# F-22A in air-ground trials



## Kilo_302 (23 Apr 2007)

Hey guys,

Article/pictures on the latest F-22A exercises, including air-to-ground missions. Pretty interesting stuff, and while its not exactly the battlefield interdiction mission the JSF will apparently excel in, it does sort of challenge the pro-JSF crowd as to the limited versatility of the F-22A.


http://www.ausairpower.net/raptor-ex.html


----------



## Arsenal (23 Apr 2007)

Sexy.


----------



## Kalatzi (23 Apr 2007)

Any further news on its proposed anti-ied role??? 
Before I get flamed I'm not making this up


----------



## Infanteer (4 May 2007)

What are the Taliban or AQ Air Force going to do to counter it?


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2007)

Talk about a gold plated screwdriver (being used as a hammer).

If you want a bomb truck, get something with the size and carrying capacity (F-15 Strike Eagal or something bigger)

If you want to go into the weeds and hammer people, then you need an A-10 or attack helicopter

If you need general purpose air power (because you don't have a large military budget, for example), then a multi role aircraft like the new "Super Hornet" would fit the bill.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 May 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Talk about a gold plated screwdriver (being used as a hammer).
> 
> If you want a bomb truck, get something with the size and carrying capacity (F-15 Strike Eagal or something bigger)
> 
> ...



You're assuming the primary mission is to hit Taliban-like targets.  I would counter the F-22 is being constructed to operate in an S-300 environment where frankly I wouldn't want to be in an A-10 or an F-15E.


Matthew.


----------



## crazyleggs (4 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> You're assuming the primary mission is to hit Taliban-like targets.  I would counter the F-22 is being constructed to operate in an S-300 environment where frankly I wouldn't want to be in an A-10 or an F-15E.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Exactly.  Considering it will be able to chuck small diameter bombs (SDB) at supersonic speeds and at ranges around 60nm, it kind of negates the SAM threat (plus stealth on top of that).  In fact, the F/A-22 could be used for destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD).  Think of it as a F-117 / F-15C hybrid.


----------



## aesop081 (4 May 2007)

crazyleggs said:
			
		

> Think of it as a F-117 / F-15C hybrid.



Like all multi-role platforms, "jack of all trades, master of none"

The sheer cost of the F-22 program will haunt it for its entire operational life.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> You're assuming the primary mission is to hit Taliban-like targets.  I would counter the F-22 is being constructed to operate in an S-300 environment where frankly I wouldn't want to be in an A-10 or an F-15E.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Given the vast price tag of the F-22, even the USAF will be hard pressed to field them. Given the vast price tag of the F-22, even the USAF will be hard pressed to field them. There needs to be a balance between a a balance between affordability and utility. Given the F-22 is purpose built as a fighter/interceptor, asking it to take on a secondary task for which it is ill suited seems a bit silly. 

If you are going to bomb someone, use a bomber! Given the advances in PGMs over the past few years, a B-52 can hit point targets from long stand off distances (or dump the entire stick on your head), giving the air commander great flexibility. There was a proposal to use the F-22 fuselage as the basis for an intermediate bomber (sort of the analogue to the F-111 in terms of size, range and payload), which does sound useful since you now have something with a combination of speed, range and payload, but the downside to that idea is the R&D cost for new wings, engines, systems and avionics.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 May 2007)

The F-22 while very expensive, around $300m a copy, it is the most capable fighter in the world. By selling it as a fighter-bomber might expand the buy and drive down the cost. Japan is very interested in this aircraft
but right now foreign sales of the aircraft are prohibited Congress may reverse course. I think limited sales is a good thing. The technology is secret so sales should only be to our most reliable allies.

Here is a nice web site on the F-22.
http://www.f22fighter.com/


----------



## FredDaHead (4 May 2007)

Isn't there a new Sukhoi that can outfly the F-22 though? Sure, at long distances it's probably superior (given the technological advantages) but in a dogfight, I don't see the F-22 winning against many current-generation fighters.

Of course, I'm a Navy boy, not an Air Force boy, so I don't know all the details.. not that I could understand them, anyway.


----------



## Mike Baker (4 May 2007)

Fred are you talking about the SU37?


----------



## FredDaHead (4 May 2007)

Mike_Baker said:
			
		

> Fred are you talking about the SU37?



I don't know. All I remember is a mention of a Russian bird that was more capable than the F-22, and I figured some airheadsair force people might know about it.

(Just kidding about the airheads thing, of course.)


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 May 2007)

Any "dogfight" with an F-22 will be at BVR.You need to remember that the F-22 has stealth characteristics which should make it difficult to engage.


----------



## FredDaHead (4 May 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Any "dogfight" with an F-22 will be at BVR.You need to remember that the F-22 has stealth characteristics which should make it difficult to engage.



That's why I said it would win because of technology, but flight capabilities-wise, it seems a bit lacking. It seems like the F-14 of a new era: ultra-powerful but not exactly good for dogfights. Now all we need is Top Gun 2: Raptor.


----------



## Astrodog (4 May 2007)

The Russian SU-37s and Mig-29OVTs don't give much more than cute airshow demos. They can definately outfly a CF-18 or any other 4th gen kit but you have to remember that during these airshows they are modified and carrying very little fuel/weight.. no way they could do it to that extent with a few pylons and some fuel. The F-22 is the only true 5th gen fighter and can probably outfly most hummingbirds, has the latest thrust vectoring technology and the only limit to its capabilites is the human body sitting inside that can't withstand many G in comparison with the airframe (no UAV mentions, please!!!). As was mentioned the only dogfight a -22 driver is getting into is one for fun when he gets bored of being a 'sytems operator'. As one F-22 driver put it from an adversaries perspective regarding the -22s capabilities; "first you see nothing, then you die." And you might want to let the Grumman guys know that the Tomcat isn't good at dogfighting, they might as well remove the cannon..


----------



## FredDaHead (4 May 2007)

Astrodog said:
			
		

> And you might want to let the Grumman guys know that the Tomcat isn't good at dogfighting, they might as well remove the cannon..



I've always read that although it can defend itself in a dogfight, it's ill-suited for them. The F-14 was an interceptor, conceived to shoot down Tupolev bombers before they could release cruise missiles and blow up aircraft carriers. Like the Arrow, it was extremely capable in it's role, but was not quite as good in other roles. (Ok, so it's not quite an apt comparison, I know.)

Besides, Tomcats don't fly anymore... except in Iran.


----------



## aesop081 (4 May 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Any "dogfight" with an F-22 will be at BVR.You need to remember that the F-22 has stealth characteristics which should make it difficult to engage.



A note on that....

BVR engagements are often thrumped by political and tactical considerations ( as they were in Vietnam ) where positive VISUAL identification of targets will be required.  The advantage that the F-4 had in Vietnam over NVPAF Migs was negated by this and forced the F-4s into visual turning dogfights.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 May 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Given the vast price tag of the F-22, even the USAF will be hard pressed to field them. Given the vast price tag of the F-22, even the USAF will be hard pressed to field them. There needs to be a balance between a a balance between affordability and utility. Given the F-22 is purpose built as a fighter/interceptor, asking it to take on a secondary task for which it is ill suited seems a bit silly.
> 
> If you are going to bomb someone, use a bomber! Given the advances in PGMs over the past few years, a B-52 can hit point targets from long stand off distances (or dump the entire stick on your head), giving the air commander great flexibility. There was a proposal to use the F-22 fuselage as the basis for an intermediate bomber (sort of the analogue to the F-111 in terms of size, range and payload), which does sound useful since you now have something with a combination of speed, range and payload, but the downside to that idea is the R&D cost for new wings, engines, systems and avionics.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

To have $300 million multi-role aircraft that can not only provide absolute air superiority against opposing fighters, but deploy a variety of ground attack munitions as needed seems like a great investment in comparison to more $2 billion B-2 bombers that have zero anti-air capability.

My bottom line is in this day and age, "cost savings" are only worthwhile if the assets you buy can still do the job and survive.  In that vein, I would say you absolutely need the F-22 / B-2 in combination as the pointy end of the spear.  After the enemy's ability to defend itself is neutralized, that's when you can bring in the more cost-effective bombtrucks. 


Matthew.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 May 2007)

I don't know where some of you guys are getting your information, but with kill ratios like 108:0 against F-15s (see below), I'd have to say it's not a bad fighter (it's primary role).  Other Exs have shown similar results.  It's radar systems permit it to act like a force multiplyer for other types as it is able to relay tons of tactical information to other aircraft (one would have to guess that the F-35 will have a similar capability).  Also bear in mind the much of the cost of the F-22 is already sunk (research costs that have already been incurred): what should be looked at is their _incremental _ cost (i.e., the cost of producing additional units, not the total cost of the program), which is much closer to current estimates for the JSF (and might actually be more cost-effective):



> "Even without stealth, this is the world's best fighter," General Lewis said. "The F-22, its ability with speed and maneuverability, is unprecedented. The problem with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in establishing air dominance is that you have to buy two or three to replace the F-22, because it only has half the weapons load, and it doesn't have the speed. You can't replace (the F-22) one-for-one with an F-35 or any other legacy fighter such as the F-15E."
> 
> During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise. But the capabilities of the F-22 go beyond what it can do. It is also able to help other aircraft do better.


 http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123022371


----------



## aesop081 (4 May 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I don't know where some of you guys are getting your information, but with kill ratios like 108:0 against F-15s (see below), I'd have to say it's not a bad fighter (it's primary role).



I never said it was a bad fighter.  

The fact remains that, as a fighter, the F-22s main advantage is its ability to engage BVR with the AIM-120.  As has been seen in the past ( see my example) this may not always be permited and the F-22 will have to tangle at close range with enemy fighters where it may not, in every case , have the advantage.


----------



## FredDaHead (4 May 2007)

Does the F-22 even have a gun for closer-range dogfights? Or am I thinking about another prototype again?


----------



## aesop081 (4 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> Does the F-22 even have a gun for closer-range dogfights?



yes it does


----------



## aesop081 (4 May 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> , but with kill ratios like 108:0 against F-15s (see below),



Proving that the F-22 is superior to the technology that preceded it. I would have hoped that it was indeed the case otherwise why would you replace the F-15.  The F-22 just participated in its first RED FLAG so i am sure that there will be more on the its performance in the near future.  What has still to be seen is how the F-22 will perform at close range against new generation fighters such as Raffale, Grippen, Typhoon and the latest Russian fighters.


----------



## Astrodog (4 May 2007)

Raptor also just flew its first 'official' demo this past weekend at langley;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAp5EVjucEs

Also, if you're looking for more info on the Raptor check out the fencecheck forums, there is a some 30 page discussion there dedicated to the -22 and straight from the horse's mouth answers from 'Dozer', last year's "Demo" pilot.


http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/threads/6835.0.html


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 May 2007)

Recently I was pointed out to the fact in polite conversation that missions such as the Sudan/Dufar would require an up to date fighter since there are Mig 29s etc there. My rebuttal was historically in the African realm more aircraft were destroyed at less cost by thirsty pissed off infantry types carousing across the desert in jeeps and destroying or rendering them inoperable for a time(SAS/LRDG). The tradition continued with the Argentine Airforce waking up one morning to find themselves short "6 Pucaras, 4 TMC Mentors and 1 SkyVan transport aircraft". Of course we can also look to USAF/Army losses due to those pesky peasant attacks on the various air facilities in the Viet Nam conflict. Mind you never one to miss a good thing the French (in this case fiscal responsibility) the use of ground forces saw the destruction/damage of "two Ivorian bombers at an airbase in the capital, Yamoussoukro, along with two Russian-built Sukhoi 25 and three Mi-24 helicopters." in the Ivory Coast in 2004. In an UN Radio Show(021) interview Ivorian "DJANGONE BI: "How can you go in cold-blood, destroy all the aircrafts of a country, in cold-blood. Even one of the Sukhoi plane was destroyed with access by French soldiers cause they were afraid if they shoot them, they might be fire so they took access to destroy our Sukhoi plane at the international airport of Abidjan." Also it seems it is good practice to have a "other" garage avaible for your aircraft to prevent their loss such as the Iraqi/Iran shuffle. Here again a situation in which ground forces could have proven useful rather than no fly zone enforcement or burning holes in the sky. It is much easier to destroy an aircraft on the ground than in the air.

But in the interest of fairness even insurgent forces are entitled to have an aircraft capable of ground attack such as the embarrassment faced by the Sri Lanka airforce possers of "fleet of supersonic jets as well as Mi-24 helicopter gunships" when attacked by Tamil Tiger's "two single-engined, Czech-made Zlin Z-143 planes" bought from a private South African flying club. "But, according to military experts the Air Defence Systems available at present are meant for conventional type of warfare. They are basically to detect aircraft from enemy countries, but not within their territory. The conventional type of ADS cannot detect aircraft flying at tree top level." "Therefore, the task of the Air Force has now become more complex. The first option, available with them is to destroy the Tiger Air Wing on the ground. Since, the Tiger Air Wing, according to intelligence reports, is equipped only with less than three aircraft, they could be destroyed on the ground"("Govt, Security Forces rising to challenge of establishing extensive Air Defence System"aily News: Sri Lanka April 27, 2007)

There is also the indication that two Predators were lost to insurgent "grunts" in Iraq in 2002.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 May 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I never said it was a bad fighter.


 Sorry, that wasn't directed at you ... 



> The fact remains that, as a fighter, the F-22s main advantage is its ability to engage BVR with the AIM-120.  As has been seen in the past ( see my example) this may not always be permited and the F-22 will have to tangle at close range with enemy fighters where it may not, in every case , have the advantage.


 The F-22 is untouchable BVR: it is also the the most capable fighter in existence (a generation ahead of anything else in the air).  The F-15 is one of the best (on par with or better than pretty much everything else out there) and the F-22 is proving to be a MUCH superior fighter to it.  Only the F-22 has both thrust vectoring and supercruise, and it also has (what is almost certainly) the most advanced and capable radar system on any fighter.  The fact that it does almost everything else better than almost anything else should not obscure the fact that it is primarily a fighter, and the best one there is.

Nonetheless, let's not lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day it is the pilot that matters, not the plane.


----------



## FredDaHead (4 May 2007)

3rd Herd,

Basically, you're saying countries don't really need air forces and air defenses at all because it's just much easier to destroy planes on the ground?

Just because you can do something doesn't mean it will always happen; having a capable air force, even a small number of fighters, is imperative, just in case your pissed-off grunts don't manage to destroy all the planes the enemy has.


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2007)

From Global Security:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/fb-22.htm



> FB-22 Fighter Bomber
> 
> The FB-22 is a concept on the shelf for future consideration. It will actually cost some money to develop the FB-22 and right now it's a concept. It's a concept that helps stretch minds. Air Force Secretary James G. Roche is the father of this concept and he has a model of this concept on his desk. It looks very much like an F-22. It takes advantage of all of the development work that has been done on the F/A-22. It is two seats. It is a bit larger. It retains all of its super cruise characteristics. It is not quite as high G as the F/A-22 but it is still a maneuverable airplane. And where the F/A-22 will carry eight small diameter bombs internally, the FB-22 would carry 30 small diameter bombs internally with a range approximately two and a half times that of the F/A-22.
> 
> ...



Except for the astronomical price of these things, it would make a great platform for the CF, given the great distances we need to go (even getting around in Canada is "strategic distances" for most nations), and the FB-22 would also make a fairly good F-14 like fighter for patroling the far north and over the oceans.


----------



## 3rd Herd (6 May 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> 3rd Herd,
> 
> Basically, you're saying countries don't really need air forces and air defenses at all because it's just much easier to destroy planes on the ground?
> 
> Just because you can do something doesn't mean it will always happen; having a capable air force, even a small number of fighters, is imperative, just in case your pissed-off grunts don't manage to destroy all the planes the enemy has.



No Freddy G,
my argument is not the countries should not have airforces. The argument is more of the technology and expensive and will the final product perform as advertised. Historically, this seems not to be the case as the "peasants" of the world seem to being doing quite well are over coming the developed world. I tossed in the various examples of mundane technology just to illustrate this point. And since we do not have the Russians, rolling across the European plains, the Chinese are still behind the Amur and Canada could find a very nice little niche on the international world stage. Developing a fiscally responsible, adaptable mutli role aircraft and the support requirements for all these low intensity conflicts we are either involved in currently or forcasted to be in. Maybe you will not be the first of the block to nail a MIG, but then no one has died from death rays from Mars yet.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 May 2007)

No numbers, but the results of the recent Red Flag seem very encouraging for the Raptor:


> *Raptor debuts at Red Flag, dominates skies*
> by Tech. Sgt. Russell Wicke
> Air Combat Command Public Affairs
> 
> ...


http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041725

And on its capability as an EW platform:





> *Supersonic SIGINT: Will F-35, F-22 Also Play EW Role?*
> Posted 24-Oct-2005 09:37
> 
> Touted as the world's next-generation stealthy jet fighters and attack aircraft, the F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) may also excel in another area: electronic eavesdropping.* The aircrafts' combination of powerful phased array AESA radars, passive electromagnetic antennas and sensors embedded throughout their frames, powerful onboard computer processing, and secure high-bandwidth communications will give them capabilities once available only to dedicated electronic attack aircraft.*
> ...


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/supersonic-sigint-will-f35-f22-also-play-ew-role/index.php

And anyone who doubts its ability as a fighter would do well to read this article:





> *F-22 Pilot Perspective*
> 
> Those few pilots favored with the opportunity to fly the F-22 Raptor quickly become comfortable with the aircraft’s unique characteristics. They talk casually about* aircraft handling qualities at airspeeds and angles of attack that would make any other fighter spin out of controlled flight. In the same conversation, they describe outstanding handling qualities at supersonic speeds and regularly running chase aircraft out of gas*. The F-22 is an impressive aircraft at both ends of the flight envelope. In this first of a series of articles of pilot impressions on the F-22, Paul Metz takes the high speed end of the F-22 flight envelope and Jon Beesley takes the low speed end. ...


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2000/articles/oct_00/f-22/f22_1.html

And finally, Dr Carlo Kopp has some interesting opinions on Flanker vs. JSF and F-22, which can be found here: http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html (basically Flanker beats JSF/F-15, etc., but Raptor is King of the Hill ... he is well-respected and very accomplished in the field and very much a Raptor advocate).


----------



## observor 69 (6 May 2007)

This discussion reminds me of a program on the "Top Ten Fighters ."  The RAF Tornado came out poorly  as it was a bit of everything but not good at any one thing.  Variable angle wing was too thick for air combat and in the ground attack role we had:

actual combat debut came in 1991 in the Gulf War. Nearly 60 GR1s were deployed by the United Kingdom to air bases at Muharraq (Bahrain), Tabuk and Dhahran in Saudi Arabia[1]. In the early stages of Operation Granby RAF Tornado GR.1s were used to target Iraqi military airfields using 1000 lb (450 kg)unguided bombs in loft-bombing attacks and the JP233 runway denial weapon. Six RAF Tornados were lost, as was one Italian Tornado. Of the RAF aircraft, 4 were lost while delivering unguided bombs, one was lost after delivering JP233, and one was lost trying to deliver laser-guided bombs[2] . Following the end of the initial phase of the war, the GR.1s were switched to medium level strike missions. However they lacked both equipment and training to complete these missions properly. In an emergency deployment, the UK sent out a detachment of Blackburn Buccaneer aircraft equipped with the Pave Spike laser designator, allowing the GR.1s to drop precision guided weapons. A further crash program was initiated which saw some GR.1s fitted with the TIALD system. In the aftermath of the war, British forces remained in the Gulf, with GR1s being based at Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait for operations over the southern no fly zone. GR.1s based there took part in Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado_variants

I am sure the Tornado was involved in pre-Iraq war games but I bet no one was predicting the losses they experienced operationally. Point being it seems in reality hard to predict how various military systems will perform in battle, depending on the many variables of the battle field.


----------



## Infanteer (9 May 2007)

Sounds like quite the whizbang affair.  Does this mean that the F35 is now obsolete?

Too bad the enemy already has an effective countermeasure....


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 May 2007)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sounds like quite the whizbang affair.  Does this mean that the F35 is now obsolete?


Not unless they figure out how to land the Raptor on an aircraft carrier ...



> Too bad the enemy already has an effective countermeasure....



"Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur." - Douhet


----------



## Infanteer (11 May 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> "Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur." - Douhet



So, you mean like billions to develop the F/A18 E and F, the F35 and the F22 at the same time while the enemy decides to go underground?  I never thought a quote by a guy who schilled out bunk airpower theory would be so apt.... 

Everytime I see the USAF pimping off one of their new toys I think of that footage of guys in Iraq welding steel to their Humvees - can you tell I think the USAF fighter mafia is a moneygrubbing whore.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 May 2007)

Douhet was a genius: the enemy didn't decide to go underground so much as they were left with no other choice, thanks in no small part to the USAF.

To the extent that the Air Force exists to support the Army, you are correct: however, as the Air Force's primary raison d'etre is a strategic asset, you couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## Infanteer (11 May 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Douhet was a genius: the enemy didn't decide to go underground so much as they were left with no other choice, thanks in no small part to the USAF.



Are you sure about that?  Or was it the Abrams?  Or was it neither - the most convincing research I've seen to date indicates that it is our doctrine that has pretty much put the West on top as undisputed master of the conventional battlespace.

I'm not poking at air superiority fighters in general (a valuable tool like any other) - more at the politics behind them and their clique.  Why the US needs 3 new airframes (F18F/E, F35, F22) to replace one(s) that already dominate the skies (and will dominate them for the next generation) is beyond me - especially when we are fighting a global insurgency with the sum total of nothing for an Air Force (rogue states could drum up some old MiGs or something).  But hey, I'm not footing the 400+ billion dollar defence bill, so what do I care....


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 May 2007)

Modern western military doctrine is predicated upon the assumption of total air supremacy.  While we are not militarily incapable of fighting without it, I don't think it is likely to happen: the will of the western people is not strong enough to endure the casualties that would surely result (hell, even with total air supremacy the political will is questionable).

I refer you to the link I posted below ( http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html ): the Ninja-Pilot-Fu skills of western pilots aside, some of the Flanker versions are probably superior to western Gen-4 stuff, and possibly to SuperHornet and JSF as well.  It's a little like the Cold War hasn't totally ended: perhaps mostly a theoretical arms race, we nonetheless can't afford to lose it.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 May 2007)

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20070221.aspx



> *The F-22 Learns How to Play Well With Others*
> 
> February 21, 2007: *Recent "Red Flag" air combat exercises at Nellis Air Force Base have been dominated by the F-22 again. After a two-decade development program and tons of criticism about its price tag, the F-22 is proving to be worth every penny.* However, the real process that will make the F-22 dominate in the air was not so much the lengthy gestation and development of the F-22 by the United States Air Force, but what is going on now.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (20 May 2007)

There are some who believe that Douhet, Mitchell, and Harris, but to name a few, were self-serving to a large degree - everybody make way for the big AF marching band!  

Interestingly, the pragmatic realist (a.k.a. cynic) would make the case for the phrase "air superiority" being qualified..."air" v. "aviation" superiority?  Sure, "air" superiority happens fairly early on, but an RPG or Dishka will still ruin an aviator's day while he's trying to conduct CCA in support of his brothers on the ground.  The "Air Force" crowd get pretty ornery when some folks point out that Air Power is and always has been a supporting element to operations that establish and maintain an effective and meaningful persistence in the battlespace (read: troops on the ground, or ships in waters).  

2 more ¢

G2G


----------



## 3rd Herd (22 May 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> There are some who believe that Douhet, Mitchell, and Harris, but to name a few, were self-serving to a large degree - everybody make way for the big AF marching band!
> 
> The "Air Force" crowd get pretty ornery when some folks point out that Air Power is and always has been a supporting element to operations that establish and maintain an effective and meaningful persistence in the battlespace (read: troops on the ground, or ships in waters).
> 
> ...



"Boot on the ground  the only way to hold territory is physical presence (no different from Iraq today) aircraft cannot hold ground, they can prepare it for occupation as the Navy can but they cannot hold it."(Absolon) Which is part of an argument based on the Battle of Britian and the refuting of Douchet's principals as the following occurred; the major civil populations in Britian were not demoralized as prophesied, the observation of the ability for aircraft to operate successfully in the defensive role countered his principal of  air power as a "strictly offensive weapon". Even today airpower "only has the capability for point destruction" and "this results in dispersal, not annihilation at the operational level." (Thompson)

 As lessons learned in the Viet Nam conflict to the recent Kosovo crisis, show a third world government stymieing the modern developed air forces which led to a defeat at the strategic/political level. It is also well written that 'no fly zones' have had little influence on the "desired effects on the ground" as it "is not likely to halt the persecution of a protected minority group."(Barkley) Further, there are instances of failure to enforce 'no fly zone' regulations for fear the violating aircraft "particularly helicopters, might be carrying wounded, politicians or civilians." (Clarke)

While rightly pursuing the collection of information through the use of unmanned vehicles (UAVs) the mind set of air to air combat still prevails with project names such as "Hunter, Raptor, Talon, Predator, Dark Star" and the increased costs associated with offensive armment.(Szafranski/Libicki) Most of the offensive systems are laser guided which is often thwarted by mother nature in the form of cloud cover as found in the Sixth Report from the House of Commons Defence Committee, 'Lessons of Kosovo,' and when mother nature is not available the general confusion of smoke, dust, and deliberately set obscuring fires suffices.




Source:

Absolon, John de Mansfield "When did the Germans lose the 1939 -45 war?" http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/89/a2211689.shtml

Barkey, Brett D. "Bosnia: Question of Intervention, 'Strategic Review' 21, no. 4 (Fall 1993): 55-59. 

Szafranski, Richard Col., Libicki. Martin Dr. "...Or Go Down In Flame"? An Airpower Manifesto for the 21st Century" https://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap02/v4c2.htm

Clarke, Michael.  ‘Air Power and Force in Peace Support Operations’, in Group Captain Andrew Lambert and Arthur C. Williamson (eds.), The Dynamics of Air Power (London: HMSO for Royal Air Force Staff College Bracknell, 1996), p.178.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (22 May 2007)

Don't have much time right now, BUT Douhet got the big stuff right:

1. Breaking _the will of the people_, was but one intention of strategic bombing: it is the most oft-cited by critics as it was the only area in which his theories haven't been fully vindicated.
2. Moreover, BoB lacked the intensity to break the will of the people (despite how horrible it was, it was not of the intensity envisaged by Douhet).
3. Linebacker 2 (Viet Nam), the firebombing of Japanese cities during WW2 as well as the First Gulf War all proved Douhet correct, but none moreso than the Cold War (and of those only WW2 and the Cold War could rightly be recognized as the type of "Total War" of which Douhet wrote).


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2007)

Getting back to the F-22 as a CAS platform, it has very limited carrying capability and loiter time.

The proposed FB-22 has much greater range (or loiter time at the same range) and can carry up to 30 "Small Diameter Bombs", but it is still more of a tactical system. To carry out air campaigns we either need hordes of F-22s (or FB-22's) and fleets of support aircraft, or heavy bombers: B-52's, B-1B, B-2 or some successor aircraft. Whatever it is, it needs long range/loitering time, heavy bombload and sophisticated systems to take target inputs from all sources. (Alternatively, the pilot could carry a satellite phone and talk to the SOF operators on the ground, but that's no fun  ). In terms of resources, the heavy bomber option makes more sense than the hordes of fighters option (especially when you factor in support costs like running and securing airfields, technical staff etc.).

Even if the USAF can purchase the F-22 in sufficient numbers, they will still need a medium strike craft and a heavy bomber in the arsenal (FB-22 and B-3?) for a well rounded fighting force. As a bonus, the medium strike platform can also serve as a recce and EW platform for tactical operations as well.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (18 Jun 2007)

A little F-22 pr0n (via chic[k]pilot, via Jake Silver): http://chicpilot.blogspot.com/2007/06/eye-candy.html

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread ...


----------

