is debatable) in the distant future.
The real problem however is not the FSU. Secretary Rumsfeldt touched on this shortly before 9/11. The future threat to the U.S is China (and I’m speaking specifically to an air threat even if Rumsfeldt was referring to an overall threat).
China is in the midst of the largest weapons platform upgrade in the history of their country. They are looking to be on par with western technology in 10-15 years (both size and technology).
China is the only country to purchase the productions rights to the SU-27 and follow on variants. Yup, that means they produce them indigenously and with their rather tenacious work ethic, you can bet they can mass produce them.
Is the Fulcrum a threat to be concerned about? Most certainly. It’s got tremendous legs, outrageous speed, and a pretty lethal arsenal of air-to-air weapons. Will it be a threat to the FA-22? To dismiss the Fulcrum’s current and future capabilities would be nothing less than idiotic, and I don’t think too many of you would debate that. Yes, western technology is far superior to the FSU and the Raptor is far superior to the Fulcrum.
However, the U.S. cannot currently afford to mass-produce the Raptor. At this point it is important that I define “mass-production” and for our purposes I am defining mass production in one of two ways. One – the ability to replace the current inventory of F-15’s one for one (F-16’s are not included here) with Raptors. Or, two - the ability to produce Raptors in the amount that the Chinese can produce Fulcrums. Neither of which the U.S. can do/afford.
Now I know the idea of the Raptor is one in which a single raptor can engage multiple targets/threats, therefore decreasing the number of U.S. assets needed to fight a war. But, this begs the questions – how many Raptors are needed in the U.S. inventory?
If the bubble goes up on WWIII will replacing the current inventory of F-15’s with a much smaller inventory of FA-22’s be enough?
How much is enough? 20% less, 40%?
There are a lot of guys out there with fifty-pound heads that will tell you that one Raptor can do the work the work of ten F-15’s. Maybe, but I don’t think so.
Nikita Khrushchev said it best when he said “Sometimes quantity has a quality all it’s own”.
Imagine if you will the ability of a country to launch wave after wave of something as simple as MiG-21’s at a section or division of Raptors (2 ship and 4 ship for you Air Force guys). Maybe they’re waves of 10 to 20 aircraft at a time. They could in fact have the ability to soak up our missiles and still keep coming and more importantly, get into the WVR arena. Do they have the bodies to soak up these losses? Absolutely, China’s got us (and everyone else) beat on the sheer size of their army. Do they have the ability to absorb the loss of assets? Currently speaking, it’s quite possible. MiG-21’s are very affordable. Now let’s move forward 10-20 years. Is the threat worse? You bet! Even MiG-21’s with AA-11’s could wreak havoc, and resting on our FA-22 laurels is not the answer.
This is the same war fighting doctrine that the Soviets used during the Cold War. Generally speaking, they played the size card and we played the technology card (again, I’m speaking specifically to air to air warfare).
Air to air warfare is multifaceted and very complex. Technology will certainly change the face of air-to-air tactics. With the advent of AIM-9X and follow on Pythons and Archers, the WVR arena is going to be a very scary place and it won’t matter if your opponent is in a MiG-15 or an SU-35.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But, I do know this; The proliferation of FSU technology is a very real threat.
I’ve rambled on long enough.
Stinky out
- Status