F-22A in air-ground trials

[aesop081]

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]

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

 

[aesop081]

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

yes it does

 

[aesop081]

, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

In early 2002 Lockheed Martin began briefing the Air Force on a modified bomber version of the F-22 Raptor fighter, featuring a delta wing, longer body and greater range and payload. This company-funded study of the FB-22, conducted during 2002, was an internally generated, internally funded proprietary study into the feasibility of making a derivative of the F-22. The FB-22 medium bomber is based on existing and planned capabilities of the Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter, a heritage that would limit development costs should the idea go into production. The medium bomber version of the F-22 would provide a relatively low cost and low risk approach for development of a high speed strike aircraft to carry a sufficient load to attack mobile targets.

In a series or articles by Bill Sweetman for "Jane's Defense Weekly" and "Popular Science," the FB-22 s described as a tailless delta variant of the F-22. Yaw control would be provided by split flaps, or "decelerons" on the wings, while roll would be controlled by movable wingtips.

In a bomber version, the fuselage would be longer and the wings far larger to give the bomber greater range – more than 1,600 miles, compared with the F-22's 600-plus – and bomb-carrying capacity. The FB-22 would replace the Air Force's F-15E and take over some missions for long-range bombers such as the B-2 and B-1. The initial design envisioned a plane that could carry 24 Small Diameter Bombs, which weigh only 250 pounds. Using Global Positioning System guidance, the small bomb would be as lethal as a 2,000-pound bomb. A regular F/A-22 would carry eight Small Diameter Bombs. An FB-22 would carry 30.

The biggest difference between the F-22 and the FB-22 is the wing, which would be very close to a delta wing. It is not exactly a delta, but a much bigger wing, which would increase the amount of space that could carry bombs. The longer, thicker delta wing would enable the FB-22 to carry up to 80 percent more fuel than the F-22, giving it a correspondingly greater range.

To produce an FB-22, the basic F-22 would need airframe modifications for a larger weapons payload and greater fuel capacity, bringing the maximum takeoff weight to over 42 tons. The FB-22's fuselage would need to be about 10 feet longer than that of the F-22 to make room for a larger weapons bay. The FB-22 might dispense with the F-22's twin horizontal stabilizers and vertical tails. If so, the the plane's overall length wouldn't be much different from the F-22's. Like the B-2, the FB-22 would carry two pilots, since missions could last more than 12 hours.

Rather than using the F-22's Pratt & Whitney F119 engines, the FB-22 is likely to have either the new F135, which was developed from the F119 to power the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or the rival General Electric F136. In either event, the FB-22 would have greater speed than the B-1B, the fastest US bomber.

Because of the work already done on the F-22, developing the FB-22 might cost about $5 billion to $7 billion – a fraction of the price for starting a bomber from scratch. FB-22 flights could begin by 2013. Starting a second final assembly line for the FB-22 at Boeing is under consideration, since Boeing makes the F-22's wings.

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]

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]

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

2/20/2007 - NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (ACCNS) -- The 94th Fighter Squadron deployed 14 F-22A Raptors and 197 personnel from Langley AFB, Va., to participate in the aircraft's first Red Flag exercise, which ran from Feb. 3 to 16 here.

An official from the 65th Aggressor Squadron said the F-22s demonstrated an extremely lopsided advantage in their favor.

Pilots from the 65th and 64th AS, including exchange pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force and Royal Air Force, of Australia and England respectfully, expressed their frustration related to flying against the stealthy F-22.

"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."

According to Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, aggressor pilots turned up the heat on the F-22 using tactics they believe to be modern threats. For security purposes these tactics weren't released; nonetheless, they said their efforts against the Raptors were fruitless.

"We [even] tried to overload them with numbers and failed," said Colonel Bruce. "It's humbling to fly against the F-22." This is a remarkable testimony because the Red Flag aggressor pilots are renowned for their skill and experience. Lt. Col. Dirk Smith, 94th Fighter Squadron commander, said the aggressor forces represent the most lethal threat friendly forces would ever face. ...

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.

As both of these aircraft programs come under threat of further reductions or cancellation, Pentagon officials are becoming more willing to discuss some of these additional capabilities - and their implications. ...

the F/A-22 and F-35 may be able to cut through many of these tradeoffs [performance, weapons, radar signature, distance from threats, lack of tactical capability] - and in so doing, offer U.S. and allied commanders new tactical options.

Their need to operate in high threat environments resulted in a built-in complex of passive electromagnetic surveillance sensors along the outside edges of the aircraft. These embedded sensors allow it to rapidly identify and locate signals, assessing threats and allowing avoidance without creating penalties to performance, payload or signature. That assessment is done thanks to very high throughput networks within the aircraft, and a "common integrated processor" computer core that has been described as the equivalent of two Cray supercomputers.

The Raptors' powerful phased array radar may even be usable as a weapon of sorts; StrategyPage has opined that with the addition of other equipment, future upgrades may make it possible to focus enough energy from the F/A-22's AESA radar in particular to damage the electronics of enemy sensors.

When combined with the aircraft's "supercruise" ability to fly above Mach 1 for long periods and its stealthy features, the F-22 Raptor's capabilities are significantly ahead of any current electronic attack airplane. ...

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Through exercises like Red Flag, American pilots  are learning how to apply the F-22's strengths in combat situations. This is an old process, and has happened before. For example, back in early 1942, the Japanese Zero  was considered the best naval fighter plane in the world. Often, U.S. F4F Wildcats were shot down when they tried to dogfight. However, Navy and Marine pilots eventually began to learn how to use the strengths of the F4F through tactics like the Thach Weave, and eventually, the Wildcat was able to hold its own against the Zero. It worked, but it was expensive in terms of planes – and more importantly, pilots – lost in battle.

The breakthrough in learning a plane's weaknesses and strengths in combat without the heavy losses began after studies during the Vietnam War indicated that a pilot's chances of survival increased after the first ten missions he flew. Today, the mistakes made in those missions don't get made on the battlefield, they are made during a training exercise like "Red Flag" or the navys "Top Gun". The razzing from fellow pilots and the resulting embarrassment might be tough to deal with, but it beats being shot down.

The exercises are also showing just how good of a plane the F-22 is. In hundreds of simulated engagements against multiple aircraft like the F-15 and F-16, the F-22 has dominated. Still, keeping in mind how the "inferior" F4F was able to hold its own against the Zero, the Air Force has been emphasizing the ability of the F-22s to work together with not just F-22s, but other planes. The latest exercises featured the F-22 working with Tornados, Typhoons, F-15s, F-16s, F-111s, and F-117s.

The Air Force has been serious about making the F-22 the best fighter in the world, and addressing the issues that come with it. With the R&D costs recouped, new F-22s will be more affordable to build as long as the production line is running. That is the only question about the F-22's future.  – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

 

[Good2Golf]

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