Raptor in dogfight for its future

[Allen]

:woot:Wecome to page three!:woot:
:ernaerink up and injoy your stay at page three.:ernae:
_________:friday: No passing out drunk.:friday:


Adding the extra 23.5 billion to the flyaway cost in Then-Year dollars 2003 of $83 million make a 106.5 million Per aircrat. Lower than the F-22 but still high.

As for the One trillion in total costs for the JSF, split that by 3 as the JSF to be Operated by USMC, US Navy, US Air Force. The Royal Navy plans to buy a few so they will pay a bit of the total costs for the JSF as well.

 

[Panther_99FS]

Another emerging issue is that some of the early, 550 low-rate-production F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost more (roughly $200 million each) than the $142 million it takes to buy a Raptor. That puts the Air Force in the position of spending its near-term fighter recapitalization money on aircraft they can't deploy until about 2014 (As Of Feb 8, 2009)

--> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw020909p2.xml

The bottom line is that the F-35 is costing much more than originally projected...including the 3 individual models...

 

[Allen]

Another emerging issue is that some of the early, 550 low-rate-production F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will cost more (roughly $200 million each) than the $142 million it takes to buy a Raptor. That puts the Air Force in the position of spending its near-term fighter recapitalization money on aircraft they can't deploy until about 2014 (As Of Feb 8, 2009)

--> http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw020909p2.xml

The bottom line is that the F-35 is costing much more than originally projected...including the 3 individual models...

I'm not liking what I read. I beginning to think Lockheed is driving up the cost of the JSF to save the F-22. If that's the case the Boeing X-32 and the Northrop/McDonnell-Douglas YF-23 are looking good, knowing that Boeing needs the cash right about now and Northrop won't mind some cash too.

 

[viking3]

Outdated Before It Is Ready?

How many new build A-10s and F-15s could you build with that cash? Both aircraft are still the best at what they do so far. By the time they get around to fielding the F-35 and the F-22 in practical numbers UCAVs will probably take over their jobs. The Mark I Eyeball and the Vulcan 20mm are still the best weapons in the sky at this point IMHO.
Interesting read on data-linking and real time imagery P. That technology was just coming online as I left the service. I had some buddies that were stationed at Gielenkirchen working on the AWACS and they were heavy into secure comms and JTIDS. Sounded like a real interesting posting.

Regards, Rob:ernae:

 

[Technogrunt]

The original idea for the F-22 was that it was going to be the next generation Air to Air Fighter to take on the next generation Soviet Mig. First Problem the cold war ended. The Air force has about 200 of the f-22s in service, and they want more. With its advanced stealth, avionics, weaponry, and flight characteristics the F-22 should be at the front of the cutting edge of aviation for the next 20-40 years. The second problem and I may be wrong but I understand it is far too fast to support ground troops. The f-35 is supposed to be able to do both jobs. My opinion is a compromise cut back production of the F-22, continue building the F-35 and when this weak asthmatic economy gets turned around and healthy we then ramp up production of the F-22, and use it as a platform for the next super fighter. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o> </o>

 

[tigisfat]

The original idea for the F-22 was that it was going to be the next generation Air to Air Fighter to take on the next generation Soviet Mig. First Problem the cold war ended.

That's irrelevant. China and Russia have researched and fielded aircraft more advanced than the F-22 since the end of the cold war. The Migs are not Russia's most advanced aircraft anyway, the Sukhois are generally considered to be the best in service. The standard Mig-29 is roughly equivalent to the F-15.

The Air force has about 200 of the f-22s in service, and they want more.

No, there are not 200 in service.

With its advanced stealth, avionics, weaponry, and flight characteristics the F-22 should be at the front of the cutting edge of aviation for the next 20-40 years.

F-22s are almost as old as I am, 26. They aren't at the cutting edge of aviation right now. The latest 737 iterations host avionics vastly considered superior.

The second problem and I may be wrong but I understand it is far too fast to support ground troops.

You have been misinformed. The F-22's biggest claim to fame is it's ability to fly slowly; in fact much more so than average existing fighters.

The f-35 is supposed to be able to do both jobs.

But so is the F-22!! We were all told that the F-22 is a multirole aircraft, but we found out recently that only test jets have dropped air to ground munitions, and in doing so destroyed their low observable capabilities.

My opinion is a compromise cut back production of the F-22, continue building the F-35....

Buddy; I'm wondering where you're getting your information. Noone is building production F-35s.

.....and when this weak asthmatic economy gets turned around and healthy we then ramp up production of the F-22, and use it as a platform for the next super fighter. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

<o></o>

It can't and won't work like that. Once production of something as complicated as an aircraft has ceased, it's nearly impossible to resume it again. It's been done before, but usually in name only and with a complete redesign. It's much like we have with ACES. Within a week or two after the firing, it wouldve been nearly impossible to continue with the development of the same title, because many team members would've taken new jobs. There's to much direct knowledge and experience required. Working on someone else's intellectual property the SAME way they did is hard.

 

[Panther_99FS]

And so speaketh Tigisfat!
:d:d:d

​

 

[tigisfat]

looks like I've been:

 

[redriver6]

China and Russia have researched and fielded aircraft more advanced than the F-22 since the end of the cold war.

really?
like what?

 

[Panther_99FS]

Hey RedRiver6, here's a couple of good reads for ya'...(get the coffee ready for the 2nd one..)

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/reports-china-to-sell-j-10-fighter-to-iran-syria-04091/

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/fal07/greenberg.html

Here's a good quote:
" the radar is believed to be comparable to the early 1990s era Western fighter radar designs."
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10-systems.asp

 

[redriver6]

thanks for the links P..that second article makes me think we need the F-22 more than ever.

and if the J-10 is the best the Chinese have then they might be catching up to the Legacy fighters..but not the F-22.

 

[tigisfat]

really?
like what?

The Typhoon does not have 'supercruise' and 'stealth' but is arguably a better aircraft, both in terms of capability and cost. Stealth is moot anyway on frontline aircraft. One hanging fastener or external store, and it's game over. Many also believe that the superflanker family not only fare better in a close range dogfight, but in all other means as well. I am one of them. Not only that, but both are deployable, I mean useable. The raptor will not be better than the C172 I borrow if it can't go to a fight. How do you figure an aircraft that can't and isn't allowed to fight after 20+ years is better?

 

[Panther_99FS]

The Typhoon does not have 'supercruise' and 'stealth' but is arguably a better aircraft, both in terms of capability and cost.

Did you intentionally mean to mention the Eurofighter here?

 

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

If I'm wrong and you're right, then why hasn't it deployed? The truth is, the aircraft is beleagured with problems: structural, battlefield compatibility, performance, and avionics.

...It hasn't and....well....it hasn't. I think the proof lies on my sid eof the debate. To this date, F-22s have not been allowed to attend the war.

The P-80 wasn't sent flying into the heart of Nazi air defenses upon its entering service to hunt Me262s, even though there were three or four in Europe before VE Day. The F-117 wasn't sent in during Operation El Dorado Canyon, either, even though using it would have caught ol' Qaddafi asleep in bed. That doesn't prove that either aircraft was incapable of doing the job, it only shows that planners decided not to use them in those capacities at that time.

The F-22 is optimized as an air-to-air fighter, but sending it to Iraq wouldn't justify that role since there's no air defenses to penetrate or enemy fighters to kill. At this point even the air-to-mud F-16s and F-15s could be called a waste; if you could fit smart munitions onto a B-17, it could do the close air support job about as safely and well (albeit slower) than the front line fighter-bombers of today.

The F-22 has been used to intercept probing Russian bombers recently and has done so well by all accounts, but that's the extent of the non-testing-related missions it's been involved in so far. It's not the F-22's fault that the whole Iranian air force hasn't come after it just yet.

Oh; but it's not. I've gone into detail in ous posts and listed even more directly above.

No you haven't.

You pointed to one crash of an early prototype as proof of the production type being beyond hope, yet how many Have Blue stealth prototypes survived their testing? And how successful has the F-117 been?

Then you pointed to the IDL problem as being proof of the F-22's avionics being crap, yet you don't have citations establishing an ongoing problem with that - and as for other avionics issues, the F-22 was recently tested by L-3 as an effective datalink hotspot superior to other systems in place, and at Red Flag F-22s stayed over the battlefield (after obliterating the Red Force's fighters) to provide electronic surveillance to Blue Force. The datalink between F-22s is also supposed to be very effective. So they're more capable than you think, certainly not being off in a "low-tech 'lights-out' world." ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/19/super_stealth_jet_acts_as_flying_wifi_hotspots/ )

Then you pointed to some incident at Hill AFB. The only reference ( http://www.f-22raptor.com/news_view.php?nid=192&yr=2006 ) I could find about F-22s and Hill AFB was about them undergoing some minor modifications being done to the Raptors in 2006, and in fact the site actually states, "Maj. Evan Dertien flew the aircraft from Langley Air Force Base, Va., to Hill for the modifications." Not trucked. Not moved by rail. Flew. In all three cases you don't give any kind of background on the incident or any context, you're just saying that the plane is unusable just because something happened once.

Red Flag: ( http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831 )

You might as well say the A320 should be disposed of because one crashed into the Hudson River - without mentioning that both engines died because of a rare double bird strike, or that the crash was actually a very expertly controlled ditching, or that the aircraft stayed afloat long enough for all the passengers to get off. Or saying that the 747 should be grounded because one blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland - without mentioning that a terrorist bomb caused it to blow up.

Context and background are key, but your argument centers on how you just don't like the F-22. You don't like it, and it's had a couple problems, and that's all that matters. Details don't seem to matter.

Was the P-38 unuseable after being around for 20 years? No. Name one other aircraft. I challenge you.

Well, yes, it was unusable in combat after 20 years. Who wants to take a P-38 up against an F-100, anyway?

Try this on for size though: A LOCKHEED EMPLOYEE COULD HAVE STARTED ON THE BRAND-NEW F-22 PROJECT RIGHT OUT OF SCHOOL AND RETIRED BEFORE IT ENTERED ACTIVE DUTY.

Ignoring how short of a career twenty years is, especially these days, that sounds very much like the V-22 program. But you seem to like that program, so that's apparently all the difference.





I have an open mind, so if you come back with respectable reports about ongoing problems with the aircraft or reasons why it wasn't deployed backing up your theory that it can't be, I'll reconsider. Lacking that, I'm not one to take such opinions at face value over what seems to be a battalion of industry experts who don't seem to agree with you.

 

[mike678]

OK, I've been turning purple trying to resist joining in, but let me splash in the muck to.

I agree that the F-22 is basically unaffordable, but remember the current unit cost is mostly an accounting boondoggle. It changes constantly depending on assumptions about the total numbers procured and how much time the contract is spread over. A big chunck of the cost of each aircraft is its "share" of the development costs. Us poor taxpayers have already funded (or maybe financed) the development, so its a sunk cost. Also at one time I belive the unit cost of the F-22 was projected at about $75M, so I expect the difference in cost between the F-22 and F-35 to shrink (a lot).

Yes the basic F-22 design is around 25 years old, but its has been constantly updated over that period - one reason for the huge cost. Just look at the very obvious differences between the prototypes and the production models. How many differences are on the inside?

Like Tigisfat, I have a great admiration for the Su-27 family, but let's not forget that its early development was even more of a disaster than the examples cited earlier in this thread. More to the point, does anyone seriously belive that the U.S. will EVER allow its air superiority to rely on a Russian airframe? To say nothing of the costs of adapting the structure and inlets to U.S. engines.

To say a MiG-29 is equivalent to an F-15 ignores the very big difference in range and radar volume (I have no idea where the 737 comparison comes from). A Mig-29 cannot do the same missions an F-15 can. There is a reason Russia is focusing on the Su-27s. The same argument applies to the Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen and F-35. Yes they are great aircraft for the European environment, but they lack the range to dominate a large area and/or operate from remote bases. All but the F-35 are non-stealthy or rely on frontal stealth only.

Yes stealth is very fragile, but without an all aspect stealth capability, an air force will take very high losses attempting to penetrate airspace defended by S-300 or Patriot class systems. Nobody can afford the numbers to absorb those losses anymore. Saying no to stealth means ceding the battlespace to SAMs.

Tigisfat also makes the point that once production stops its basically impossible to restart it. Production of the F-15C has stopped, the F-15E is very different. The F-23 was never in production. If not the F-22, then what? The F-15s are a 1960s design and many airframes are rapidly approaching their fatigue life limits. The Su-27 has better dynamic performance in many areas and while it lags in systems these are improving rapidly.

Hey, the governement has committed to over two trillion in spending over the last few months without much thought. Its not like we're spending real money. All of this is borrowed from a world economy that for some reason keeps buying U.S. bonds. I say spend another paltry $200-$300 billion on high rate production to replace the F-15s with F-22s over the next few years. That way when the dollar tanks and we default on the debt we will have a modern airforce to defend ourselves (assuming there is any oil to fuel them).

Aaaahh, I feel better now.

Flame away!!!

 

[boz]

Gentlemen, for your contemplation.

Russian Jet CA SU 30.wmv (4977KB)

<B><BIG><BIG>American Air Supremacy?</BIG></BIG></B>


Russia now has #1 fighter plane in the world... SU-30- Vectored Thrust with Canards. As you watch this airplane, look at the canards moving along side of, and just below the canopy rail. The "canards" are the small wings forward of the main wings. The smoke and contrails provide a sense of the actual flight path, sometimes in reverse direction. This video is of an in-flight demonstration flown by the Russian's-30MK fighter aircraft. You will not believe what you are about to see.

The fighter can stall from high speed, stopping forward motion in seconds (full stall). Then it demonstrates an ability to descend tail first without causing a compressor stall. It can also recover from a flat spin in less than a minute. These maneuver capabilities don't exist in any other aircraft in the world today. Take a look at the video with the sound up. This aircraft is of concern to U.S. and NATO planners. We don't know which nations will soon be flying the SU-30MK, hopefully China isn't one of them.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Note: Friends worked with advanced aircraft flight control systems and concepts for many years as an extension of stability control and means of control. Canards and vectored thrust were among many concepts examined to extend our fighter aircraft performance. Neither our current or next generation aircraft now poised for funding & production can in any way match the performance of this Russian aircraft NOW FLYING in any near combat situation. Somehow the bankrupt Russian aircraft industry has out-produced our complex politically tainted aerospace industry with this technology marvel.

Scratch any ideas of close in air-to-air combat with this aircraft in the future.




Boz







</NOBR>

 

[redriver6]

The fighter can stall from high speed, stopping forward motion in seconds (full stall). Then it demonstrates an ability to descend tail first without causing a compressor stall. It can also recover from a flat spin in less than a minute. These maneuver capabilities don't exist in any other aircraft in the world today. ]

really now..allow me to retort
[youtube]e_Q6Vb9xJM0[/youtube]

 

[Silver Fox]

The "Scary Sukhoi" might win a knife fight with a Raptor... if it is allowed to get that close. More likely the Sukhoi pilot will get a (posthumous) award of first place in the AIM-120C catching competition when his deep stall, doppler-foxing maneuver fails to fool a modern radar and the missile homes in on his head right through the canopy!

USAF and McDonnell-Douglas tried that same approach the Russians have gone with... check out the F-15 SMTD. Canards, thrust vectoring... even a snazzy paint scheme! It was abandoned to go after the Holy Grail, a BVR killer that hides in stealth while gunning down anyone who tries to get to knife-fight range.

We heard much the same useless alarmism after the Russians demonstrated Pugachev's Cobra maneuver.... and McD came back and told the world that the F/A-18A could duplicate it with flight control logic already on the shelf in St Louis... they just saw no point in burdening a combat aircraft with airshow software who's primary purpose was to provide fire fighting training at Le Bourget airport.

As for the stealth failings of a system like the Raptor... it's stealth, not a Romulan cloaking device. Sure an exposed screw head might raise the RCS significantly... but it is still going to be so low that by the time the Suckhoi pilot gets a blip off it the "DEEDLE DEEDLE DEEDLE" in his headset telling him that an AIM-120 has got him locked is going to be of far more immediate importance. No time to drop from cruise to try and doppler-fox the missile... it's a couple of seconds out, locked, homing and approaching from well inside it's no-escape range. Knowing the approach vector of the missile will allow the Raptor pilot to know where the Sukhoi pilot will turn when he goes defensive... and the Raptor will go for 6 O'Clock and a guns kill if needed.

In a fair fight the Sukhoi will be a formidable opponent, trouble is the Raptor has been designed to be an aerial assassin. There won't be anything fair about the fight at all.

 

[Lazerbrainz2k3]

The "Scary Sukhoi" might win a knife fight with a Raptor... if it is allowed to get that close. More likely the Sukhoi pilot will get a (posthumous) award of first place in the AIM-120C catching competition when his deep stall, doppler-foxing maneuver fails to fool a modern radar and the missile homes in on his head right through the canopy!

LOL. Well put.

And of course there's also the case where an F-22 can turn on its already-LPI radar to say to the Sukhoi, "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" - then send the targeting data to his super-EMCON'd wingman a few miles away via the datalink, who can take the actual shot from another direction. Just like Alan Grant's description of how Raptors attack in Jurassic Park. Add to that the AIM-9X, and getting close enough to knife-fight an F-22 is plenty hard to do.

 

[deathfromafar]

One of my old school friends who is a USAF Lt Col(a former F-15C & E Pilot & AF Academy Grad with an MS in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT) worked on the Raptor program at Edwards from the moment Raptor 01 arrived. I can tell you he was flat out stunned by the complexity of this aircraft and systems as also it's evolving avionics. They hammered out a lot of engineering headaches all through their testing of the Raptors. The plane is fully capable but many inside the USAF tend to bash it inside and out because of it's high cost and many rumors fly about about the plane being nothing short of worthless. I have encountered this from USAF personnel myself. One group from the B-1B community bash the B-2 and even B-52 and likewise the other bomber communities ripped the B-1B as a useless and wasteful heap. In the F-15 community I hear them bashing other aircraft as being costly pieces of garbage with inferior equipment installed on them. I have a couple of retired USAF Colonels in the family(both fighter pilots with combat experience behind them) who says this is nothing new. Each design of any complex combat aircraft is going to have teething trouble through it's lifespan and thus will suffer from constant bashing by it's detractors. The F-111 got this early on and ended up being sorely missed by the USAF after it retired because the F-15E isn't of the same capability. The venerable old F-105 was a complex aircraft and it had it's issues along the way but thanks to dedicated ground crews, it was a damn fine aircraft in combat and rugged as they come. I fully believe the Raptor will do well in it's time and nothing will come close to it in combat if and when such comes to pass. The 188 Raptors are paid for(I know, I was one of the witness constituents who recorded the congressional vote on it and the money is in the payment coffers already-past budget). They will be built. The F-35 will either bite the dust or be cut drastically.

As to the Sukhoi SU-30MKI? Only India has it in service. Russia still hasn't fielded any yet as of the last reports. We know now that the newer generation Russian Radars & Fire Control Systems are nowhere near as capable as ours or the European Avionics. So what is the worry? None.

Here are a couple of pieces to chew on.

http://www.militarytimes.com/multim...w=&state=vid&em=false&fn=/flv/20080714_rc_f22

and

Indian pilots flying Su-30MKIs are extremely professional, but they're still learning how to best fight with their new aircraft.
That opinion comes from an unidentified, senior F-15 pilot taped while briefing senior retired U.S. Air Force officers about the most recent Red Flag exercise. The video was made available online at YouTube.com.
The French pilots flying the new Dassault Rafale appeared to be there to collect electronic intelligence on the Indian aircraft, contends the USAF pilot, who wears an Air Force Weapons School graduate patch.
The French were originally going to bring the older Mirage 2000-5 until they discovered the Indians were bringing their new Su-30MKIs, the pilot says. They then switched and brought their Rafales with more sophisticated electronic surveillance equipment.
Once at Red Flag, "90 percent of the time they followed the Indians so when they took a shot or got shot" they would take a quick shot of their own and then leave," he said. "They never came to any merges," which starts the dogfighting portion of any air-to-air combat. He asserts that French pilots followed the same procedure during Desert Storm and Peace Keeping exercises. When U.S. aircrews were flying operations, the French would fly local sorties while "sucking up all the trons" to see how U.S. electronics, like radars, worked, according to the pilot.
He praised the Indians as extremely professional and said they had no training rule violations. However, they "killed a lot of friendlies" because they were tied to a Russian-made data link system that didn't allow them to see the picture of the battlefield available to everyone else. The lack of combat identification of the other aircraft caused confusion.
But the U.S. apparently isn't ignorant of the Su-30MKI's radar either.
The Su-30 electronically scanned radar is not as accurate as the U.S.-built active electronically scanned radar carried by the F-22 and some F-15s. Also, "it paints less, sees less" and is not as discriminating.
He praised the F-22 as the next great dogfighter. But he faulted the fact that it carries too few missiles and contends that the on-board cannon could be a life-saver, particularly against aircraft like the MiG-21 Bison flown by the Indians. It has a small radar cross section, as well as an Israeli-made F-16 radar and jammer. The latter makes them "almost invisible to legacy F-15C and F-16 radars" until the aerial merge or until it fires one of its Archer, active radar missiles, the U.S. pilot says.
Against the much larger RCS Su-30MKI, the F-16s and F-15s won consistently during the first three days of air-to-air combat, he continues. However, that was the result of trying to immediately go into a post-stall, thrust-vectored turn when attacked. The turn then creates massive drag and the aircraft starts sinking and losing altitude. "It starts dropping so fast you don't have to go vertical [first]. The low-speed tail slide allowed the U.S. aircraft to dive from above and "get one chance to come down to shoot," the pilot says. "You go to guns and drill his brains out." The Su-30 is jamming your missiles so...you go to guns and drill his brains out."
U.S. pilots conclude that the Su-30MKI is "not [an F-22] Raptor," he further says. "That was good for us to find out." But when the Indian pilots really learn to fight their new aircraft - "they were too anxious to go to the post-stall maneuver," he says-- the USAF pilot predicts that they would regularly defeat the F-16C Block 50 and the F-15C with conventional radar.
A final weakness in the Su-30MKI was its engine's vulnerability to foreign object damage which required them to space takeoffs a minute apart and slowed mission launches.