• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

F-22 at Farnborough

Unless I'm misinformed, the F-22 is the only fighter that we have that can go super-sonic without afterburners. At least that's what the Air Force guy said during the demo's I saw.

And I believe the current administration has already killed the F-22. So there won't be anymore coming out for anything.

I too would like to see how it does against some foes. But, for all we're not told, it may have already.

Having seen it fly in person two different years, I think it absolutely freakin ROCKS!
 
Bone said:
Well heck yeah, of course they love it, it's a frickin' HIGH PERFORMANCE FIGHTER! Besides, half of their buddies got screwed and sent to Predators.

The only reason Eric M. didn't get all bent out of shape about being conscripted to Predators, was because he torqued his back in F-15's and got grounded. He felt like Predators allowed him to stay "in the game".
Click to expand...

Yep, got screwed royally by being put in an airplane that personally went to war and found and killed the enemy regularly, and along the way protected the lives of thousands of US combat troops on the ground performing the mission. And did so with far greater regularity than any other USAF or any USN or Marine aircraft type in the war!

If that's your definition of "being screwed," then I'm mighty damn proud to have been so screwed!

I'm sure some ACC officers, including Mathewson, thought the way you do. But, that's why AFSOC ended up becoming the prime Predator unit in the USAF. We knew the value of the mission and appreciated doing it. And by the time AFSOC stood up operations, within six months we showed ACC how to use the airplane in combat and ended up forcing ACC to change and adopt to our way of using the aircraft.

And that difference in understanding of the principle mission is why the USAF is now being led by an AFSOC officer -- Norty Schwartz! Secretary Gates -- by that time fed up to his neck with ACC's mannerisms, openly said, "Get me someone without a damn callsign!" That was a direct quote by the way, and was Gates' marching orders to finding the current Chief of Staff.

Ken
 
OBIO,

The USAF wanted to send the F-22 to Afghanistan, but the Army leadership in CENTCOM would not let them. It was a purely political move. Unfortunately, too many decisions today are being made entirely for political reasons vice solid mission reasons.

You are right, it has already been shown a capable ground attack aircraft.

In terms of performing against other fighters, the F-22 has already engaged in dogfights of many various types in the Nellis Range. It has routinely gone up against F-15's, F-16's, MiG-29, and Su-27's. In each and every case, including against five and ten to one odds, the F-22 emerged victorious.

Like I said, the dogfight is won when you put your jet in position against the adversary jet where your weapon can kill him. You don't have to fire to know who won the fight.

And frankly, the visual dogfights, which the F-22 won handily, were entirely contrived. Meaning, the F-22's principle advantage is that it doesn't need to get into a traditional dogfight.

Much has been written about why the USAF was denied permission by CENTCOM to deploy the F-22. Many believe it came down to a calculated decsion to reinforce the decision to cancel the production run. If the aircraft had engaged ground targets in the war as effectively as the USAF believes it will, then pressure may have mounted to keep the production lines open.

Personally, while that may have been the reason, I still think the reasoning is weak.

The F-22 would have been very valuable in Afghanistan due to its excellent speed in supercruise. It could get on target very quickly and without burning up all its fuel in doing so.

Ken
 
Time for a Doodle...

a propos nothing in particular...

Picture1.gif


The F-22 is a tad bigger than I thought (not having seen one in the metal)
 
Ken Stallings said:
Yep, got screwed royally by being put in an airplane that personally went to war and found and killed the enemy regularly, and along the way protected the lives of thousands of US combat troops on the ground performing the mission. And did so with far greater regularity than any other USAF or any USN or Marine aircraft type in the war!

If that's your definition of "being screwed," then I'm mighty damn proud to have been so screwed!

I'm sure some ACC officers, including Mathewson, thought the way you do. But, that's why AFSOC ended up becoming the prime Predator unit in the USAF. We knew the value of the mission and appreciated doing it. And by the time AFSOC stood up operations, within six months we showed ACC how to use the airplane in combat and ended up forcing ACC to change and adopt to our way of using the aircraft.

And that difference in understanding of the principle mission is why the USAF is now being led by an AFSOC officer -- Norty Schwartz! Secretary Gates -- by that time fed up to his neck with ACC's mannerisms, openly said, "Get me someone without a damn callsign!" That was a direct quote by the way, and was Gates' marching orders to finding the current Chief of Staff.

Ken
Click to expand...

You should lighten up a bit. My comment was a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the way alot of fighter guys think, AND I was agreeing with you on the fact that they like the F-22. I wasn't dissing the Predator program, but the fact is, no one who FAR's in UPT wants a Predator. I myself don't care if a guy flew heavys, fighters, choppers, or Predators. I don't even care what service they came from. Last month I hit 18,000 hours, and I have flown with more military pilots than you can imagine. Guys and girls from all of the US military branches...plus Canadian, British, Turkish, French, Brazilian, Greek, and Dutch services... and they came from just about every airframe. I would even be so bold to say that I have spent more time flying with military pilots than did someone who only flew in the military, simply because mil guys fly a pittance compared to commercial guys. So if you want to judge me on the way I think, you might want to consider that I've had a pretty wide field of military view points.
 
Ken Stallings said:
It already has been given hundreds of chances against front line fighters of various types and whipped them every time.

You don't have to actually fire the missile or the gun. If you are in position for a kill, it is a kill.

But, again, my novice view of this cannot compete with the experts assembled here who think the F-22 is nothing.

Ken
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Ken... I think that my post here is definately IN FAVOR of the F-22. I am a sincere believer in its capabilities as I have seen this aircraft go head to head with an F-15. The F-22 soundly whipped the F-15 in every category, several of which were close mind you, as the F-15 is also an excellent aircraft... albeit a bit long in the tooth for what it does.

I am NOT AN EXPERT and I NEVER claim to be one. Nor do I think that the F-22 is NOTHING, as you so eloquently put it.

There, I'm all better now. Admins, You prolly ought to keep an eye on this thread, lest it get outta hand any further.

BB686:USA-flag:
 
Blackbird686 said:
With all due respect, Ken... I think that my post here is definately IN FAVOR of the F-22. I am a sincere believer in its capabilities as I have seen this aircraft go head to head with an F-15. The F-22 soundly whipped the F-15 in every category, several of which were close mind you, as the F-15 is also an excellent aircraft... albeit a bit long in the tooth for what it does.

I am NOT AN EXPERT and I NEVER claim to be one. Nor do I think that the F-22 is NOTHING, as you so eloquently put it.

There, I'm all better now. Admins, You prolly ought to keep an eye on this thread, lest it get outta hand any further.

BB686:USA-flag:
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood my reply. I was not saying you were wrong. I was simply adding that the flight tests already validated what you said was likely to be true.

To you, I apologize if I came across negative, because in your case, that was not my intent.

Cheers,

Ken
 
Bone said:
You should lighten up a bit.
Click to expand...

I think most, if not all, Predator crews would take your original statement as an insult. So, I think it was fair for me to take it that way. If you did not mean that when you said "got screwed to fly Predator," then you have a strange way of saying things.

Aviation in war isn't meant to be fun. It's meant to be a method to win the war. When you volunteer, you aren't signing up to fly a sexy airplane. You are signing up to defend your country. Any method you are given to perform that mission should rightly be considered an honor. Experience doesn't mitigate that fact one iota.

I'm sure the foot soldier on the ground humping a 75 pound ruck in 100 degree heat and dust doesn't think his mission is sexy and fun. But, I am very confident that he knows the honor of his service. And so if those men on the ground can understand that, then I think we in the USAF who have it much better, should never think ourselves "screwed" to get assigned one aircraft vice another.

And yes, I know for a fact we have many top graduates of UPT who want Predator. I know because I've personally trained a few of them.

Enough said on this.

Cheers,

Ken
 
Ken Stallings said:
I think most, if not all, Predator crews would take your original statement as an insult. So, I think it was fair for me to take it that way. If you did not mean that when you said "got screwed to fly Predator," then you have a strange way of saying things.

Aviation in war isn't meant to be fun. It's meant to be a method to win the war. When you volunteer, you aren't signing up to fly a sexy airplane. You are signing up to defend your country. Any method you are given to perform that mission should rightly be considered an honor. Experience doesn't mitigate that fact one iota.

I'm sure the foot soldier on the ground humping a 75 pound ruck in 100 degree heat and dust doesn't think his mission is sexy and fun. But, I am very confident that he knows the honor of his service. And so if those men on the ground can understand that, then I think we in the USAF who have it much better, should never think ourselves "screwed" to get assigned one aircraft vice another.

And yes, I know for a fact we have many top graduates of UPT who want Predator. I know because I've personally trained a few of them.

Enough said on this.

Cheers,

Ken
Click to expand...

Like I said, it was a tongue in cheek statement based on listening to alot of miltary guy talk over the years. But thanks for straightening me out.
 
Bone said:
Like I said, it was a tongue in cheek statement based on listening to alot of miltary guy talk over the years. But thanks for straightening me out.
Click to expand...

Having thought about it a bit more, you are right, you did clarify that. So, perhaps I should apologize for taking your remarks out of intended context.

Cheers,

Ken
 
Ken Stallings said:
Having thought about it a bit more, you are right, you did clarify that. So, perhaps I should apologize for taking your remarks out of intended context.

Cheers,

Ken
Click to expand...

No worries. Alot gets lost in the cyber translation on forums. If we had been having a RW conversation, you would have recognized the TIC play. Sorry for the bad comm.
 
Well, having attended UPT (in the black leather boots days) and after having been "screwed" by the USAF, I can understand a young Lieutenant aviator's position. Undergraduate Pilot Training is a very competitive arena. A one time simple mistake on a check ride can have big consequences when it comes to your position in aircraft selection.

The allotment of aircraft to select from changes from one class to another. Every kid attending UPT has his/her hopes on flying the aircraft of his/her dreams. If you don't get it, you can often feel screwed.

However, as Ken so correctly pointed out, you don't sign up to fly a particular aircraft. You sign up to fly what they tell you to fly. When your dreams and the USAF's needs coincide, wonderful. When they don't, you fly what they tell you to fly and do the best job you can, while you work the system to fly what you wanted.
 
Ken Stallings said:
I think you misunderstood my reply. I was not saying you were wrong. I was simply adding that the flight tests already validated what you said was likely to be true.

To you, I apologize if I came across negative, because in your case, that was not my intent.

Cheers,

Ken
Click to expand...

No worries, man. I suppose I should have approached this entire discussion a bit more "eloquently" to be honest about it.:redface:

BB686:USA-flag:
 
jmig said:
However, as Ken so correctly pointed out, you don't sign up to fly a particular aircraft. You sign up to fly what they tell you to fly. When your dreams and the USAF's needs coincide, wonderful. When they don't, you fly what they tell you to fly and do the best job you can, while you work the system to fly what you wanted.
Click to expand...

True, and for a Civilian Puke such as myself, I really do understand that. I grew up hearing the words "needs of the force" quite often.
 
Anyway guys, this thread was started to ask the question why it's acceptable to the USAF to have the Raptor filmed in IR at an airshow, and have that footage uploaded to the internet where potential adversary nations (not naming any one particular country) can see how much heat the F-22 generates both in burner and not and compare it with other aircraft displaying including the Typhoon for a benchmark.

Someone asked if the F-22 was the only fighter to supercruise - well apparently the Gripen NG is capable of this, although not quite in service yet, it has a more powerful engine - but it's not 5th generation.
 
centuryseries said:
Someone asked if the F-22 was the only fighter to supercruise - well apparently the Gripen NG is capable of this, although not quite in service yet, it has a more powerful engine - but it's not 5th generation.
Click to expand...

If history serves (as well as memory), the very first jet to have the ability to "supercruise" was Britian's BAC "Lightning". Not to steal the F-22's thunder, but the BAC Lightning flew back in the days of the Cold War. Supercruisers have been with us for a while, albeit not that may of them.

BB686:USA-flag:
 
Not forgetting that other aircraft that has been around so long that it re-invented itself a number of times before ever entering service...
The Eurofighter Typhoon can supercruise at M=1.5

And on a slightly larger scale, the TSR2 could supercruise in 1964, as could Concorde (using essentially the same engine)

As to the USAF "permitting" filming in IR...you don't imagine that was the only IR-equipped camera at Farnborough, do you?? :d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top