F-22 Raptor, What the hell are we doing?

[AKAKBUCK]

Originally Posted by Muck

Well that remains to be seen. I'm guessing that if all the end users didn't think it was up to the job they wouldn't be on board the program. But keep in mind that it was designed primarily as a bomb truck rather than an A2A platform. So air to ground is what it's supposed to do.

If wikipedia can be beleived:

The F-35 is being designed to be the world's premier strike aircraft through 2040. It is intended that its air-to-air capability will be second only to that of the F-22 Raptor. Specifically the F-35?s requirements are that it be: four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground battle combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses. These capabilities are to be achieved while still having significantly better range and a smaller logistical footprint than legacy aircraft.

[Muck]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeMike80

....would you believe I actually switched the numbers??

No reason not to.

Originally Posted by AKAKBUCK

If wikipedia can be beleived:

I have no doubt an RFP has that wording somewhere on it but what exactly does it mean? How do you measure "eight times more effective in ground attack capability"? Just mumbo jumbo to impress the politicians.

[BuckeyeMike80]

Originally Posted by Muck

No reason not to.

Yeah....damned lesdyxia...

Anyway, another thing to consider is the age and numbers of the F-16 fleet as well....the F-22 is the actual next generation fighter we need if we are going to actually modernize our inventory.

[AKAKBUCK]

Originally Posted by Muck

I have no doubt an RFP has that wording somewhere on it but what exactly does it mean? How do you measure "eight times more effective in ground attack capability"? Just mumbo jumbo to impress the politicians.

No idea... just pointing out that was "the plan"

[cincibuck]

Originally Posted by Muck

Easy answer. Lift the "fixed wing" ban the Army is stuck with and let them do their own damn CAS. The AF has never been overly interested in it and Army pilots would be able to integrate with the ground force structure much easier. BTW the AH-64 as a primary CAS platform has a lot to do with the Army agreeing to only fly rotorcraft.

It's my understanding that the A-10 argument got to the point where the Army said, "If you don't want to field them, we do." at which point the AF blinked. This would have been between wars and would have been a concession that the AH-64 was not the complete answer. Know anything more?

Well that remains to be seen. I'm guessing that if all the end users didn't think it was up to the job they wouldn't be on board the program. But keep in mind that it was designed primarily as a bomb truck rather than an A2A platform. So air to ground is what it's supposed to do.

Sounds good to me.

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I think I would even go as far as to say that I'm slightly worried about the continued cuts in the amount of the F - 22s we're buying.

[Muck]

Originally Posted by AKAKBUCK

No idea... just pointing out that was "the plan"

Not knocking you just find those type of requirements funny.

Sometimes I think some of those conversations go like this:

AF General: The plan is for our next strike fighter to be far more capable in the ground attack role.

Congressman: How much better?

AF General: Umm...how about 7..No! Eight times better!?

Congressman: Wow that sounds like a lot!

Originally Posted by cincibuck

It's my understanding that the A-10 argument got to the point where the Army said, "If you don't want to field them, we do." at which point the AF blinked. This would have been between wars and would have been a concession that the AH-64 was not the complete answer. Know anything more?

Dunno.

Rumor has it that when the project was first conceived the AF was luke warm at best about the idea so the Army offered to build, maintain & fly them themselves and threatened to take it to congress. The AF wasn't thrilled with that idea so when ahead with the program.

I do know that the A-10 was slated for the boneyard prior to Desert Storm. The idea was to replace it with a CAS focused F-16. There were a few different attempts at the "A-16" & "F/A-16" all of which turned out to be dogs during testing.

Sometime during that time frame (88-91) the Army supposedly offered to take the A-10s off the AF's hands. I believe Congress even went so far as to order some Warthogs be handed over to the Army & the USMC (who wasn't really interestes AFAIK) but in the end they dictated that the AF be required to maintain two wings of Warthogs.

And then Desert Storm happened and the A-10 became a favored son thus saving it.

Another story is that after Desert Storm the Army & AF chiefs of staff got together and the AF chief of Staff (McPeak) offered to trade the A-10s to the Army in exchange for the Patriots & TACMS (taking the Army out of both of those missions). I have no idea what the head of the Army had to say about that but it's obvious it didn't go through.

Now in the AF's defense they have ponied up to finally give the A-10 some of the modern avionics it needs. They're currently going through an upgrade program creating the A-10C which will have an IR designation pod, a data link, modern glass cockpit and upgrades so it can carry JDAMs and other newer ordnance.

So it's not being completely neglected and is slated to be in service until either 2023 or 2028 (can't remember which) when it will be replaced by the F-35.

I'm as big a fan of the A-10 as the next guy but take a look at the various fratricide incidents from CAS & BAI missions since Desert Storm. The A-10 is disturbingly & disproportionately represented in those numbers. Now without knowing exactly what percentages of missions are carried out by the warthog vs other aircraft it's hard to say where the problem lies but it is something that is worth looking at. My personal (anecdotal) experiences tend to back up those negatives numbers and I know a lot of Marines & British soldiers who don't want the thing anywhere around them for similar reasons.

Now I'm reasonably confident that most of that potential problem relates to the antiquated avionics in the A-10 and the upgrade program should go a long way to alleviate it.

My favorite version of the A-10 ended up stillborn. It was a two seat proposal in the late 70's that would have given the Warthog night & precision attack capabilities 25 years before it ended up receiving them.

Originally Posted by t_BuckeyeScott

I think I would even go as far as to say that I'm slightly worried about the continued cuts in the amount of the F - 22s we're buying.

The number has been frozen at 183 for quite awhile so there haven't really been any recent cuts.

You'll also be happy to know that Congress just set aside money for an additional 20 Raptors to be built pushing the number to 203.

I wouldn't be surprised if that number continues to climb at least a little if for no other reason than to keep the line open.

Edit: Check that, it looks like so far it's just made it through a subcommitte and has to make it's way through the system.

[cincibuck]

Originally Posted by Muck

Now I'm as big a fan of the A-10 as the next guy but take a look at the various fratricide incidents from CAS & BAI missions since Desert Storm. The A-10 is disturbingly & disproportionately represented in those numbers. Now without knowing exactly what percentages of missions are carried out by the warthog vs other aircraft it's hard to say where the problem lies but it is something that is worth looking at. My personal (anecdotal) experiences tend to back up those negatives numbers and I know a lot of Marines & British soldiers who don't want the thing anywhere around them for similar reasons.

Now I'm reasonably confident that most of that potential problem relates to the antiquated avionics in the A-10 and the upgrade program should go a long way to alleviate it.

Perhaps there were so many friendly fire incidents because this (A-10) is a weapons platform shuffled of to the USAFR, Fine pilots for sure, but no where near the hours flying with ground troops in exercises. Add to that the "my radio don't talk to his" bull [censored] that has been a known probelm since D-Day 1944 and is still not resolved to the best of my knowledge. Now that's some serious inter-service rivalry nonsense that should have been settled long ago.

[Gatorubet]

I live a few miles from the Belle Chasse Naval Reserve Station and used to see warhogs overhead all of the time. I was sorry to see those bad boys get transfered out after all of those years stationed near New Orleans.

Those things could take some small arms abuse and keep flying.

[martinss01]

Originally Posted by Muck

The "every single time" comment doesn't equate with the views of pilots who were actually there.

i think you got those two passages backwards. the "every single time" one was in relation to the 30 taking out the f-15C in the boeing test. of which both aircraft were being flown by US pilots (also important to note in addition to your very valid points).

against the german's, the mig 29's simply won more than they lost within visual range. sure, we win bvr and we tend to loose a significant amount of our advantage in dogfights. but my question to you is this. how many actual bvr kills have been racked up over the last 20 years? with rules of engagement, im guessing very few if not none. anything that gives our guys an advantage is worth its weight in gold.

im going to sum up the rest of my arguement for the critical need for the f-22 with this. b-2 bomber. slow, fat, unarmed. NO current air superiority fighter with the exception of the f-22 can provide escort for a b-2 through its first day attack against a country with a significant and intelligently deployed sam defense network. and lets be honest with ourselves here. any country that can afford pilots with migs who have enough skill and experience to not fly themselves into the side of a mountain have the money to suppliment those pilots and migs with a serious sam defense.

you don't have to get lucky very many times to put a serious hurting on our b-2 inventory. it certainly doesn't take to many f-15's or 16's to go down in a single nights fightning for the media to run the headline "black thursday".

edit: on the a-10 friendly fire issues. i can't say im in the know in the least. but it seemed to me the majority of the fratricide caused by the a-10 seemed to be non US allied forces. makes me wonder if "blue force" technology wasn't atleast partially to blame.

[Muck]

Originally Posted by martinss01

i think you got those two passages backwards. the "every single time" one was in relation to the 30 taking out the f-15C in the boeing test. of which both aircraft were being flown by US pilots (also important to note in addition to your very valid points).
against the german's, the mig 29's simply won more than they lost within visual range.

I didn't get the passages backwards just the quotes. I should have said "almost every time". From my understanding of both that engagement and another one with a Marine VMFA that trained with the East Germans, in the first engagements the US pilots were getting beat because they were being engaged with shots they didn't expect because of the off boresite advantage held by the 29's...but once they got used to the capabilities of the Russian birds they started waxing them.

The only real physical aerodynamic advantage the Migs had was in slow speed continous turns which you want to avoid anyways. The 16's & 18's both had more power and could dictate when to enter an engagement.

Keep in mind that all of these training exercises have pre-defined paramaters and are used for teaching how to handle specific scenarios. That doesn't mean those scenarios are ones that most likely to occur, they're the worst case that are the hardest to survive.

The US has also acquired more than a few Mig-29 & SU-27s over the past 30 years and have flown them at Tenopah. The first engagement secrets they once enjoyed are long gone.

[i]sure, we win bvr and we tend to loose a significant amount of our advantage in dogfights. but my question to you is this. how many actual bvr kills have been racked up over the last 20 years? with rules of engagement, im guessing very few if not none. anything that gives our guys an advantage is worth its weight in gold. [i]

Most of them have been BVR.

Out of the 36 kills by F-15s during Desert Storm, 26 were from Sparrows & only 9 were from Sidewinders (the last was when an Eagle flew a Mig-29 into the ground). The AIM-7 also had twice the PK as the AIM-9.

Both of the Saudi kills against Migs were AIM-7 shots. The two US Navy F/A-18 kills were Sidewinder AIM-9 shots but were still at a range of about 7 miles.

The first ever (US) F-16 A2A was during the "no fly zone" era in southern Iraq and was also a BVR shot by an AMRAAM on a Mig-25. Another Iraqi plane fell to an F-16 launched AMRAAM a few days later.

All of the F-15 kills vs Serbian Mig-29s were AMRAAM shots.

[ORD_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Apache

Equipment is one thing. Support-training-courageous pilots are another. Ill bet on the good ole USA.

Let us hope and pray that it never comes to actually needing these in a war with the old Warsaw pact countries or any commie stinking rat plane.

Ummmm, most of the old Warsaw pact countries are now in NATO and/or the European Union and the rest, with the notable exception of Serbia, are anything but Russian allies.

As for support and training, I wouldn't venture a guess. As for courage, I seem to remember the average Russian soldier doing quite well in WWII--in spite of a horrible system.

While I understand Cinci's point. One thing to remember is that this is not your father's Russia. They have closed the tech gap to a fair degree, and they certainly have closed the resources gap thanks to their massive oil (and other commodity) profits.

[Bleed S & G]

There was a show on the history channel over the weekend that was about 2 hours long and was about the generation 5 fighters.. a lot of knowledge dropped about the raptor and the new mig... recommend you guys check your tv guide and see if you can't DVR or catch the special

[Steve19]

When it comes to the Russians and Chinese...it ain't

[martinss01]

Originally Posted by Muck

I didn't get the passages backwards just the quotes. I should have said "almost every time". From my understanding of both that engagement and another one with a Marine VMFA that trained with the East Germans, in the first engagements the US pilots were getting beat because they were being engaged with shots they didn't expect because of the off boresite advantage held by the 29's...but once they got used to the capabilities of the Russian birds they started waxing them.

np, i wouldn't let the wording get you riled up. you always have to take the media slant into consideration anytime you read something. all i took it to mean was they won more than we did. which as you noted, can have a lot of factors play into it.

The only real physical aerodynamic advantage the Migs had was in slow speed continous turns which you want to avoid anyways. The 16's & 18's both had more power and could dictate when to enter an engagement.

ill buy that the f-16 has better speed and bvr capability than the mig 29. but i think im going to need some proof on the f-18. expecially the super hornet which is less effective in air to air than the original.

Most of them have been BVR.

really? i was under the impression that US pilots had to make visual confirmation that the aircraft was a hostile before they could engage. that isn't to say the kill itself wasn't bvr, but i didn't think the entire engagement itself was completely conducted bvr. i probably wasn't very clear on that, sorry. but is that true? has the majority of the US kills been entirely bvr?

Originally Posted by Bleed S & G

There was a show on the history channel over the weekend that was about 2 hours long and was about the generation 5 fighters.. a lot of knowledge dropped about the raptor and the new mig... recommend you guys check your tv guide and see if you can't DVR or catch the special

i prefer the reenactments to the "future" episodes. much like the thinking that lead to the phantom originally being built without guns because dogfighting was a thing of the past. the future shows tend to be a little too best case scenaro and lacking in imagination for me.